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
Davison v. Loudoun County Bd. of Supervisors, 1:16CV932 (JCC/IDD), 2017 WL 3158389 (E.D. Va. July 25, 2017). The District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a declaratory judgment holding that an elected...more