SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

tbergs

Ketanji joins the extreme conservatives on the Purdue Pharma case and Kavanaugh and Roberts join the liberals. I agree on the decision. Fuck the Sackler family trying to weasel out of liabilty.

gimmesometruth27

tbergs said:

Ketanji joins the extreme conservatives on the Purdue Pharma case and Kavanaugh and Roberts join the liberals. I agree on the decision. Fuck the Sackler family trying to weasel out of liabilty.

is that why they rejected it? i hadn't read about it yet. just saw the headline that the settlement was rejected. i figured that the court said the penalty was too stiff. you know, to protect billionaires like they usually do.

mickeyrat

gift article.....

https://wapo.st/3VLn8UX 

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.

continues...

Halifax2TheMax

mickeyrat said:

gift article.....

https://wapo.st/3VLn8UX 

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.

continues...

Does this ruling potentially impact the Alex Jones bankruptcy?

mickeyrat

Halifax2TheMax said:

mickeyrat said:

gift article.....

https://wapo.st/3VLn8UX 

Supreme Court blocks controversial Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
By David Ovalle and Justin Jouvenal
June 27, 2024 at 12:55 ET
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked a controversial proposed Purdue Pharma bankruptcy plan that would have provided billions of dollars to help address the nation’s opioid crisis in exchange for protecting the family that owns the company from future lawsuits.
The court ruled that U.S. bankruptcy code does not allow a court to shield the Sackler family, which owns the company and had agreed to pay up to $6 billion over 18 years as part of the plan, from future opioid lawsuits. Family members did not file for bankruptcy themselves.
The ruling marks the latest chapter in the national reckoning over the role of drugmakers such as Purdue and other companies in igniting the epidemic of addiction and overdoses. The decision means states and other parties suing Purdue will restart negotiations. The ruling could also affect major settlements in other cases approved through bankruptcy courts.
In a 5-4 decision that scrambled ideological lines on the Supreme Court, the majority found the plan was invalid because all the affected parties had not been consulted on the deal.

continues...

Does this ruling potentially impact the Alex Jones bankruptcy?

I would say no, because jones like guiliani was seeking to get out of judgement against whereas this was a settlement deal approved by most parties of interest.

mickeyrat

https://www.wosu.org/npr-news/2024-06-26/supreme-court-allows-white-house-to-request-removal-of-misinformation-on-social-media?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3fEHKxpJtN47OGW4PgfF89561pzTqORsDWFhUUsuenr45BhB42-7mCWDw_aem_mJRKtcjzTuqlzUuxMCm_8Q

 

• 
  
• 
  

Search Query

Donate

WOSU 89.7

All Things Considered

All Things Considered

WOSU 89.7

• 
  
• 
  

Supreme Court allows White House to request removal of misinformation on social media

By Nina Totenberg,

Jordan Thomas

Published June 26, 2024 at 10:11 AM EDT

• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Email

Andrew Harnik

/

Getty Images

The Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court handed a major victory for the Biden administration Wednesday, throwing out a lower court ruling that had placed major restrictions on the ability of government officials to communicate with social media companies about their content moderation policies.

While the court’s ruling was procedural, it was nonetheless a stark repudiation of two lower courts in the South, and their eagerness to embrace conspiracy theories about alleged government coercion of social media companies.

Writing for a liberal-conservative coalition of six justices, Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that neither the five individuals nor the two states who sued the government had legal standing to be in court at all. She said they presented no proof to back up their claims that the government had pressured social media companies like Twitter and Facebook into restricting their speech. “Unfortunately,” she said, the Fifth Circuit court of appeals “relied on factual findings that are “clearly erroneous.”

For instance, she said, the plaintiffs who brought the case maintained that the White House had bombarded Twitter with requests to set up a streamlined process for censorship requests. But in fact, she said, the record showed no such requests. Rather, on one occasion a White House official asked Twitter to remove a fake account pretending to be the account of Biden’s granddaughter. Twitter took down the fake account and told the official about a portal that could be used in the future to flag similar issues.

“Justice Barrett went out of her way to stress that facts matter and that lower courts in this case embraced a fact-free version of what transpired between officials in the Biden administration and Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies,” said law professor Paul Barrett, no relation to the justice, who is deputy director of the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at NYU.

In her opinion for the court majority, Justice Barrett said that at every turn, the alleged facts turned to dust, and that the plaintiffs had failed to trace past or potential future harm to anything done by officials at the White House, the CDC, the FBI, or a key cyber security agency. Indeed, the court said, many of the actions taken by the social media platforms to modify content about COVID vaccines or other matters, were taken before any contacts with government officials took place.

The court’s decision will make it considerably more difficult for people to bring challenges like this in the future because the justices said that it’s not enough to rail against the government for criticizing an individual’s message online. Rather, there has to be a causal link between the government’s commentary and what happens on a social media platform. In short, there has to be a traceable link, a link that the court said was entirely missing in this case, as the social media companies had their own incentives for moderating content, and often exercised their own judgment.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented, along with Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.

“For months, high-ranking Government officials placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to suppress Americans’ free speech,” wrote Altio. “Because the court unjustifiably refuses to address this serious threat to the First Amendment, I respectfully dissent.”

Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight Center First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, agreed with the court majority that in this particular case, the plaintiffs had alleged a very generalized theory of coercion, but he added that the court needs to set out specific factors for evaluating when government officials go too far.

“It’s important for Democrats and liberals who are perhaps sympathetic to the Biden administration’s efforts” to prevent COVID misinformation or Russian election interference, to consider whether they would be comfortable with these same rules if the Trump administration “were to pressure social media companies to take down speech related to MeToo or Black Lives Matter or pro-Palestinian speech.”

“We need a set of rules that make sense in all of these contexts,” Jaffer said, adding, “And so far, the court hasn’t given us a lot to work with.”

Copyright 2024 NPR

NPR News

• Facebook
• Twitter
• LinkedIn
• Email

Nina Totenberg

Nina Totenberg is NPR's award-winning legal affairs correspondent. Her reports air regularly on NPR's critically acclaimed newsmagazines All Things Considered, Morning Edition, and Weekend Edition.

See stories by Nina Totenberg

Jordan Thomas

[Copyright 2024 NPR]

© 2024 WOSU Public Media

tbergs

Waiting, watching the clock...

I swear, if they rule in favor of Trump today, this country is truly sliding in to being controlled by a criminal and his mob of morons.

ikiT

tbergs said:

Waiting, watching the clock...

I swear, if they rule in favor of Trump today, this country is truly sliding in to being controlled by a criminal and his mob of morons.

amen

ikiT

from the realtime scotusblog

"Interestingly, this leaves Jackson and the chief as the only justices without opinions for April. Fischer v. US (the Jan. 6 case) and the Trump immunity case are the only two remaining cases from the April argument session."

ikiT

this court BLOWS

josevolution

Fuck the homeless the SCOTUS! 

And if they rule 🍊🤡💩 head is immune doesn’t that include the current president? 

mickeyrat

intetesting verifiable factoid here.....

https://www.threads.net/@pinktweetshere2/post/C8zJs_rugyA/?xmt=AQGzHLJ6qqfHYq1QNcsDPA08u__bmMvTTdRJbw-eAeC7nQ

mickeyrat

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/06/fischer-v-united-states-supreme-court-decisions-jan-6/678838/?utm_source=threads&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_content=edit-promo

tbergs

Rulings are in. 

tbergs

The court has ruled on presidential immunity. “A
former president is entitled to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his “conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority,” the ruling says. “There is no immunity for unofficial acts.”

Gern Blansten

As expected I think...back to the lower court to sort out what was official and what wasn't

tbergs

Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.

mrussel1

tbergs said:

Seems like the obvious decision and one that didn't really need the Supreme Court ruling, which is pretty pointless and provides little substance.

Is this where everything Trump ever does again, if elected, will be preemptively labeled as official? Nice the court officially gave every future president an out.

I agree, this is all pretty much what was expected and common sense.  While Trump will try to take a victory lap, let's remember that he said he had "absolute immunity".  He doesn't.  

mrussel1

I find the Net Choice rulings interesting and just as consequential.  I still cannot wrap my head around the argument that a social media company has no editorial control of their platform.  

mickeyrat

mrussel1 said:

I find the Net Choice rulings interesting and just as consequential.  I still cannot wrap my head around the argument that a social media company has no editorial control of their platform.  

terms of service, no? thats where their absolute editorial controll lies, doesn't it?