Posted Fri, Jan 15th 2021 1:41 PM by Andrew Hamm
This week we’re highlighting certification filings that require the Supreme Court to examine, among other things, whether Facebook plug-ins violate the wiretapping law and whether the second amendment protects an individual’s right to use firearms outside the home or following a conviction of a nonviolent crime to own .
The wiretapping law passed in 1968 makes it illegal for someone to “intentionally intercept … Any wired, oral or electronic communication, unless that person is a party to the communication. Facebook users have filed a class action lawsuit alleging the tech company broke Wiretap law between 2010 and 2011. Specifically, users claim that Facebook plug-ins on various websites allowed Facebook to collect URL data even when they were logged out of Facebook, users claim it was unlawful “interception”. The district court dismissed the case on the grounds that Facebook was a “party to communication”. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit recognized a breakdown of the circuit and ruled that the case could continue. In Facebook vs. Davis, the company is asking the judges to review and reverse the decision of the 9th circuit.
District of Columbia v. Heller argued that the second amendment protected an individual’s right to own firearms at home. The decision also indicated that longstanding gun bans for offenders were “presumably lawful”. Under 18 USC § 922 (g) (1), persons convicted of crimes punishable by a prison term of more than one year are prohibited from possessing firearms. Ask Holloway v Rosen and Folajtar v Barr whether applying the ban to nonviolent offenders is against the second amendment. Raymond Holloway cannot own firearms due to a felony conviction for driving under the influence. Lisa Folajtar has been excluded from her tax returns for a criminal offense for deliberately submitting a material false statement.
In Holloway’s case, the district court ruled the ban was unconstitutional for Holloway, who argued that he was not the type of “outrageous citizen” who has historically been disarmed because his offense was non-violent, among other things, and his sentence was less than one Year. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that Holloway’s DUI was “serious” enough to consider him a “rude citizen”. In Folajtar’s case, both the District Court and the 3rd Circuit rejected their argument that their nonviolent crime was not “serious” enough for the ban. Both petitions ask the Supreme Court to reverse the following rulings and clarify the standards when “allegedly lawful” bans on criminals lead to a violation of the second amendment.
Heller also left the level of protection of the second amendment outside the home unresolved. In the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Corlett, Robert Nash and Brandon Koch applied for New York licenses to move firearms outside of their home. The licensing officer denied their requests after discovering that they had “failed to provide a” right reason “under New York law for publicly carrying a firearm for self-defense because [they] did not show a particular need for self-defense that stood out [them] from the public. “Nash, Koch and the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association are calling on the Supreme Court to take their case as the lower courts are divided over the protection of the second amendment outside the home.
These and other petitions of the week are listed below:
Facebook Inc. v. Davis
problem: Whether an Internet content provider is violating the Wiretap Act when a computer user’s web browser instructs the provider to display content on the website visited by the user.
Bognet v. Boockvar
Problems: (1) whether the petitioners, four individual voters and one congressional candidate, are entitled to exercise their electoral clause, electoral clause, and non-discrimination clause; (2) Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has usurped the primordial authority of the Pennsylvania General Assembly from the Constitution, “directly [the] Manner “for the appointment of voters for President and Vice-President and for the prescription of”[t]The Times, Places and Manners ”for congressional elections; (3) whether the extension of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violates the petitioners’ right to have their votes counted without dilution and their right not to have their votes treated arbitrarily and unequally under the equal treatment clause; and (4) whether Purcell advises against Gonzalez from imposing unconstitutional usurpations of powers to regulate federal elections by state courts and executive officials.
Confederate Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation versus Yakima County, Washington
problem: Whether the United States can change the scope of its re-acquisition of Pub. L. 83-280 Jurisdiction for crimes against Indians in the Indian country years after 25 USC § 1323 re-adoption without the prior consent of the Yakama Nation under 25 USC § 1326.
Serrano against US Customs and Border Protection
problem: Whether if the government seizes a vehicle for civil foreclosure, due process requires an immediate post-seizure hearing to assess the legality of the seizure and hold the vehicle pending final foreclosure.
Holloway v. Roses
problem: Whether a lifelong gun ban based on a nonviolent conviction violates the second amendment.
Servotronics Inc. v Rolls-Royce PLC
problem: Whether the discretion given to the district courts in 28 USC § 1782 (a) to assist in the collection of evidence for use in a “foreign or international court” includes private commercial arbitration courts, such as the US appeals courts for the 4th and 5th 6. Circuit held or excluded such tribunals without expressing any exclusive intent, as the US appeals courts ruled for the 2nd, 5th and, in the following case, the 7th Circuit.
Houston Community College System versus Wilson
problem: Whether the first change will limit the power of an elected body to issue a no-confidence vote in response to a member’s speech.
Rollins Nelson LTC Corp. against the United States, ex rel. winter
problem: Whether the law on false claims requires a plea and evidence of an objectively false statement.
Folajtar v. Barr
problem: Whether 18 USC § 922 (g) (1), which permanently forbids almost all offenders, including those convicted of nonviolent crimes, from possessing firearms for self-defense, violates the second amendment applied to a person, who were convicted of willful conviction was materially false statement in their tax returns.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v Corlett
problem: Whether the second amendment will allow the government to ban ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside of the home for self-defense.
Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the Week: Three Petitions on the Second Amendment and a Wiretap Act Claim Against Facebook,
SCOTUSblog (January 15, 2021, 1:41 p.m.), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/petitions-of-the-week-three-second-amgement-petitions-and-a-wiretap-act – claim-against-facebook /