Supreme Court Gives Emergency Relief to State Legislator Who Was Disenfranchised After Anti-Transgender Social Media Post

In Libby v. Fecteau, (Sup. Ct., May 20, 2025), the U.S. Supreme Court by a vote of 7-2 granted an injunction pending appeal to a member of the Maine House of Representatives.  Petitioner's Emergency Application for an Injunction describes the issue before the Court:

Maine State Representative Laurel Libby spoke out on social media about an intensely debated issue—the participation of transgender athletes in girls’ high school sports. Maine requires girls to compete alongside transgender athletes; Libby criticized that policy after a transgender athlete won the girls’ pole vault at the state track-and-field championship. Displeased with Libby’s criticism, the Maine House voted along party lines to censure her.  

The verbal censure (unwise as it may be) is not what Applicants challenge here. It’s what happened next. The Speaker declared Libby was barred from speaking or voting until she recants her view. This means her thousands of constituents in Maine House District 90 are now without a voice or vote for every bill coming to the House floor for the rest of her elected term, which runs through 2026.....

In this application, Petitioners seek an injunction pending appeal requiring the Clerk to count Libby’s votes. That interim relief simply restores the status quo of equal representation, bringing the Maine House back into conformity with every other State and Congress. 

The Supreme Court granted the injunction in a one-paragraph order that did not give reasons for the decision. Justices Sotomayor and Jackson voted to deny the injunction. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion, saying in part:

Not very long ago, this Court treaded carefully with respect to exercising its equitable power to issue injunctive relief at the request of a party claiming an emergency.  The opinions are legion in which individual Justices, reviewing such requests in chambers, declined to intervene—reiterating that “such power should be used sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances.” ...

Those days are no more. Today’s Court barely pauses to acknowledge these important threshold limitations on the exercise of its own authority.  It opts instead to dole out error correction as it sees fit, regardless of the lack of any exigency and even when the applicants’ claims raise significant legal issues that warrant thorough evaluation by the lower courts that are dutifully considering them....

SCOTUSblog and The Washington Stand report on the decision.

Court Refuses Stay Pending Appeal of Order That Attorneys Get Religious-Liberty Training

As previously reported, last month a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest then filed a motion to stay the sanctions while the case is appealed. In Carter v. Transport Workers Union of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug. 31, 2023), the court denied the motion to stay the sanctions. Among other things, Southwest objected to the court's requirement that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court said in part:

... Southwest complains that “[r]equiring religious-liberty training from an ideological organization with a particular viewpoint on what the law requires” is “unprecedented.” That appears to be more of a gripe than a legal objection, because Southwest doesn’t make any legal argument for why training with an “ideological organization” is unconstitutional or otherwise contrary to law.

In any event, the Court selected ADF for the following reason: Southwest does not appear to understand how federal law operates to protect its employees’ religious liberties. ADF has won multiple Supreme Court cases in recent years on the topic of religious liberties, evidencing an understanding of religious liberties.  And because ADF has agreed to conduct topical trainings in the past, ADF appears well-suited to train Southwest’s lawyers on a topic with which the lawyers evidently struggle.

In a footnote, the court added:

This doesn’t appear to be a First Amendment argument, as Southwest doesn’t cite the First Amendment or any First Amendment caselaw, so it appears that Southwest forfeited any First Amendment arguments concerning ADF’s viewpoint.

LawDork reports on the decision.

In Contempt Sanction, Court Orders Attorneys To Attend Religious Liberty Training

In Carter v. Transport Workers of America, Local 556, (ND TX, Aug.7, 2023), a Texas federal district court ordered sanctions against Southwest Airlines for its failing to comply with an earlier Order in the case that found the Airline had violated Title VII when it fired a flight attendant because of  her social media messages about her religiously-motivated views on abortion. Southwest claimed that the flight attendant had violated the company's social media policy regarding civility. In its current Order, The court set out a specifically worded communication that the Airline is required to send to its flight attendants regarding its obligation under Title VII not to engage in religious discrimination. The court also ordered that three of the Airline's attorneys who were responsible for non-compliance with the earlier Order attend at least 8 hours of religious liberty training conducted by the Christian legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom. The court explained, in part:

When a litigant “does not appear to comprehend” a legal concept, training in “the relevant subject area” constitutes a “particularly apropos” sanction.

[Thanks to Joel Taubman for the lead.]

Suit By Law Prof and Internet Site Challenges NY Statute on Online Hate Speech

 In May, the New York legislature enacted A7685-A requiring social media networks to provide a means for its users to report postings which vilify, humiliate or incite violence group on the basis of race, color, religion, ethnicity, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression.  They must also have a policy on responding to and addressing such postings.  Yesterday-- two days before the law is to go into effect-- suit was filed in a New York federal district court by law professor and blogger Eugene Volokh and the social media platform Rumble challenging the law on free speech as well as overbreadth and vagueness grounds. The complaint (full text) in Volokh v. James, (SD NY, filed 12/1/2022), alleges in part:

New York cannot justify such a sweeping regulation of protected speech. The Online Hate Speech Law violates the First Amendment because it burdens the publication of speech based on its viewpoint, unconstitutionally compels speech, and is overbroad. It is also vague in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment....and preempted by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. Given well-settled Supreme Court precedent, the New York’s law must be enjoined and struck down.

Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression issued a press release announcing the filing of the lawsuit.

Southwest Flight Attendant Fired Over Anti-Abortion Social Media Posts Wins $5.1M Verdict

One Mile At A Time reports on a jury verdict handed down last Thursday:

After a roughly five year legal battle, a former Southwest flight attendant has been awarded damages over being fired from the airline. Southwest claims that the flight attendant violated the company’s social media policy with her public and offensive anti-abortion posts, and she was also accused of harassing the union president, after union dues were used to attend a rally in Washington DC.

The article explains: 

 A federal jury in Texas has sided with the former Southwest flight attendant, arguing that she was unlawfully discriminated against for her sincerely held religious beliefs. Furthermore, the jury found that the union did not fairly represent her and retaliated against her for expressing her views.

If this stands, Carter will be awarded $5.3 million, including $4.15 million from Southwest Airlines and $1.15 million from Transportation Workers Union of America (TWU) Local 556. This consists primarily of punitive damages, but also consists of some back pay from the airline.

10th Circuit: School Cannot Expel Student For Antisemitic Snapchat Post

In Cl.G. v. Siegfried, (10th Cir., July 6, 2022), the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court's dismissal of a high school student's claim that his 1st Amendment rights were violated when he was expelled for an antisemitic Snapchat post. His captioned a picture of his friends in wigs and hats to read "Me and the boys bout [sic] to exterminate the Jews." He removed the post after two hours and posted an apology, saying it was meant to be a joke.  Relying in large part on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2021 decision in Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., the court said in part:

Because CCHS cannot stand in loco parentis and the Complaint alleges no reasonable forecast of substantial disruption or actual disruption, Plaintiff has properly alleged that Defendants’ discipline of C.G. for his off-campus speech is a First Amendment violation that cannot be dismissed at this stage.

Reuters reports on the decision.

$4.1M Damages Awarded To Muslim Comedian Against Neo-Nazi Website

Religion News Service reports that in a suit by Muslim comedian Dean Obeidallah against the publishers of the neo-Nazi website the Daily Stormer, an Ohio federal district court awarded plaintiff $4.1 million in damages for defamation.  In Obeidallah v. Anglin, (SD OH, June 13, 2019), the court awarded damages implementing its earlier determination that defendants acted with actual malice when they falsely claimed that Obeidallah was part of ISIS and was the mastermind behind the 2017 bombing of a concert that killed 22 people. The court also issued an injunction directing defendants to forthwith remove from its website, Twitter and other social media accounts any reference to Obeidallah that describes him as a terrorist or a member of ISIS.

British Court Upholds Conviction For Holocaust Denial On YouTube

In Chabloz v. Regina, (Crown Ct., Feb. 13, 2019), s British Crown Court upheld the conviction of a Holocaust denier on three counts of sending a grossly offensive message by means of an electronic communication.  The decision upholds a Magistrates' Court conviction of Alsion Chabloz for three songs posted on Your Tube.The court held that Holocaust denial per se is not outlawed.  Rather, each instance of Holocaust denial must be examined to determine if it is grossly offensive.  The court describes each song as

a collection of anti-Semitic tropes or motifs, with a particular emphasis on Holocaust denial.  Furthermore, two of the songs are in whole or part set to the tunes of well-known Hebrew songs, which the prosecution says is no accident, bu rather a deliberate attempt to increase the insulting effect of each.

The Campaign Against Antisemitism reports that this is the first conviction in the UK for Holocaust denial on social media.

Suit Challenging Social Media Policing of Anti-Islamist Posts Is Dismissed

In American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Lynch, (D DC, Nov. 9, 2016), the DC. federal district court dismissed a suit against the federal government by two anti-Islamist organizations and their leaders, including well-known activist Pamela Geller.  The groups complain that Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have repeatedly removed their postings.  They sue the U.S. Attorney General seeking a declaratory judgment that Sec. 230 of the Communications Decency Act is unconstitutional.  That section protects social media sites from liability for policing content to remove objectionable material.  Plaintiffs contend that if Sec. 230 were held unconstitutional, the sites would no longer censor their posts.  The court dismissed for lack of standing, holding that any impact of a declaratory judgment here is speculative, and at most would only indirectly affect the behavior of social media companies.

Suit In France Says Social Media Failed To Remove Anti-Semitic, Racist, Homophobic and Terrorist Posts

According to the Economic Times, on Sunday in Paris three French groups filed a lawsuit against Twitter, YouTube and Facebook charging that they failed to adequately comply with a 2004 French law that requires deletion within a reasonable time of posts that are racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic or which defend terrorism.  Plaintiffs Jewish Students of France (UEJF), SOS-Racisme,  and SOC Homophobie say that between March 31 and May 10 they discovered 586 such posts, but that the number removed within a reasonable time was 4% by Twitter, 7% by YouTube and 34% by Facebook.

Facebook Not Liable For Delay In Removing Page Containing Anti-Jewish Threats

In Klayman v. Zuckerberg, (DC Cir., June 13, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit dismissed a suit against Facebook and its founder Mark Zuckerberg alleging assault and breach of duty of care growing out of Facebook's delay in removing a page titled "Third Palestinian Intifada."  The page proclaimed: "Judgment Day will be brought upon us only once Muslims have killed all the Jews." The suit alleged that it took Facebook "many days" after receiving complaints to remove the offending page.  Plaintiff sought an injunction and damages exceeding $1 billion.  The court held that Sec. 230(c) of the Communications Act (47 USC Sec. 230) shields Facebook from liability. That section provides:

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.