Judge Carter

Subscribe to Judge Carter via RSS

In an opinion Tuesday, Judge Carter issued an injunction against New York’s newly-enacted online hate speech law (see our prior coverage here).

The law would require social media platforms to develop policies for addressing, and responding to user complaints about, “hateful conduct.”  Judge Carter found that, in doing so, the law impermissibly compelled the challengers — Rumble and other “pro-free speech” online platforms — to engage in speech with which they disagreed:Continue Reading Judge Carter Enjoins New York’s New Online Hate Speech Law on First Amendment Grounds

Judge Carter will hold a preliminary injunction hearing next week in a case challenging, on First Amendment grounds, a new New York law (N.Y. Gen. Bus. L. § 394-ccc) that requires social media platforms to develop policies for addressing, and for responding to user complaints about, “hateful conduct.”

The challengers are operators of online platforms who argue that they should not be forced to police what the state vaguely defines as “hateful” conduct. Merely having to separately define what is “hateful” conduct, and provide special treatment to users who complain about conduct meeting that definition, amounts to an endorsement of the State’s views, according to the challengers:Continue Reading Judge Carter to Hold Hearing Next Week on Whether to Enjoin New York’s New Online Hate Speech Law

On Wednesday, Judge Carter granted Major League Baseball’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of four Minor League Baseball teams alleging that MLB violated the Sherman Act by orchestrating an agreement among its clubs to eliminate 40 minor league teams from affiliation with major league clubs. As discussed in a previous post, Plaintiffs argued the Supreme Court had signaled its willingness to reconsider MLB’s exemption from antitrust scrutiny in NCAA v. Alston, 141 S. Ct. 2141 (2021).
Continue Reading Judge Carter: MLB’s Antitrust Exemption “Shields” MLB from Minor League Baseball Teams’ Sherman Act Suit

Two complaints filed this week presented putative class action claims on behalf of former campaign field organizers hired by former New York City mayor and presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg.  The first complaint claims that the staffers were promised employment through the November 2020 presidential election (even if Bloomberg dropped out of the race), but were then terminated shortly after the March 4, 2020 “Super Tuesday” primaries.

The second complaint describes the situation as follows:
Continue Reading Bloomberg 2020 Campaign Staffers Seek Promised Compensation in New Complaints

In two opinions yesterday (here and here), Judges Furman and Carter concluded that Due Process requires timely, individual bond hearings, with the Government bearing the burden to show a risk of flight, for those awaiting removal hearings.

In the case before Judge Furman, the detainee has been held for 21 months with no hearing.  In a previous opinion (covered here), Judge Furman concluded that, given the “liberty interests” at stake, it was appropriate for the Government to bear the burden of proof.

While the Board of Immigration Appeals has a policy of putting the burden on the detainee, Judge Carter’s decision yesterday agreed with Judge Furman that the policy was inconsistent with Due Process:
Continue Reading Judges Furman and Carter Grant Habeas Petitions Requiring Individualized Bond Hearings for Detaining Awaiting Removal Hearings

In papers filed yesterday, music mogul Jay Z (Shawn Carter) moved by order to show cause to block a court ordered deposition.  In the underlying suit, the plaintiff claims to be owed compensation for having created the logo for Jay Z’s record label, Roc-A-Fella. Jay Z argues that, despite the court having earlier ordered the deposition for this week, discovery has since confirmed that he would have no relevant knowledge, and that the deposition would be purely for harassment:
Continue Reading Jay Z Moves to Block Court-Ordered Deposition in Suit Over Roc-A-Fella Logo