吃瓜直播

This case is about whether a city government鈥檚 selective and discriminatory refusal to permit a family-friendly drag event in a public park violated the event organizers鈥� First Amendment right to free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment鈥檚 guarantee of equal protection, and related provisions contained in the Utah Constitution.

In 2023, the Kentucky General Assembly passed a new law that targets only those Kentuckians who 鈥渃hallenge the constitutionality鈥� of a state statute or similar law and seek relief against a state defendant in state court.鈥疷nder S.B. 126, any party to a covered lawsuit will have a unilateral right to require transfer of the case from the circuit court where it was properly filed to a randomly chosen circuit anywhere else in the state, potentially hundreds of miles away and at great cost to Kentuckians who stand up for their rights. The 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky, the Kentucky Equal Justice Center, and the Kentucky Resources Council鈥攚ith representation from attorneys at the 吃瓜直播 of Kentucky and the 吃瓜直播鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative鈥攆iled an amicus brief in the Kentucky Supreme Court, asking the Court to hold that the law violates the Kentucky Constitution. In October, the Kentucky Supreme Court invalidated S.B. 126, ruling in favor of the 吃瓜直播.

The Supreme Court will decide whether social media and other platforms are liable for their users鈥� posts if they make recommendations or suggestions about what content to access, or whether Section 230 affords them immunity from such claims.

This case is about what a plaintiff must demonstrate to sustain allegations that police arrested them in retaliation for First Amendment鈥損rotected expression. While retaliatory arrest plaintiffs generally must show that police lacked probable cause to arrest them, the petitioner in this case correctly argues that a recognized exception to that rule, for cases where police typically exercise discretion not to arrest people, must be robust to protect the free speech of government critics.