Petitions of the week: Three Second Amendment petitions and a Wiretap Act claim against Facebook – SCOTUSblog

Posted Fri, January 15th, 2021 1:41 pm by Andrew Hamm

This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, whether Facebook plug-ins violate the Wiretap Act and whether the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess firearms outside the home or after a conviction for a nonviolent offense.

Passed in 1968, the Wiretap Act makes it unlawful for someone to intentionally intercept[] any wire, oral, or electronic communication, unless that person is a party to the communication. Facebook users brought a class action alleging that the tech company violated the Wiretap Act between 2010 and 2011. Specifically, the users claim that Facebook plug-ins on different websites allowed Facebook to gather URL data even when they were logged out of Facebook, which the users contend was an unlawful interception. The district court dismissed the case on the ground that Facebook was a party to the communication. Acknowledging a circuit split, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the case could proceed. In Facebook v. Davis, the company asks the justices to review and reverse the 9th Circuits decision.

District of Columbia v. Heller held that the Second Amendment protects an individuals right to possess firearms at home. The decision further indicated that longstanding firearms bans for felons were presumptively lawful. Under 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), individuals convicted of crimes punishable by over one years imprisonment are barred from possessing firearms. Holloway v. Rosen and Folajtar v. Barr ask whether applications of the ban to nonviolent offenders violate the Second Amendment. Raymond Holloway cannot possess firearms because of a misdemeanor conviction for driving under the influence. Lisa Folajtar is barred because of a felony conviction for willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns.

In Holloways case, the district court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional as applied to Holloway, who argued that he was not the type of unvirtuous citizen who has historically been disarmed because, among other things, his offense was a nonviolent misdemeanor for which his sentence was less than one year. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit disagreed, determining that Holloways DUI was serious enough to consider him an unvirtuous citizen. In Folajtars case, both the district court and the 3rd Circuit rejected her argument that her nonviolent crime was not serious enough for the ban. Both petitions ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decisions below and to clarify the standards for when presumptively lawful felon-possess bans rise to a Second Amendment violation.

Heller also left unresolved the extent of Second Amendment protections outside the home. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for New York licenses to carry firearms outside the home. The licensing officer denied their requests after determining that, under New York law, they had failed to show proper cause to carry a firearm in public for the purpose of self-defense, because [they] did not demonstrate a special need for self-defense that distinguished [them] from the general public. Nash, Koch and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association ask the Supreme Court to take their case because the lower courts are split over the strength of Second Amendment protections outside the home.

These and otherpetitions of the weekare below:

Facebook Inc. v. Davis20-727Issue: Whether an internet content provider violates theWiretap Actwhen a computer users web browser instructs the provider to display content on the webpage the user visits.

Bognet v. Boockvar20-740Issues: (1) Whether the petitioners, four individual voters and one congressional candidate, have standing to raise their elections clause, electors clause and equal protection clause claims; (2) whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania General Assemblys paramount authority from the Constitution to direct [the] Manner for appointing electors for president and vice president and to prescribe [t]he Times, Places and Manner for congressional elections; (3) whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Courts extension violates the petitioners right to have their votes counted without dilution and their right not to have their votes treated in an arbitrary and disparate manner under the equal protection clause; and (4) whetherPurcell v. Gonzalezcounsels against enjoining unconstitutional usurpations of authority to regulate federal elections by state courts and executive branch officials.

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County, Washington20-753Issue: Whether the United States can change the scope of its re-assumption of Pub. L. 83-280 jurisdiction over crimes involving Indians in Indian Country years after the re-assumption became effective under25 U.S.C. 1323without the Yakama Nations prior consent required by25 U.S.C. 1326.

Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection20-768Issue: Whether, when the government seizes a vehicle for civil forfeiture, due process requires a prompt post-seizure hearing to test the legality of the seizure and continued detention of the vehicle pending the final forfeiture trial.

Holloway v. Rosen20-782Issue: Whether a lifetime firearms prohibition based on a nonviolent misdemeanor conviction violates the Second Amendment.

Servotronics Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC20-794Issue: Whether the discretion granted to district courts in28 U.S.C. 1782(a)to render assistance in gathering evidence for use in a foreign or international tribunal encompasses private commercial arbitral tribunals, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 4th and 6th Circuits have held, or excludes such tribunals without expressing an exclusionary intent, as the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the 2nd, 5th and, in the case below, the 7th Circuit, have held.

Houston Community College System v. Wilson20-804Issue: Whether the First Amendment restricts the authority of an elected body to issue a censure resolution in response to a members speech.

RollinsNelson LTC Corp. v. United States, ex rel. Winters20-805Issue: Whether theFalse Claims Actrequires pleading and proof of an objectively false statement.

Folajtar v. Barr20-812Issue: Whether18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1), which permanently prohibits nearly all felonseven those convicted of nonviolent crimesfrom possessing firearms for self-defense, violates the Second Amendment, as applied to an individual convicted of willfully making a materially false statement on her tax returns.

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett20-843Issue: Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.

Posted in Facebook Inc. v. Davis, Bognet v. Boockvar, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation v. Yakima County, Washington, Serrano v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Holloway v. Rosen, Servotronics Inc. v. Rolls-Royce PLC, Houston Community College System v. Wilson, RollinsNelson LTC Corp. v. U.S., ex rel. Winters, Folajtar v. Barr, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, Featured, Cases in the Pipeline

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the week: Three Second Amendment petitions and a Wiretap Act claim against Facebook, SCOTUSblog (Jan. 15, 2021, 1:41 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/petitions-of-the-week-three-second-amendment-petitions-and-a-wiretap-act-claim-against-facebook/

Read the original post:
Petitions of the week: Three Second Amendment petitions and a Wiretap Act claim against Facebook - SCOTUSblog