Supreme Court rules Twitter not liable for ISIS content https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-rules-twitter-not-liable-for-isis-content/
this is HUGE First Supreme Court Opinion to Contain Nudes (in Color, Yet, and 3 of Them)? by Eugene Volokh That's today's dissent in Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith, written by Justice Kagan and joined by Chief Justice Robots (see pdf pp. 81-83). But I read the U.S. Reports only for the articles. Note that at least one lower court decision, Cariou v. Prince [not the same Prince] (2d Cir. 2013), anticipated this. Law review articles had done the same, I'm sure (I did, for instance, in my Thinking Ahead About Freedom of Speech and Hostile Work Environment Harassment, 17 Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L. 305 (1996)), but I believe the Warhol dissent was the first Supreme Court decision to do this. Please let me know if there's some other precedent I've missed. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/1...-to-contain-nudes-in-color-yet-and-3-of-them/
interesting, hadn't realized this Thursday Is The New Monday At SCOTUS Historically, the Court issued opinions on Mondays after oral arguments concluded. But this Term, Thursday is the big day. https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/18/thursday-is-the-new-monday-at-scotus/
Supreme Court curtails Clean Water Act https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/05/supreme-court-curtails-clean-water-act/
Jonathan Adler commentary: This decision is quite significant, particularly for federal control of land use. Under this decision, it will be significantly more difficult for the EPA or Army Corps of Engineers to assert federal regulatory authority over private land under the CWA. Landowners like the Sacketts will thus be able to make use of and develop their lands without worrying so much about federalregulators. They will still be subject to state and local regulation, however, and in many places such regulatory restrictions may remain significant. State and local governments began regulating wetlands before the EPA and Army Corps did, and many will continue to do so. While the decision cuts back on the definition of "the waters of the United States" for purposes of the entire CWA, the decision will not necessarily have the same effect on traditional pollution control efforts. This is due, in part, to the Supreme Court's decision in Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund, in which the Court upheld a somewhat broad interpretation of what constitutes a "discharge" of pollutants, such that some activities that result in the contamination of regulable waters may be subject to regulation even if they occur on lands that are not themselves subject to CWA regulation. For the Biden Administration, however, the decision will definitely require yet another redo of the EPA and Army Corps' WOTUS regulations. Not only has the Supreme Court adopted a fairly proscriptive definition of the Act's relevant provisions, it has (yet again) indicated that this is not the sort of question on which the justices believe courts should defer to agencies. There is no mention of Chevron in any of the four opinions. Other than Justice Kavanaugh's reference to consistent agency interpretations of what constitutes adjacency, there is little invocation of agency expertise or a need to defer. For most of the justices, this case (perhaps like the Chevron case, Loper Bright, on deck for next term) concerns the scope of an agency's authority, and that is not the sort of question upon which courts should defer. As suggested above, how much wetlands are regulated going forward will depend substantially on the choices made by state and local policy makers. Further, this decision may encourage greater consideration of non-regulatory wetland conservation measures, such as the various incentive-based programs administered by the Departments of Agriculture and Interior. Much as Congress turned to fiscal tools to address greenhouse gas emissions after West Virginia v. EPA, we could see a similar shift for wetlands conservation in the wake of Sackett. In terms of the opinions themselves, I cannot help but note that multiple opinions reference the history of water pollution in this country, both before and after enactment of the CWA, and the inaccuracies abound. Most striking (to me at least) was Justice Kagan's invocation of the 1969 Cuyahoga River fire as evidence that water quality concerns had reached "crisis proportions" before the CWA was adopted. This is balderdash. As I have chronicled (at length), river fires were a common problem in the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th century. The 1969 Cuyahoga fire was the last such fire, not the first (let alone the first on the Cuyahoga). Whereas river fires had once been common, they had been controlled by state and local action well prior to enactment of the CWA. Both Kagan and Alito want to credit the CWA with improvements in water quality over the past fifty years, but here too they may be overstating the case. While the CWA no doubt contributed to many water quality improvements over the past half century, it is well-established that water quality was improving prior to the law's enactment. Further, while Justice Alito wants to call the Act "a great success," contemporary assessments are more muted, particularly given the CWA's failure to effectively control nonpoint source pollution. For my own take on this question, and citations to some of the relevant literature, see my introductory article to our CWA at 50 symposium published in the Case Western Reserve Law Review. For more on this case here are some of my prior posts on the decison below, the cert grant, previewing and reviewing the oral argument. And here is an article I wrote on wetlands regulation in the wake of the Sacketts' first trip to the Supreme Court. more at the link: https://reason.com/volokh/2023/05/2...k-federal-regulatory-authority-over-wetlands/
It was 9-0 in terms of referencing this specific case. But in terms of the broader act of limiting the law and changing the test used, it was a 5-4 decision, with Kavanaugh joining the 3 liberals opposing the change.
not exactly. they agreed with the change, and the outcome of the case, but didn't agree with the majority's reasoning. they would have gotten there by a different path.
Yes - like I said, they agreed the law didn't apply for this specific case. But they didn't agree with the broader weakening of the law that the 5 judges went with.
the right has become so utterly pathetic that they have to hide from their decisions at this point. When you read the opinions of the 5 justices who decided to gut the EPA ability to regulate waterways you realize it's nothing but corporate corruption. Take up to the rear for land developers ! The new right
Owners have the right to not have the government interfere when they want to pollute waters. However when the government wants to claim immanent domain to take their land/home and sell it to large corporations - f$uck ‘em. It’s disgustingly obvious they are bought off.
I like that Thomas once again raised the New Deal exapansion of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Maybe there will come a time that he can bring the court around to the very reasonable position that commerce among the several states requires both trade and that it occur accross state lines.
They literally disagreed on the fundamental question what makes something a wetland. The majority literally ripped apart the definition of waterway.
