The Latest Breaking News from the Fifth Circuit

to go forward based partly on allegations that "DPH caused the suspension of [Alliance of Los Angeles County Parents'] Twitter Account."

Episode 475 of the Cyberlaw Podcast

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority has an Appointments Clause problem.

The laws require major social media platforms to host content they disapprove of for substantive reasons.

The badly flawed lower court ruling defies the Supreme Court's landmark 2019 decision forbidding such Catch-22 traps, and threatens the property rights of large numbers of people.

He paid visit to the firearm shop that sold a rifle to the Jacksonville shooter and claimed to have made a purchase

[UPDATE: Don't blog when tired or in a hurry! I regret to say the original post erroneously said the Fifth Circuit granted rehearing en banc -- the panel just granted panel rehearing, and I've corrected the post accordingly. My apologies for the error.]

The Fifth Circuit was right to rule it was illegal for the federal government to coerce social media firms, but wrong to uphold a Texas law requiring those firms to post material they prefer to keep out.

In yesterday's decision in Missouri v. Biden, the Fifth Circuit (Judges Edith Clement, Jennifer Elrod, and Don Willett) held that the federal government violated the First Amendment by causing social media platforms to block posts on various topics (including "the COVID-19 lab-leak theory, pandemic lockdowns, vaccine side-effects, election fraud, and…

The court ruled that the definition of "invasion" is a political question, and that Texas therefore could not rely on the Invasion Clause to justify placing buoys in the Rio Grande River in defiance of federal law.

Detroit's forfeiture machine, major nuclear questions, and copyrightable materials.