Episode 116 -- Alstom Executive Convicted of FCPA and Money Laundering Offenses
Opinion Release Papers-07-01-Travel for Foreign Officials
[WEBINAR] Who Does What? Defining Proper Roles for Staff and Elected Officials
FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report-Episode 109-interview with Bill Michael on the SEC FCPA enforcement action against FLIR employees
The U.S. Supreme Court stepped back from the brink in a term that could have reshaped First Amendment law for the internet age. ...more
The Supreme Court of the United States issued two decisions today: Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411: This case involves challenges to federal government communications with social media companies related to content...more
On June 26, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Murthy v. Missouri, No. 23-411, holding that neither the individual plaintiffs nor the state plaintiffs established standing to seek an injunction prohibiting governmental...more
Public officials should proceed with caution when using social media. The United States Supreme Court, in a recent unanimous decision, articulated a two-part test to determine when a public official’s social media account...more
Social media has given public officials the ability to share information quickly and easily with their constituents and followers, even on their own personal Facebook and other social media accounts. When using a personal...more
James Freed, like millions of other Americans, maintained a private Facebook page where he posted updates about his personal life. After he became the City Manager for Port Huron, Michigan, Freed would occasionally post...more
In my prior article, I discussed Lindke v. Freed, in which a social media user brought action under § 1983 against a city manager, alleging that the manager violated the user’s First Amendment rights by deleting his comments...more
In its recent opinions in Linke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier, the U.S. Supreme Court considered if and when public officials violate the First Amendment rights of members of the public by blocking them from the...more
In Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court found that a civil rights violation might have occurred when the City Manager of Port Huron, Michigan deleted and blocked comments on his personal Facebook page. This depended on...more
On March 15, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued a much-awaited decision on two cases that now create guardrails on when government officials can and cannot block private citizens from social media accounts....more
In its recent opinion in Lindke v. Freed, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed when public officials may be held liable for violating the First Amendment for silencing critics on social media. The Court held that a public...more
On Friday, March 15, a unanimous Supreme Court decided two companion cases (Lindke v. Freed and O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier) that resolved a split in the Circuits concerning whether public officials can be held liable under...more
Everyone on social media at some point has to figure out how they’re going to use it. Will their account be public? Will they post information about family? Current events? Religion? Politics? If the account’s not open to...more
The U.S. Supreme Court has established guidelines for determining when a public official’s use of a private social media platform such as Facebook, X or Nextdoor constitutes public speech that cannot be censored. State and...more
On March 15, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Lindke v. Freed and a per curiam opinion in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier addressing when a public official may prevent a person from commenting on the public...more
In Lindke v. Reed, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued an opinion holding that social media activity can constitute state action for purposes of a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court held that “[f]or...more
In April 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to a pair of cases dealing with the intersection of free speech, social media, and governmental liability. Both cases deal with § 1983 actions against governmental...more
While generative AI seems to be getting all of the attention these days, the medical field is another area where AI is gaining traction. Axios reports about a partnership between Elsevier and OpenEvidence that’s helping...more
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Vidal v. Elster this week, which asks whether refusing to register a trademark that criticizes President Trump violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It seems the...more
Two facially unrelated decisions, issued last week by the First Circuit and the Supreme Court, continued a recent theme of courts pushing back against potential prosecutorial overreach in the application of fraud...more
In a pair of criminal cases , the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a one-two punch to the Justice Department’s prosecution of corruption cases based on violations of the criminal wire fraud statute. In Ciminelli v. U.S., and...more
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of various federal criminal fraud statutes. For example, in McDonnell v. United States, the Court overturned the honest services fraud conviction of the former...more
In an unanimous decision in Cochise Consultancy, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Hunt, the U.S. Supreme Court settled a circuit split and gave qui tam relators more time to file actions alleging violations of the False Claims...more
Last month, in a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the analysis of the applicable statute of limitations under the False Claims Act (FCA) as set forth in 31 U.S.C. § 3731 is the same regardless of whether...more
In a unanimous decision issued on May 13, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to resolve lingering confusion over the statute of limitations under the False Claims Act (FCA) for qui tam suits in which the federal government...more