Lawfare No Bull

On Feb. 23, the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in a case concerning the Justice Department’s efforts to access Representative Scott Perry’s phone. This is part of the department’s investigation into efforts by former President Trump and his allies to overturn the 2020 election. The government is trying to access the phone amid congressional probes that claim Perry was an important ally to Trump in the weeks leading up to the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. The arguments abruptly ended as the court switched into sealed arguments.

On Feb. 22, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Twitter v. Taamneh, a case that deals with the liability of platforms that host or promote terrorist material. This case addresses the scope of the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, arguing that Twitter aided and abetted ISIS by hosting and promoting its content on its platform.

On Feb. 21, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Gonzalez v. Google, a case challenging the scope of protections provided by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Gonzalez complaint argues that YouTube’s recommendation algorithm provides assistance to ISIS by amplifying its content as well as allowing it to recruit new members by sharing materials on the platform.

On Dec. 19, the House Select Committee to Investigate the Jan. 6 Attack on the Capitol held its final public meeting to summarize its findings from its investigation. In the meeting, the committee also voted on criminal referrals and the release of its final report. The executive summary of the report was publicly released following the meeting.

On Dec. 7, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Moore v. Harper, addressing the issue of the North Carolina state legislature’s heavily gerrymandered congressional districts. The state legislature argues that the state Supreme Court lacks the legal authority to review this issue, as that authority is given to the legislature itself, according to the Constitution’s elections clause.

On Dec. 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in Blassingame v. Trump, regarding whether former President Donald Trump should receive absolute civil immunity for allegations related to his Jan. 6, 2021 “Save America” rally and his conduct surrounding the subsequent attack on the Capitol. Trump appealed the D.C. district court’s February ruling on this issue, which did not grant him immunity.