The U.S. Supreme Court denied cert to plaintiff-appellant Lucine Trim in her Telephone Consumer Protection Act dispute with Reward Zone, said the court’s order list Tuesday. Trim’s petition (docket 23-495) had sought to reverse the 9th Circuit’s affirmation of the district court’s dismissal of her complaint. She had argued that after the 2021 SCOTUS opinion in Facebook v. Duguid, a “plethora” of courts have attempted to interpret the definition of an automatic telephone dialing system (ATDS) under the TCPA in the context of Facebook’s holding (see 2311140002). She further argued that her petition gave SCOTUS the perfect opportunity to clean up the “mess” of varying ATDS interpretations that resulted after Facebook.

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed the Pasadena, Texas, Dec. 26 cert petition for the justices’ Feb. 16 conference, said a text-only docket notice Wednesday (docket 23-698). Pasadena seeks the reversal of the 5th U.S. Circuit Appeals Court affirmation of the district court’s judgment in Crown Castle’s favor that Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing and undergrounding requirements in the city’s design manual for the installation of small cells and support poles in its public rights of way (see 2312300001).

Online services “have a well-established First Amendment right to host, curate and share content as they see fit,” emailed Chris Marchese, director of the NetChoice Litigation Center, in response to the U.S. Supreme Court scheduling Feb. 26 oral argument in the NetChoice and Computer & Communications Industry Association tandem First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas social media content moderation laws (see 2401050031). The internet “is a vital platform for free expression, and it must remain free from government censorship,” said Marchese Friday. NetChoice is "confident" that SCOTUS will agree, he said.

The U.S. Supreme Court set Feb. 26 oral argument in NetChoice's and the Computer & Communications Industry Association's tandem First Amendment challenges to the Florida and Texas social media content moderation laws, said text-only entries Friday in dockets 22-277 and 22-555. The Constitution’s free speech right “protects the editorial discretion of websites and digital services from government intervention,” said CCIA President Matt Schruers in a statement Friday. Content moderation isn’t only “an essential trust and safety function,” it’s also “a First Amendment-protected activity,” he said. “After years of litigation, CCIA looks forward to having our constitutional challenges heard in the Supreme Court.” NetChoice didn't immediately comment, nor did the Republican attorneys general of Florida and Texas.

Crown Castle doesn’t intend to file a response to the Dec. 26 Pasadena, Texas, cert petition unless the U.S. Supreme Court requests one, said a waiver signed Tuesday (docket 23-698) by Crown Castle’s counsel, Russell Post of Beck Redden. Pasadena’s petition seeks the reversal of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the district court’s judgment that Section 253 of the Telecommunications Act preempts the spacing and undergrounding requirements in the Padadena’s design manual for Crown Castle’s installation of small cells and support poles in the city’s public rights of way (see 2312300001).

Proponents of AI technology “tout its potential to increase access to justice, particularly for litigants with limited resources,” U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in his annual year-end report on the state of the federal judiciary. For those who can’t afford a lawyer, “AI can help,” Roberts said in the report, released Sunday. “It drives new, highly accessible tools that provide answers to basic questions, including where to find templates and court forms, how to fill them out, and where to bring them for presentation to the judge -- all without leaving home.” But any use of AI “requires caution and humility,” Roberts added. One of AI's more "prominent" apps "made headlines" in 2023 for a "shortcoming" in which lawyers using the app submitted briefs with citations to nonexistent cases -- "always a bad idea." Rule 1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires litigants and the courts to seek the just, speedy and inexpensive resolution of cases, and many AI applications can “indisputably assist the judicial system in advancing those goals,” it said. As AI evolves, courts “will need to consider its proper uses in litigation.” In the federal courts, several judicial conference committees, including those dealing with court administration and case management, cybersecurity and the rules of practice and procedure, will be involved in that effort, it said: “I am glad that they will be.” Though Roberts predicts that human judges “will be around for a while,” he also anticipates, “with equal confidence,” that AI will "significantly" influence judicial work, especially at the trial level.

The U.S. Supreme Court distributed for the justices’ Jan. 12 conference Apple’s Sept. 28 cert petition against Epic Games, said a text-only docket notice Wednesday (docket 23-344). Apple is seeking to set aside the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals' affirmation of the district court’s injunction barring the company from enforcing its anti-steering rules against U.S. iOS app developers arising from the antitrust litigation against Epic (see 2310030002). In the absence of class certification, a federal court can’t enter an injunction “that extends to nonparties without finding that such relief is necessary to redress any injury to the individual plaintiff,” said Apple’s Dec. 22 reply brief in support of its petition. Both the district court and the 9th Circuit “disregarded this constitutional limitation” on the equitable powers of the judiciary, said Apple’s brief. The government is challenging the injunction in Murthy v. Missouri (docket 23-411) on grounds that it sweeps far beyond what’s necessary to address any cognizable First Amendment harm to the named plaintiffs, it said. Murthy establishes that the question presented by Apple’s petition “warrants review,” said the brief. SCOTUS should grant Apple's petition or, in the alternative, hold the petition in abeyance, pending the court’s disposition of the same issue in Murthy, it said. If SCOTUS vacates the injunction in Murthy on “overbreadth” grounds, then the injunction against Apple’s anti-steering rules “would fail,” it said. Apple shouldn’t be required “to comply with a sweeping, overbroad injunction while Murthy remains pending,” it said.