In a significant legal development, a federal judge in Florida has intervened to prevent the enforcement of a ban on transgender and nonbinary teachers from using their preferred pronouns in the classroom. This ruling came in response to a lawsuit filed by a high school math teacher, Katie Wood, challenging the constitutionality of the ban.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Background and Ruling Details

U.S. District Judge Mark Walker, based in Tallahassee, delivered the ruling late Tuesday, asserting that the ban, enacted by the Republican-led state last year, infringes upon Wood’s free-speech rights. Judge Walker emphasized that Wood’s gender identity is a fundamental aspect of her personal identity and therefore should not be restricted by state mandate. However, it’s noteworthy that the ruling only applies to Wood’s case and does not extend statewide.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Legal Arguments

The core of the legal dispute lies in the interpretation of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While Florida contended that Wood’s expression of her preferred pronouns in class fell within her job duties and thus wasn’t constitutionally protected, Judge Walker disagreed. He underscored that forcing teachers to abandon their chosen identities in the classroom would be an overreach, akin to state-mandated renaming.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Limited Scope of the Ruling

Despite ruling in favor of Wood, Judge Walker declined to issue a statewide injunction, reasoning that Wood’s challenge primarily addressed the law’s impact on her specifically, rather than its broader constitutionality. Additionally, a similar plea from another plaintiff, AV Schwandes, was turned down as they couldn’t demonstrate immediate harm under the law, having not been employed by a public school in Florida at the time.

Knowledge is power, and knowing your earning potential is no exception. Check out LawCrossing’s salary surveys to gain valuable insights.

Response and Implications

Responses from the involved parties, including the office of Republican Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and the plaintiffs’ lawyers at the Southern Poverty Law Center, were not immediately available. The case adds to the ongoing legal battles over laws enacted by Republican-led states, dubbed “don’t say gay” laws, which critics argue are discriminatory and harmful to LGBT individuals.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Broader Context

Florida’s ban on discussions of gender identity and sexual orientation in schools is part of a broader trend seen in several Republican-led states. Last year, Florida education officials voted to limit classroom instruction on these topics, a decision that was partially walked back following legal challenges. The case underscores the ongoing legal and societal debates surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in education.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Conclusion

The ruling represents a significant development in the ongoing legal battles surrounding LGBTQ+ rights in education. While providing a victory for Katie Wood and highlighting the importance of individual expression, it also underscores the complexities and nuances of free speech rights within the public education system. The case is expected to have broader implications for similar legal challenges across the United States.

The post Federal Judge Blocks Florida Ban on Transgender and Nonbinary Teachers' Pronouns first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has signed a bill aimed at safeguarding children under the age of 16 from the potential harms of social media. The legislation, signed on Monday, imposes restrictions on minors’ access to social media platforms, emphasizing parental consent and oversight.

Key Provisions of the Bill

Under the new law:

• Children under 14 are prohibited from accessing social media platforms altogether.
• Those aged 14 and 15 require parental consent to create accounts on social media platforms.
• Social media companies must terminate accounts belonging to individuals under 14 and those aged 14 to 16 without parental consent.
• Third-party verification systems are mandated to ensure compliance with age restrictions.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Evolution of the Legislation

The bill underwent modifications from its initial form, which sought to ban social media use entirely for those under 16. Governor DeSantis vetoed this version, citing concerns about parental rights. The revised bill now empowers parents to grant consent for older adolescents to engage with social media.

The legislation is scheduled to go into effect on January 1, 2025.

Rationale Behind the Legislation

Governor DeSantis asserts that social media poses various risks to children’s well-being. By granting parents more control, the legislation aims to mitigate these risks and enhance child protection.

Supporters of the bill argue that excessive social media use can contribute to mental health issues such as anxiety and depression among young users. They see this legislation as a proactive step in addressing these concerns.

Controversy and Opposition

Critics contend that the bill encroaches upon First Amendment rights, suggesting that parental discretion, not government intervention, should dictate children’s online activities.

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, opposed the legislation, expressing concerns about parental discretion and data privacy. Meta advocates for federal legislation to ensure parental approval for children’s app downloads.

Scope and Enforcement

The bill targets social media platforms featuring characteristics such as infinite scrolling, reaction metrics like likes, autoplay videos, and live streaming. It exempts platforms primarily focused on email, messaging, or texting.

Social media companies are obligated to permanently delete personal data from terminated accounts and are liable to civil lawsuits for non-compliance.

National Implications

Florida joins several other states in regulating children’s access to social media. Utah was the pioneer in enacting such laws in March 2023, followed by states like Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas. A legislative analysis indicates that numerous other states are considering similar regulations.

By enacting this legislation, Florida contributes to a broader national dialogue on children’s digital rights and online safety.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Florida Governor Signs Bill Regulating Children's Social Media Use first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Florida’s Republican-controlled legislature has recently passed a significant piece of legislation aimed at curtailing access to social media platforms for individuals under the age of 16. This move is heralded by supporters as a crucial step in safeguarding the mental well-being of young people amidst growing concerns over the negative impacts of excessive social media usage.

Key Provisions of the Bill

The legislation, now awaiting review by Republican Governor Ron DeSantis, mandates social media platforms to enforce stricter age restrictions. Under this law, individuals under 16 would be prohibited from creating or maintaining accounts on these platforms. Social media companies would be compelled to utilize a third-party verification system to ascertain the age of users, effectively screening out those who fall below the stipulated age threshold.

Governor’s Response and Balancing Act

Governor DeSantis, who initially expressed reservations about potential privacy infringements, emphasized the need for a balanced approach. While acknowledging the detrimental effects of social media on children, he underscored the importance of parental supervision and expressed caution against policies that could override parental authority.

Legislative Approval and Support

The bill received overwhelming support in the Florida House of Representatives, passing with a resounding vote of 108-7. Advocates lauded the measure as a vital step in addressing the adverse effects of social media on the mental health of young users, citing concerns such as anxiety and depression.

Opposition and Constitutional Concerns

However, critics have raised objections, particularly citing potential violations of the First Amendment’s protections for free speech. Some argue that decisions regarding children’s online presence should remain within the purview of parents rather than governmental intervention.

Industry Response and Data Privacy Concerns

Major social media entities, including Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, have voiced opposition to the legislation. Meta contends that the bill would impede parental discretion and raise significant data privacy concerns due to the extensive personal information required for age verification. Instead, Meta advocates for federal legislation that mandates parental approval for downloads by individuals under 16.

Scope and Exemptions

While the bill does not explicitly target specific platforms, it identifies features common among social media sites deemed harmful. These include “infinite scrolling,” reaction metrics like likes, auto-play videos, live-streaming, and push notifications. Notably, platforms primarily used for email, messaging, or texting are exempted from the legislation’s provisions.

Addressing Privacy Rights and Accountability

In response to concerns regarding privacy rights, lawmakers have taken measures to narrow the bill’s scope. Enhanced anonymity provisions in the age verification process aim to safeguard user data. Moreover, significant penalties are proposed to hold tech giants accountable for non-compliance, including the requirement to permanently delete personal information from terminated accounts and the authorization for parents to file civil lawsuits against non-compliant entities.

National Landscape and Precedents

Florida joins a growing number of states addressing children’s access to social media. States like Utah, Arkansas, Louisiana, Ohio, and Texas have already implemented similar regulations, signaling a broader trend toward regulatory intervention in this domain.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Florida Legislature Passes Bill to Restrict Social Media Access for Under 16s first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Shumaker, a prominent Florida-based legal services provider, has announced the addition of seven new attorneys to its team. The new hires, which include six associates and one staff attorney, will strengthen the firm’s capabilities across various practice areas, including corporate law, real estate, labor and employment, and litigation.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

New Associates Bring Diverse Expertise

The new associates are:

• Michael C. Bilirakis: Bilirakis joins Shumaker as an associate in the firm’s Tampa office. His focus areas include corporate law, tax law, and transactions.
• Matthew D. Hohman: Hohman will be an associate in Shumaker’s real estate and development service line. He has extensive experience in real estate law, including acquisitions, dispositions, and financing.
• Charles H. King: King will be an associate in Shumaker’s corporate, tax, and transactions service line in the firm’s Tampa office. He has a strong background in corporate law, including mergers and acquisitions, securities law, and corporate governance.
• Hope J. Luther: Luther has been hired as an associate in the firm’s labor, employment, and benefits service line. She will focus on employee benefits, single and multi-employer retirement plans, and health and welfare plans.
• Joshua A. Magnussen: Magnussen will serve as a staff attorney and member of the labor, employment, and benefits service line. He has experience in labor and employment law, including employment discrimination, wage and hour law, and wrongful termination.
• Francis Morency: Morency has been brought on as an associate in the firm’s litigation and disputes service line. His focus will be on bankruptcy law, including Chapter 7, Chapter 13, Chapter 11, and Subchapter V bankruptcy cases.
• Thomas L. Rockhill: Rockhill was tapped as an associate focusing on corporate law. His practice areas include corporate formation, transactions, drafting, compliance, and related concerns.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Shumaker’s Commitment to Excellence

Adding these talented attorneys further strengthens Shumaker’s position as a leading provider of legal services in Florida. The firm is committed to providing its clients with the highest quality legal counsel and is proud to welcome these new attorneys to its team.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Shumaker Bolsters Legal Team with Seven New Attorneys first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a recent legal development, The Washington Post has initiated a court challenge against a newly enacted state law in Florida that shields Governor Ron DeSantis’ travel records. The renowned media outlet asserts that the law violates the state Constitution by impeding the public’s right to access government records and open meetings.

Legislative Controversy

The controversial law, pushed through by the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature mere weeks before Governor DeSantis launched his presidential campaign, has sparked debates over transparency and accountability. While lawmakers argue that the legislation aims to protect the governor and his family, critics argue that it excessively conceals crucial information regarding the use of public funds.

Hidden Details

The legislation shields details about Governor DeSantis’ travel within and across the nation and obscures information about his use of state and private jets and involvement in international trade missions. This opacity extends to the spending of public funds, raising concerns about the lack of transparency in the governor’s financial decisions.

The Washington Post’s Lawsuit

In response to this legislative move, The Washington Post has filed a lawsuit, alleging that the law goes too far in restricting public access to information essential for informed decision-making. According to the Post, the exemption created by the law “sweeps from public view every record relating in any way to the expenditure of millions of taxpayer dollars each year.”

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

DeSantis’ Political Agenda

Governor DeSantis’ travel activities have come under scrutiny, particularly in the context of his presidential ambitions within the Republican Party. Questions have been raised about the governor’s use of public funds to further his political aspirations, especially as he trails behind former President Donald Trump in polls, nationally and in their shared home state of Florida.

Historical Context

Florida has a longstanding tradition of providing open access to government records and meetings, a principle enshrined in state law and reinforced by a constitutional amendment passed by voters in 1992. However, this commitment to transparency often faces challenges as the legislature introduces exemptions, such as the controversial travel shield enacted in May.

Stay up-to-date without the overwhelming noise. Subscribe to JDJournal for a curated selection of the most relevant legal news.

Access to Public Records

Beyond the travel records issue, concerns persist regarding the broader accessibility of public records. The governor’s office and state agencies are known for imposing delays and significant research costs when fulfilling public records requests, adding another layer to the ongoing transparency debate.

Legal Maneuvers and Withheld Information

The latest legal filing by The Washington Post builds upon its earlier attempt to obtain records on DeSantis’s travels from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE), the agency responsible for the governor’s security during his trips. While Leon Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey previously ordered the FDLE to surrender “nonexempt public records,” the agency has cited the new travel shield for withholding many documents. A hearing on the latest challenge is scheduled for January 10.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Florida’s New Travel Records Law Faces Legal Challenge from The Washington Post first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Student and Faculty Worries Amidst Controversial Legislation

Higher education in Florida is challenging due to a recently passed Senate bill, which has sparked concerns among students and faculty. The legislation, Senate Bill 266, has been met with skepticism because of its provisions, including cuts in funding for diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, as well as restrictions on educational curriculum. Below, we delve into the key aspects and reactions to this legislation.

Impact on Faculty and Staff

Dr. Larry Walker, the vice president of UCF’s Black Faculty and Staff Association and an assistant professor at the College of Community Innovation and Education, expressed his concerns about the potential consequences of the bill. He worries that this legislation could jeopardize the jobs of his colleagues, especially those who were specifically hired to teach courses and support minoritized students. The uncertainty surrounding job security is a significant concern for members of their organization.

Senate Bill 266 Overview

Senate Bill 266, proposed in February, addresses the curriculum and programs in Florida’s colleges and universities. It prohibits using public funds for programs or campus activities that “advocate for diversity, equity, and inclusion” or engage in political or social activism. The bill also specifies that general education core courses should not distort significant historical events or teach identity politics and certain discrimination-related concepts.

Governor Ron DeSantis approved the bill in May and took effect on July 1, leading to a growing wave of concerns within the academic community.

Reactions and Projections

Florida State Senator Jason Pizzo believes this legislation will not have a lasting impact. He predicts it will eventually be repealed, leaving its supporters precarious. Pizzo assesses that those closely aligned with the governor and this policy may find themselves without jobs in the coming years.

Questioning the Motive

Given Florida’s diverse demographics, Dr. Walker raises a significant question: What prompted the drafting of this bill in the first place? Florida is the third-largest state in the country and boasts remarkable diversity, making the motivation behind this legislation a subject of inquiry.

A Diverse Landscape

UCF is home to a variety of programs and associations dedicated to promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. The Ginsburg Center for Inclusion and Community Engagement Office of Diversity Education and Training encompasses the Black Faculty and Staff Association, the Latino Faculty and Staff Association, and the PRIDE Faculty and Staff Association. In addition to the Ginsburg Center, UCF houses the Office of Diversity and Inclusion and several other organizations committed to promoting diversity and inclusion.

Want to know if you’re earning what you deserve? Find out with LawCrossing’s salary surveys.

Wider Concerns

The implications of Senate Bill 266 extend beyond UCF. Faculty at various institutions throughout Florida have expressed their concerns, with the United Faculty of Florida issuing a press release describing the legislation as an “unconstitutional attack upon the freedoms of Florida.” The United Faculty of Florida represents over 25,000 faculty members nationwide, making their opposition significant.

Students Bear the Impact

Karla Montesinos, a senior mechanical engineering major at UCF and the marketing chair for UCF’s Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers (SHPE), highlights the immediate consequences of the bill. SHPE’s funding has been dramatically affected, leading to challenges in organizing activities and conferences. Limited funds have even led to a reduction in student attendance at career conferences, affecting their job prospects.

Furthermore, cultural events have been impacted by the legislation. The Mexican Student Association’s request to display an altar in the Student Union to celebrate the Day of the Dead was denied, despite permission granted in previous years. This limitation on cultural expression is seen as a direct result of the legislation.

Make informed decisions in real-time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Protest and Legal Action

In response to the bill, students at universities across Florida have taken to the streets to protest the impact on their education and freedom of speech. At the New College of Florida, NCF Freedom emerged after Governor DeSantis appointed six new trustees to the New College of Florida Board of Trustees. Jono Miller, president of NCF Freedom, has filed a lawsuit for violation of free speech against the state. They view the bill as an attempt to stifle diversity and inclusion on campuses.

Unclear Definitions Pose Challenges

One significant challenge of Senate Bill 266 is its vague and undefined terms. Concepts such as “distorting significant historical events” and “promoting or engaging in political or social activism” lack clarity. Professors and educators are left wondering how to navigate these ambiguities, concerned that self-censorship may become a means of job preservation.

A Dismal Outlook

The bill has raised fears that university faculty may choose to self-censor out of concerns about job security and institutional funding. Additionally, students seeking academic freedom and open discussion of various concepts may decide to pursue higher education outside of Florida. This uncertainty has prompted concerns about the future of academic freedom in the state.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post Florida Senate Bill Raises Concerns Over Higher Education Funding and Curriculum first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

In a move highlighting President Joe Biden’s commitment to bipartisanship in filling judicial vacancies across the nation, he has nominated five new district court judges in Florida and South Carolina. These nominations come at a crucial time when the White House strives to bridge political divides and address the ongoing issue of judicial vacancies, especially in states with Republican senators.

The Challenge of Judicial Vacancies

Currently, there are 61 judicial vacancies nationwide with no nominees pending. The majority of these vacancies, approximately two-thirds, are located in states represented by Republican senators. This situation gives those senators the power to obstruct any nominations made by President Biden within their respective states, thus necessitating a delicate approach to garner bipartisan support.

Wednesday’s Nominations

On Wednesday, President Biden nominated five distinguished individuals for district court judgeships in Florida and South Carolina. The nominees are:

Whether you’re a recent law school grad or an experienced attorney, BCG Attorney Search has the job for you.

Jacqueline Becerra

• Nominated for the Southern District of Florida.

Melissa Damian

• Nominated for the Southern District of Florida.

David Leibowitz

• Nominated for the Southern District of Florida.

Julie Sneed

• Nominated for the Middle District of Florida.

Jacquelyn Austin

• Nominated for South Carolina.

It is noteworthy that all these nominees hail from states with two Republican senators, namely Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott of Florida and Senators Lindsey Graham and Tim Scott of South Carolina. The support of these Republican senators is highly anticipated, and Senator Rubio has described these Florida nominations as “long overdue.”

Make informed decisions in real time. Subscribe to JDJournal and be in the know with the latest legal updates.

Crucial Senate Tradition: Blue Slips

The importance of securing the support of these Republican senators lies in the Senate tradition of “blue slips.” Under this tradition, any senator can effectively veto a district court nominee from their home state by refusing to return a “blue slip” to support the nominee. This mechanism has faced criticism from progressive advocates who argue that Senate Republicans have employed it to obstruct President Biden’s nominations. They contend that the blue slip custom should be reconsidered.

Biden’s Nominee Diversity

While most of President Biden’s 148 confirmed nominees have been from states with two Democratic senators, the White House has been actively working with Senate Republicans to fill judicial vacancies. This year, confirmations have already taken place for district court judges in Indiana, Idaho, and Louisiana, and several more nominations from states with Republican senators are currently pending, including one from Texas that the Judiciary Committee advanced on Thursday.

The Commitment to Bipartisanship

White House counsel Ed Siskel reiterated the President’s commitment to reaching across the aisle and collaborating with Senate Republicans to appoint highly qualified individuals from diverse professional and personal backgrounds to the judiciary. This dedication to bipartisanship underscores the administration’s objective to address critical vacancies in the court system.

All the nominees announced on Wednesday, except David Leibowitz, have a background as federal magistrate judges. If confirmed, they will be elevated to life-tenured district court judgeships. Leibowitz, a former federal prosecutor, currently serves as corporate counsel for the Braman Management Association, an auto dealer in Miami. It is worth mentioning that he is the nephew of billionaire Norman Braman, a prominent benefactor of Senator Rubio.

In a curious twist, the Miami Herald reported in 2020 that former President Donald Trump was expected to nominate Leibowitz to the bench. However, this nomination never materialized, despite President Trump securing the confirmation of 234 judicial nominees during his tenure.

Don’t be a silent ninja! Let us know your thoughts in the comment section below.

The post President Biden Nominates Five District Court Judges in Florida and South Carolina, Showcases Bipartisanship first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

The recent attorney licensing exams have reported a significant drop in pass rates across the country, including in New York, Texas, and Florida. In New York, the overall pass rate on the latest bar exam fell to 40% from 45% last year, with a nine percentage point decline over the past two years. The first-time pass rate declined from 61% in 2022 to 56% this year.

Of the 26 states that have announced results, only three—Pennsylvania, Montana, and Vermont—posted an increased overall pass rate. Illinois held steady with a pass rate of 43%. However, the overall pass rates dropped in the remaining 22 states, half of which saw double-digit declines.

Texas and Florida saw their overall pass rate decline by five percentage points. Just 39% of Florida’s February bar examinees passed, while 45% of test takers in Texas passed. California is the only large bar exam jurisdiction that has not yet announced results.

The National Conference of Bar Examiners hinted at pass rate declines last month when it reported that the national average score on the Multistate Bar Exam decreased 1.5 points to 131.1 from the previous year. It attributed that decline to an increase in repeat test takers and the pandemic’s negative impact on learning. It noted that the year-over-year average MBE score decline was even steeper for February’s first-time examinees. Many of those test takers were in their crucial first year of law school when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and forced classes online. The bulk of the subjects tested on the bar exam are taught in that first year.

Put your legal job search in the hands of experts – sign up for LawCrossing today.

February bar exam pass rates are typically lower than their July counterparts because it draws a higher percentage of people who have already taken the test at least once and failed. However, this year’s results are looking particularly grim. New Mexico saw the biggest decline thus far, with its overall pass rate dropping 26 percentage points from 70% last year to 44% this year. Nebraska’s pass rate fell 20 percentage points to 41%, while Kansas’ declined 17 percentage points to 51%.

The drop in bar exam pass rates is alarming for law students who have invested significant time and resources in their legal education. Passing the bar exam is a crucial step in becoming a licensed attorney and practicing law. With the recent decline in pass rates, many students are left wondering what the future holds for their legal careers.

The pandemic has undoubtedly played a significant role in the drop in pass rates. The sudden shift to online learning has disrupted the traditional law school experience, making it challenging for students to prepare adequately for the bar exam. Additionally, many students have had to deal with added stress and anxiety due to the pandemic’s overall impact on daily life.

In response to the declining pass rates, some states are considering changes to the bar exam. For example, California recently announced that it will explore the possibility of a provisional licensure program that would allow graduates to practice law under the supervision of a licensed attorney without passing the bar exam. This program would provide graduates with valuable practical experience while allowing them to continue to study for the bar exam.

Overall, the recent drop in bar exam pass rates highlights the need for continued support and resources for law students. As the legal profession continues to evolve, adapting and providing students with the tools and resources they need to succeed is essential.

The post Bar Exam Pass Rates Plunge in New York, Florida, Texas, and Other States first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

Big Tech groups NetChoice and the Computer & Communications & Industry Association (CCIA) challenged the Florida and Texas laws, representing companies like Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Twitter, and Yahoo. The Florida law aimed to make it illegal for big social media sites to ban politicians, but a federal judge blocked it. It was later upheld by the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit, which stated that the law probably violates the First Amendment. The Texas law prohibited social media companies from moderating content based on a user’s viewpoint and was initially blocked by a federal judge but was later stayed by the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The split between the two circuits has increased the likelihood that the Supreme Court will rule on the First Amendment questions raised by these cases. In May 2022, the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to vacate the 5th Circuit ruling that revived the Texas law. But the 5th Circuit appeals court, which had previously restored the social media law in a one-sentence order, later sided with Texas again in a lengthier ruling. The ruling stated, “Today, we reject the idea that corporations have a freewheeling First Amendment right to censor what people say.”

Florida urged the Supreme Court to rule and stated that their law “attempts to prevent social-media companies from abusing their enormous power to censor speech.” Big Tech lobby groups, acknowledging the circuit split, stated that the Supreme Court should settle the matter. CCIA President Matt Schruers said in December, “This case, involving a key Constitutional issue and split appellate court decisions, calls for Supreme Court oversight.”

Schruers also argued that the Texas social media law would “pave the way for an Internet overrun with bad actors and tie the hands of businesses trying to protect users.” The social media laws in Texas and Florida have created a lot of controversies and sparked debates on the limits of free speech and the role of social media companies in moderating content. The Supreme Court’s request for the Biden administration’s views is a significant step towards resolving this issue.

It is yet to be seen how the Biden administration will weigh in on the matter, but their input will play a crucial role in the Supreme Court’s decision-making process. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take on these cases and the outcome of the cases will have far-reaching consequences for the social media industry, the First Amendment, and the limits of free speech online. The world is watching closely to see how the US Supreme Court will handle this sensitive and complex issue.

REFERENCES:

Supreme Court seeks Biden admin input on Texas and Florida social media laws

The post Supreme Court requests the Biden administration’s opinion on social media laws in Texas and Florida first appeared on JDJournal Blog.

On Tuesday, a judge for the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida struck down a portion of a Florida immigration law as unconstitutional and declared the measures within to be racially motivated.

According to a 110-page ruling by Judge Beth Bloom, sanctuary policies are banned by local governments and local law enforcement must work with federal immigration authorities. According to Bloom, these portions had discriminatory motives and it had not been demonstrated that the purposes of these portions were to reduce crime. The “totality of the relevant facts present significant evidence, both direct and circumstantial, of the Legislature’s discriminatory motives in enacting SB 168,” Bloom wrote.

“The court finds that plaintiffs have proven by a preponderance of the evidence that SB 168 has discriminatory or disparate effects on racial and ethnic minorities, and these discriminatory effects were both foreseeable and known to the Legislature at the time of SB 168’s enactment.”

Bloom also cited numerous communications between Floridians for Immigration Enforcement, a group opposed to immigration, and the office of state Senator Joe Gruter. Senate Bill 168 was sponsored by Gruter. Bloom declared that “allowing anti-immigrant hate groups that overtly promote xenophobic, nationalist, racist ideologies to be intimately involved in a bill’s legislative process is a significant departure from procedural norms.” “On many occasions during the 2019 legislative session, [Floridians for immigration Enforcement’s] racial animus and discriminatory intent were made apparent to Senator Gruters and his staff but were ignored.” “This involvement strongly suggests that the Legislature enacted SB 168 to promote and ratify the racist views of these advocacy groups.”

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said the state will appeal Bloom’s ruling, stating that DeSantis’ office “disagree[s] with the ruling of the Obama judge and [they] expect to win on appeal.”

The post Federal Judge Strikes Down A Racist Florida Immigration Law first appeared on JDJournal Blog.