Posted January 15, 2021 at 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 for 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. In particular, users claim that Facebook plug-ins on various websites allowed Facebook to collect URL data even when 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”. According to 18 USC § 922 (g) (1), persons convicted of crimes punishable by a term of imprisonment 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 violates the second amendment. Raymond Holloway cannot own firearms due to a felony conviction for driving under the influence. Lisa Folajtar is convicted of a criminal offense for deliberately making a material false statement in her tax returns.
In Holloway’s case, the district court ruled that 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, among other things, a non-violent offense a year. The U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that Holloway’s DUI was “serious” enough to consider him a “ruthless citizen”. In Folajtar’s case, both the District Court and 3rd Circuit rejected their argument that their nonviolent crime was not “serious” enough to be banned. Both petitions call on the Supreme Court to reverse the following rulings and clarify the standards when “allegedly lawful” bans on offenders 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 applications after discovering that they had “not shown a” right reason “under New York law to publicly carry a firearm for self-defense because [they] showed no 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 if 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, electoral, and equal treatment claims; (2) Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has usurped the primitive 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 against the unconstitutional usurpation of powers to regulate federal elections by state courts and law enforcement officials.
Confederate Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation versus Yakima County, Washington
problem: Whether the United States can change the scope of its pub takeover. 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: 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 the continued detention of the vehicle pending final foreclosure proceedings.
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 U.S. 4th and 4th appeals courts 6. Circuit held or excluded such tribunals without expressing any exclusive intent, as the US appeals courts ruled for the 2nd, 5th and 7th Circuit in the following cases.
Houston Community College System versus Wilson
problem: Whether the first change will reduce an elected body’s power 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 false claims law requires justification and evidence of an objectively false statement.
Folajtar v. Barr
problem: Whether 18 USC § 922 (g) (1), which permanently prohibits almost all offenders – including those convicted of nonviolent crimes – from owning firearms for self-defense, violates the second amendment applied to a person, those 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 their homes 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 /