A majority of the court at oral arguments in February seemed inclined to rule that platforms’ content moderation decisions are protected activity similar to editorial judgments, but they also expressed concern about several issues, including that a ruling definitively striking down the state laws would be premature since the cases are only at the preliminary judgment stage.
The cases are Moody et al. v. NetChoice LLC et al., case number 22-277, and NetChoice LLC et al. v. Paxton, case number 22-555.
Immigration Proceedings
A trio of migrants wants the Supreme Court to rebuke the federal government’s use of multiple hearing notices to provide information about the time and location of removal proceedings, which, if missed by the migrant, could result in an in absentia removal order.
El Salvador native Mori Esmelis Campos-Chaves, India native Varinder Singh, and Mexico native Raul Daniel Mendez-Colin argue the court’s 2021 ruling in Niz-Chavez v. Garland and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act require the government to provide migrants with initial notices to appear that include the date, time, and place of the court hearing in a single document. The federal government, however, claims it can provide supplemental notices with those details.
