The 2023 U.S. Supreme Court term
The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term last week with a series of opinions some on the left did not like. This resulted in many calls for reforming the Court. President Biden muttered, “this is not a normal court.” The truth is, however, that this Court is not exhibiting extreme behavior. In fact, the overwhelming majority of opinions enjoyed support from liberals and conservatives. Even the controversial opinions did not completely favor the conservative majority. Ilya Shapiro has a nice article in Newsweek breaking down the term with historical comparisons. You can read it here.
Free Speech
Last week, on Independence Day, a federal judge in Louisiana issued an injunction against the Biden Administration prohibiting government officials from working with social media companies to censor Americans’ speech. Since Elon Musk purchased Twitter, it has been revealed that the federal government has been involved in an extensive censorship operation using multiple online platforms. Government officials pressured social media companies to censor criticism of the government’s actions during COVID, of the prosecution of the war in Ukraine, of items related to Hunter Biden, and of conservative speech in general. Relying on this evidence, the Louisiana Attorney General, joined by AG’s from other states, sued the Administration. In issuing the injunction, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty wrote, "If the allegations made by Plaintiffs are true, the present case arguably involves the most massive attack against free speech in United States’ history.” Much more to come on this topic. You can read the judge’s opinion here.
Free speech, FBI oversight
Wednesday, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee held oversight hearings including testimony from FBI Director, Christopher Wray. Wray was questioned by committee members on multiple topics, one of which being the censorship operations the FBI has been involved in. Wray denounced the censorship he said took place under his predecessor, and vowed that the interactions between the FBI and social media platforms are all now all by the book. Wray argued that the FBI’s current approach is not to order the companies to censor, but to alert them to items that the companies are free to censor or not. Some committee members found this to be too subtle a distinction, arguing that the agency cannot do through an agent, in this case social media companies, what it would be prohibited from doing itself. There will certainly be more action here. We’ll keep an eye on it and keep you informed. You can read more about yesterday’s hearing here.
Quick thought
Why don’t we let civil defendants petition to court to modify judgments like we do in criminal cases? The civil defendant could, much like criminal defendants do, come into court and present evidence that he has gone to some classes on financial literacy, demonstrate that he is now paying his other bills on time, and ask for a reduction in the amount he owes the plaintiff. It doesn’t seem right in the civil context, does it? I may expand this thought into a long-form piece. Stay tuned.