Enlarge (credit: Kevin Dietsch / Staff | Getty Images North America )

In July, a federal judge issued an order limiting the Biden administration's social media contacts over Republicans' concerns that officials illegally suppressed speech. That order was mostly overturned last week, and now, US Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar has rushed to ask the Supreme Court to reevaluate one of the order's remaining restrictions.

In a court filing yesterday, Prelogar requested that the Supreme Court extend the stay of a preliminary injunction banning officials from "coercing" or "significantly encouraging" social media content removals. The injunction would've taken effect Monday, but the Biden administration wants the stay extended while the Supreme Court reviews the lower court's decision. If the stay isn't extended, Prelogar argued that the allegedly overly broad injunction "would impose grave and irreparable harms on the government and the public" by preventing officials from quickly responding during emergencies and generally advocating and defending policies that advance the public interest.

The "sweeping preliminary injunction" governs "thousands of federal officials’ and employees’ speech concerning any content posted on any social-media platform by anyone," Prelogar said. "The implications of the Fifth Circuit’s holdings are startling. The court imposed unprecedented limits on the ability of the President’s closest aides to use the bully pulpit to address matters of public concern, on the FBI’s ability to address threats to the Nation’s security, and on the CDC’s ability to relay public health information at platforms’ request."

Enlarge (credit: Getty Images | NurPhoto)

The Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that a federal judge's injunction against Apple would not be allowed to take effect immediately, rather than waiting for Apple's own Supreme Court appeal. That means Fortnite- maker Epic Games and other developers in Apple's App Store will still be barred from pointing customers to outside purchase points to avoid Apple's commission.

Justice Elena Kagan, who handles emergency petitions for California and other states, turned down Epic's request, as seen on the case's Supreme Court page (and initially reported by Reuters , among others). Epic's application stems from a complex series of rulings related to Epic's initial 2020 lawsuit . Apple had largely won in decisions from a district court in 2022 , and then the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in April . Those decisions found that Apple's policies that iOS apps only be available through its App Store, and those apps only use its own in-app payment systems, did not violate antitrust rules.

The 9th Circuit court did, however, affirm a lower-court decision that there was anti-steering language in Apple's developer agreement. Prohibiting developers from pointing to outside purchase methods violated California's Unfair Competition Law, the courts ruled. The 9th Circuit allowed an injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing its anti-steering language to remain in place but put a stay on it until a potential Apple appeal to the Supreme Court had run its course.

Enlarge (credit: Bloomberg Creative | Bloomberg Creative Photos )

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court decided that a lower court's logic was flawed when it convicted a Colorado man, Billy Raymond Counterman, for stalking. Counterman had sent hundreds of online messages—some of which the lower court ruled that a reasonable person would consider threatening—to a local musician, Coles Whalen, whom he'd never met.

The Supreme Court ruled that the objective standard that the Colorado lower court used to convict Counterman violated his First Amendment rights and, if upheld, could have a chilling effect on online speech.

"The State prosecuted Counterman in accordance with an objective standard and did not have to show any awareness on Counterman’s part of his statements’ threatening character," the SCOTUS opinion said. "That is a violation of the First Amendment."

Enlarge / Wetlands like this may end up a complicated patchwork of regulated and unregulated areas thanks to the latest Supreme Court decision. (credit: Stefano Madrigali )

On Thursday, the US Supreme Court issued a ruling that severely limits the EPA's ability to regulate pollution under the Clean Water Act. The ruling applies to wetlands that are connected to bodies of water that fall under the Clean Water Act's regulatory scheme, with the court now ruling that those connections need to be direct and contiguous in order for the act to apply. This would remove many wetlands that are separated by small strips of land—including artificial structures like levees—from oversight by the EPA.

The decision is a somewhat unusual one, in that all nine justices agree that the people who originally sued the EPA should prevail. But there was a very sharply worded 5-4 disagreement over what the word "adjacent" means.

Whose waters are these?

The Clean Water Act was a major piece of environmental regulation, put in place due to the sometimes horrific pollution prevalent in the early 1970s. Its text applies regulations to the "waters of the United States," a term that has proven sufficiently vague that it has been the subject of a variety of lawsuits and federal regulatory policies over the years. A number of geographic features—seasonal streams, human-made water features, and marshlands without a direct connection to rivers—have all been subject to dispute.

The next stop for net neutrality? (credit: Joe Ravi (CC-BY-SA 3.0) )

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear five appeals from the fossil fuel industry seeking to move climate change lawsuits it faces to the federal courts. The decision opens the door for Baltimore and other cities, states and counties to pursue their claims for damages from climate-related extreme weather events, flooding and sea-level rise in state courts.

Since the localities began filing their climate suits six years ago, they have, for the most part, seen state courts as the appropriate, and more advantageous, jurisdiction for seeking damages caused by climate change using product liability, deceptive advertising and nuisance statutes.

They have contended that the industry has known for decades that burning fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases that warm the planet—harming local jurisdictions, their infrastructure and, ultimately, their citizens.

Enlarge / The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, April 19, 2023. Democrats oppose the Republican-led Congressional Review Act resolution to disapprove of the Department of Veteran Affairs' interim rule on reproductive health care. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images (credit: Getty | Al Drago )

Supreme Court on Friday issued an order that will maintain status quo access to the abortion and miscarriage drug mifepristone as the legal battle over the Food and Drug Administration's approval and regulation of the drug continues. The court did not explain its reasoning, but noted that Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The ruling overrides an order from the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans, which would have curtailed access to the drug as the federal government pursues an appeal of a district court ruling. That ruling, issued by conservative District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk on April 7, would have revoked access to the drug entirely, finding the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone was unlawful, as was the agency's subsequent actions.

A three-judge panel for the appeals court, however, determined that the plaintiff's in the case—a group of anti-abortion organizations and individuals, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—had exceeded the statute of limitations in which they could have legally challenged the FDA's 2000 approval. But, the judges ruled in a 2-1 decision to allow the rest of Kacsmaryk's ruling, revoking the FDA's actions in 2016 and 2021, which eased restrictions and access to the drug.

Enlarge / Demonstrators rally in support of abortion rights at the US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 15, 2023. (credit: Getty | NDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS )

The US Supreme Court may soon issue a ruling in a high-stakes case that will determine not only the national availability of the safe and effective abortion and miscarriage medication mifepristone but also the fate of the Food and Drug Administration's overall authority to regulate the country's drugs.

In case you haven't been following along, here's everything you need to know before the high court makes its next move.

The case: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA

The case began last November in a federal court in Texas when a group of anti-abortion organizations (led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine) filed a lawsuit against the FDA, claiming that the regulator's approval and regulation of mifepristone was unlawful. As expected, District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction on April 7 revoking the FDA's 2000 approval and ruled that the FDA's actions between 2016 and 2021, which included easing restrictions on the drug's use and access, were also unlawful. Kacsmaryk granted a seven-day stay of the order, allowing time for the government to appeal the ruling and seek a longer freeze. Without intervention, mifepristone could have been wrenched from the market nationwide on April 15.

Enlarge / Attorney Eric Schnapper speaks to reporters outside of the US Supreme Court following oral arguments for the case Twitter v. Taamneh on February 22, 2023, in Washington, DC. (credit: Anna Moneymaker / Staff | Getty Images North America )

Today it was Twitter’s turn to argue before the Supreme Court in another case this week that experts fear could end up weakening Section 230 protections for social networks hosting third-party content. In Twitter v. Taamneh , the Supreme Court must decide if under the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorists Act (JASTA), online platforms should be held liable for aiding and abetting terrorist organizations that are known to be using their services to recruit fighters and plan attacks.

After close to three hours of arguments, justices still appear divided on how to address the complicated question, and Twitter's defense was not as strong as some justices seemingly thought it could be.

Twitter attorney Seth Waxman argued that the social network and other defendants, Google and Meta, should not be liable under JASTA, partly because the act of providing the same general services—which anyone on their platforms can access—does not alone constitute providing substantial assistance to an individual planning a terrorist attack.

Enlarge / Jose Hernandez and Beatriz Gonzalez, stepfather and mother of Nohemi Gonzalez, who died in a terrorist attack in Paris in 2015, arrive to speak to the press outside of the US Supreme Court following oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google on February 21 in Washington, DC. (credit: Drew Angerer / Staff | Getty Images News )

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments to decide whether Section 230 immunity shields online platforms from liabilities when relying on algorithms to make targeted recommendations. Many Section 230 defenders feared that the court might be eager to chip away at the statute’s protections, terrified that in the worst-case scenario, the Supreme Court could doom the Internet as we know it. However, it became clear that justices had grown increasingly concerned about the potential large-scale economic impact of making any decision that could lead to a crash of the digital economy or an avalanche of lawsuits over targeted recommendations.

The case before the court, Gonzalez v. Google , asks specifically whether Google should be held liable for allegedly violating federal law that prohibits aiding and abetting a terrorist organization by making targeted recommendations that promoted ISIS videos to YouTube users. If the court decides that Section 230 immunity does not apply, that single decision could impact how all online platforms recommend and organize content, Google and many others have argued.

“Congress was clear that Section 230 protects the ability of online services to organize content,” Halimah DeLaine Prado, Google's general counsel, told Ars in a statement. “Eroding these protections would fundamentally change how the Internet works, making it less open, less safe, and less helpful.”