Supreme Court Sides
With Biden Administration , in Social Media Case.
Attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, and other right-wing individuals, .
Attorneys general in Louisiana and Missouri, and other right-wing individuals, .
previously brought a lawsuit against the government, alleging that it had influenced what social media companies allow on their sites.
In particular, plaintiffs in the case of Murthy v. Missouri questioned whether the Biden administration violated free speech protections amid the pandemic when social networks were instructed to remove COVID misinformation.
In particular, plaintiffs in the case of Murthy v. Missouri questioned whether the Biden administration violated free speech protections amid the pandemic when social networks were instructed to remove COVID misinformation.
On July 4, 2023, Louisiana Judge Terry Doughty
agreed with the plaintiffs and restricted members of the Biden administration from interacting with social media companies in an attempt to moderate their content.
The U.S. Supreme Court struck
down the lower court's ruling by a vote of
6-3 on June 26, 'The Guardian' reports. .
The plaintiffs, without any
concrete link between their injuries
and the defendantsā conduct, , Justice Amy Coney Barrett, via majority opinion.
... ask us to conduct a review of the
years-long communications between dozens
of federal officials, across different agencies,
with different social-media platforms,
about different topics, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, via majority opinion.
This courtās standing doctrine
prevents us from āexercis[ing such]
general legal oversightā of the
other branches of government, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, via majority opinion.
Ultimately, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote that the lower court "glossed over complexities in the evidence" and
"also erred by treating the defendants, plaintiffs
and platforms each as a unified whole.".
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas
and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas
and Neil Gorsuch dissented.
For months, high-ranking government officials
placed unrelenting pressure on Facebook to
suppress Americansā free speech, Justice Samuel Alito, via dissenting opinion.
The Court, however, shirks that duty and thus
permits the successful campaign of coercion in
this case to stand as an attractive model for
future officials who want to control what
the people say, hear, and think, Justice Samuel Alito, via dissenting opinion
Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories Duration: 01:31Published
Supreme Court Rejects , Challenge to Tax Law on, Foreign Investments.
On June 20, the Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign
corporate investments enacted by a Republican-controlled
Congress under former President Donald Trump.
On June 20, the Supreme Court upheld a tax on foreign
corporate investments enacted by a Republican-controlled
Congress under former President Donald Trump.
NBC reports that the case had attracted scrutiny when
conservative Justice Samuel Alito refused to recuse
himself despite ties with one of the challenging lawyers.
The case revolved around whether an individual can be
forced to pay taxes on investments in foreign-owned
companies regardless of if they were a source of income.
The case revolved around whether an individual can be
forced to pay taxes on investments in foreign-owned
companies regardless of if they were a source of income.
According to the 16th Amendment
of the Constitution, Congress has the
power to "collect taxes on incomes.".
In the case, Charles and Kathleen Moore claim they were
unfairly taxed on their $40,000 investment in an
India-based company called KisanKraft Machine Tools. .
While the company made a profit, the Moores
claim that they received no dividends and that
the money was reinvested in the business.
As a result, the Moores did not pay taxes between
2006 and 2017 on what the U.S. government later
defined as income from their investment. .
Due to a provision that was part of a major tax law
enacted by former President Donald Trump in 2017,
the Moores paid $15,000 in additional taxes.
They later sought a refund for that payment,
arguing that they had been unlawfully taxed
based on an increase in the value of a capital
investment not qualifying as income.
The couple's challenge was rejected
by the Supreme Court 7-2
Credit: Wibbitz Top Stories Duration: 01:30Published
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito is being criticized for flying an āAppeal to Heavenā flag at his beach houseābut what does the flag represent? Veuerās Matt Hoffman has the details.
Upside-down US flag prompts recusal calls for Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito
![Supreme Court Sides With Biden Administration in Social Media Case [Video]](https://video.newsserve.net/300/v/20240626/1379711156-Supreme-Court-Sides-With-Biden-Administration-in-Social.jpg)
![Supreme Court Rejects Challenge to Tax Law on Foreign Investments [Video]](https://video.newsserve.net/300/v/20240620/1379117630-Supreme-Court-Rejects-Challenge-to-Tax-Law-on.jpg)
![Justice Alito DUNKS On Far Left Senators! [Video]](https://video.newsserve.net/300/v/20240604/1717507241-Justice-Alito-DUNKS-On-Far-Left-Senators!.jpg)
![Justice Alito Targeted by Radical Left! [Video]](https://video.newsserve.net/300/v/20240530/1717075058-Justice-Alito-Targeted-by-Radical-Left!.jpg)
![Hereās What the āAppeal to Heavenā Flag Means [Video]](https://video.newsserve.net/300/v/20240524/1376360816-Here-What-the-āAppeal-to-Heavenā-Flag.jpg)
