First Amendment Issues Dominant Busy Week at the Supreme Court

Upon returning from break, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled some of the most closely watched cases of the term. In TikTok Inc. v. Garland, the justices will determine whether the popular social media app may continue to operate in the United States.

As discussed in greater detail in prior posts, the case involves the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act (PAFACAA), which requires TikTok to be sold or shut down its app in the United States. In challenging the law, TikTok and its users argue that the PAFACAA violates the First Amendment and constitutes an unlawful bill of attainder under Article I. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, finding that the government’s national security justifications were valid.

During oral arguments held on January 10, 2024, the justices seemed inclined to uphold the PAFACAA. Several justices questioned whether the case even implicated the First Amendment, while others gave credence to the national security concerns justifying the ban.

The Court also considered five other cases. Below is a brief summary:

Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida: The case involves whether a retired firefighter can bring a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) alleging that her employer is discriminating in how benefits are provided to disabled retirees. The justices have agreed to consider the following question: “Under the ADA, does a former employee-who was qualified to perform her job and who earned post-employment benefits while employed-lose her right to sue over discrimination with respect to those benefits solely because she no longer holds her job?”

Hewitt v. United States: The case asks the Court to resolve a circuit split over how to interpret the First Step Act (FSA), which significantly reduced the mandatory minimum sentences for several federal drug and firearm offenses. Sections 401 and 403 of the statute apply to offenses committed after the FSA’s enactment on December 21, 2018, and to “any offense that was committed before the date of enactment…if a sentence for the offense has not been imposed as of such date of enactment.” The issue before the Court is “[w]hether the First Step Act’s sentencing reduction provisions apply to a defendant originally sentenced before the FSA’s enactment when that original sentence is judicially vacated and the defendant is resentenced to a new term of imprisonment after the FSA’s enactment.”

Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) empowers district courts, on just terms and under circumstances specified in that Rule, to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding.” The justices have agreed to resolve a circuit split regarding whether a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a “final judgment, order, or proceeding” under Rule 60(b).

Thompson v. United States: The case involves what constitutes”false statements” under 18 U.S.C. § 1014. Under the statute, it is a crime to make a “false statement…for the purpose of influencing in any way the action” of the FDIC or a mortgage lending business. The specific issue before the justices is “[w]hether 18 U.S.C. § 1014, which prohibits making a ‘false statement’ for the purpose of influencing certain financial institutions and federal agencies, also prohibits making a statement that is misleading but not false.”

Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton: The First Amendment case challenges Texas H.B. 1181, which requires any website that publishes content one-third or more of which is “harmful to minors” to verify the age of every user before permitting access. Challengers argue that the law’s age verification requirements burden “adults’ access to speech they have a right to receive,” while failing to protect minors by exempting “the search engines and social-media platforms that are principal gateways for minors’ access to that very content.” The specific question before the Supreme Court is whether the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in vacating a preliminary injunction of H.B. 1181 by applying rational-basis review rather than strict scrutiny in evaluating the constitutionality of the law.

Decisions in all of the case are expected before the end of the term this summer. Please check back for updates.