Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Rogan O'Handley v. Shirley N. Weber, California Secretary of State, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 22-15071 · judgment March 10, 2023
Before the decision, about 2.4× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a Ninth Circuit decision below, a circuit split argued in the petition, and a dissent in the court below (flagged in the petition), and down for a state or local-government respondent.
Questions presented
In 2018, California created the Office of Election Cybersecurity. State law empowers the Office “[t]o monitor and counteract false or misleading information regarding the electoral process that is published online,” and to “assess” and “mitigate” it alongside other California officials. Cal. Elec. Code §10.5. The Office makes no secret about the fact that it directs social media companies to remove online speech, including California-based Twitter. Exercising that power, the Office told Twitter that Petitioner’s tweet—political speech—was misinformation. And for the first time, Twitter punished him. Within months, he was suspended altogether. The courts below rejected Petitioner’s First Amendment claims against state officials. They concluded that the First Amendment did not preclude the State from singling out Petitioner’s Twitter account for censorship. Nor could it, according to the Ninth Circuit, because that would thwart the State’s right to engage in its own government speech. The questions presented are:
-
Whether the complaint plausibly alleged that state officials acted under color of state law in violation of the First Amendment when a state agency, which exists to police online speech, singled out Petitioner’s disfavored political speech for Twitter to punish and Twitter complied.
-
Whether the government speech doctrine empowers state officials to tell Twitter to remove political speech that the State deems false or misleading.
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Taylor Ann Rausch Meehan
Consovoy McCarthy PLLC
For respondent
Ari Benjamin Asher Holtzblatt
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Amicus briefs
5 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Jul 02 2024Petition DENIED.
- Jun 28 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 7/1/2024.
- Oct 25 2023Letter dated October 23, 2023, from counsel for petitioner received. (Distributed)
- Oct 11 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2023.
- Oct 03 2023Reply of petitioner Rogan O'Handley filed.
- Sep 25 2023Brief of respondent Shirley N. Weber, California Secretary of State in opposition filed.
- Sep 25 2023Brief of respondent X Corp. (fka Twitter Inc.) in opposition filed.
- Aug 25 2023Brief amici curiae of America's Future, et al. filed.
- Aug 25 2023Brief amicus curiae of Alliance Defending Freedom filed.
- Aug 25 2023Brief amici curiae of Montana, et al. filed.
- Aug 17 2023The motions to extend the time to file responses are granted and the time is extended to and including September 25, 2023, for all respondents.
- Aug 16 2023Motion of Shirley N. Weber, California Secretary of State to extend the time to file a response from August 25, 2023 to September 25, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Aug 16 2023Motion of X Corp. (fka Twitter Inc.) to extend the time to file a response from August 25, 2023 to September 25, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Jul 26 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/26/2023.
- Jul 26 2023Response Requested. (Due August 25, 2023)
- Jul 12 2023Brief amici curiae of Justin Hart and Liberty Justice Center filed.
- Jul 12 2023Brief amicus curiae of The Buckeye Institute filed.
- Jun 28 2023Waiver of right of respondent X Corp. (fka Twitter Inc.) to respond filed.
- Jun 27 2023Waiver of right of respondent Shirley N. Weber, California Secretary of State to respond filed.
- Jun 08 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 12, 2023)