JD Supra Hot Docs - Newsworthy Legal Filings From the Source

IMS Health Incorporated, et al., v. Sorrell, et al.: Brief for Amici Curiae Association of National Advertisers, CATO Institute, Coalition for Healthcare Communication, Pacific Legal Foundation & The Progress & Freedom Foundation In Support of Appellant

Cato Institute — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 15:30:13 GMT

Case Name: IMS Health Incorporated, et al., v. Sorrell, et al.
Document Name: Brief for Amici Curiae Association of National Advertisers, CATO Institute, Coalition for Healthcare Communication, Pacific Legal Foundation & The Progress & Freedom Foundation In Support of Appellant
Post Date: 07/14/2009
Filing Date: 07/14/2009
Document Summary: Vermont passed a law prohibiting the exchange of a variety of socially important information. Most notably, the law outlaws the transfer of doctors' prescription history to facilitate drug companies' one-on-one marketing — a practice known as "detailing" — because it believes detailing drives up brand-name drug sales and, in turn, health care costs. The state knew that the First Amendment prevented it from banning detailing itself, so it made the practice more difficult indirectly. Yet data collection and transfer is protected speech — think academic research, or the phone book — and government efforts to regulate this type of speech also runs afoul of the First Amendment. See, e.g., Solveig Singleton, "Privacy as Censorship: A Skeptical View of Proposals to Regulate Privacy in the Private Sector". The First Circuit had earlier upheld a similar New Hampshire law, somehow finding that the statute regulates conduct rather than speech and that, in any event, the judiciary should defer to the legislative branch's judgment. When the Supreme Court declined to review that case (which cert petition Cato supported), Cato joined Pacific Legal Foundation, the Progress & Freedom Foundation, and two trade associations on a brief asking the Second Circuit to split with its First Circuit brethren and reject this dangerous narrowing of protection for free expression. Our brief argues that the Second Circuit should strike the Vermont law for three reasons: 1) the law regulates speech, not conduct, and thus is worthy of First Amendment protection; 2) the law abridges a range of expression that is not "commercial" speech — which, by Supreme Court precedent, is not fully protected; and 3) even if the law regulates "commercial" speech, that speech merits protection under the Court's Central Hudson test.

Please see full amici brief for more information.

Contributor: Cato Institute [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency: Plaintiffs' Notice of Additional Evidence in Opposition to Government Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:00:29 GMT

Case Name: Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency
Document Name: Plaintiffs' Notice of Additional Evidence in Opposition to Government Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment
Post Date: 07/17/2009
Filing Date: 07/13/2009
Document Summary: n Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the NSA and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, Jewel v. NSA also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

In April, the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets,” and that they were immune from suit. These are essentially the same or worse arguments than those made by the Bush administration when it first set out to dismiss EFF’s case against the AT&T back in 2006. The hearing on the government's motion to dismiss Jewel is set for July 15, 2009.

This is the Plaintiffs' Notice of Additional Evidence in Opposition to Government Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and For Summary Judgment.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency: Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief From Improper Motion for Reconsideration By Individual Capacity Defendants; Request for Immediate Status Conference on July 15, 2009

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:10:20 GMT

Case Name: Jewel, et al. v. National Security Agency
Document Name: Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief From Improper Motion for Reconsideration By Individual Capacity Defendants; Request for Immediate Status Conference on July 15, 2009
Post Date: 07/17/2009
Filing Date: 07/13/2009
Document Summary: n Jewel v. NSA, EFF is suing the NSA and other government agencies on behalf of AT&T customers to stop the illegal, unconstitutional, and ongoing dragnet surveillance of their communications and communications records.

Jewel v. NSA is aimed at ending the NSA’s dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans and holding accountable the government officials who illegally authorized it. Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by former AT&T telecommunications technician Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled by the NSA. That same evidence is central to Hepting v. AT&T, a class-action lawsuit filed by EFF in 2006 to stop the telecom giant’s participation in the illegal surveillance program.

In addition to suing the government agencies involved in the domestic dragnet, Jewel v. NSA also targets the individuals responsible for creating, authorizing, and implementing the illegal program, including former President George W. Bush, former Vice President Dick Cheney, Cheney’s former chief of staff David Addington, former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, and other individuals who ordered or participated in the warrantless domestic surveillance.

In April, the Obama administration moved to dismiss Jewel, claiming that litigation over the wiretapping program would require the government to disclose privileged "state secrets,” and that they were immune from suit. These are essentially the same or worse arguments than those made by the Bush administration when it first set out to dismiss EFF’s case against the AT&T back in 2006. The hearing on the government's motion to dismiss Jewel is set for July 15, 2009.

This is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Administrative Relief From Improper Motion for Reconsideration By Individual Capacity Defendants; Request for Immediate Status Conference on July 15, 2009.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

In Re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation (Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, et al., v. Obama): Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 09:16:37 GMT

Case Name: In Re NSA Telecommunications Records Litigation (Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, et al., v. Obama)
Document Name: Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
Post Date: 07/17/2009
Filing Date: 07/09/2009
Document Summary: This case alleges targeting of the leaders of an Islamic charity and their lawyers by the admitted, targeted warrantless wiretapping by the NSA. It is based on a document that was accidentally disclosed to the plaintiffs by the government that the plaintiffs allege demonstrates that they were subjected to warrantless wiretapping (the exact facts are held under tight seal).

This is the Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Stormans, Inc. v Selecky: Stormans, Inc. v Selecky

Laura Wilson — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:24:38 GMT

Case Name: Stormans, Inc. v Selecky
Document Name: Stormans, Inc. v Selecky
Post Date: 07/09/2009
Filing Date: 07/08/2009
Document Summary: 9th Circuit ruling that pharmacists may not refuse to provide Plan B to women due to religious beliefs.

Contributor: Laura Wilson [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

National Rifle Association of America, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al./McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al.: Brief of The Institute for Justice and CATO Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners

Cato Institute — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 08:37:57 GMT

Case Name: National Rifle Association of America, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al./McDonald, et al., v. City of Chicago, et al.
Document Name: Brief of The Institute for Justice and CATO Institute as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners
Post Date: 07/09/2009
Filing Date: 07/06/2009
Document Summary: Last summer, in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed what the Framers, most scholars, and a substantial majority of Americans believe: that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Heller led to lawsuits raising the question of whether the Fourteenth Amendment protects that right against infringement by state and local governments. In a consolidated case involving a challenge to Chicago's handgun ban, the Seventh Circuit answered that question in the negative, finding itself foreclosed by 19th-century Supreme Court decisions. Cato, joining with the Institute for Justice, filed an amicus brief supporting requests for the Supreme Court to review that line of precedent. We argue that the Court's initial encounters with the Fourteenth Amendment yielded a profound misreading of its Privileges or Immunities Clause that has haunted the Court's rights jurisprudence ever since. The Chicago petitions present the Court with an unprecedented opportunity to reach back to the very source of that misreading, the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases, and there are three compelling reasons why the Court should do so: 1) the only disagreement among circuit courts in the wake of Heller is whether they are bound by the Court's decisions refusing to apply the right to keep and bear arms against the states; 2) case law and scholarly commentary together form a kind of constitutional conversation, which has arrived at a clear consensus about Slaughter-House that merits the Court's consideration; and 3) the Constitution is not merely a blueprint for government, but a charter of liberty. Accurately placing the Fourteenth Amendment within that tradition would be a virtue in itself and would sharpen the national dialogue regarding the source, nature, and limits of our rights.

This is the Amici Brief of CATO and The Institute For Justice.

Contributor: Cato Institute [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

Last Will of Michael Joseph Jackson: Last Will of Michael Joseph Jackson

Tamera Bennett — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 10:27:40 GMT

Case Name: Last Will of Michael Joseph Jackson
Document Name: Last Will of Michael Joseph Jackson
Post Date: 07/01/2009
Filing Date: 07/01/2009
Document Summary: The Last Will of Michael Joseph Jackson dated July 7, 2002.

Contributor: Tamera Bennett [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

United States of America v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers: Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and Center for Democracy and Technology in Support of AT&T Mobility's Motion for Summary Judgment on Ringtones

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:56:01 GMT

Case Name: United States of America v. American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers
Document Name: Brief of Amici Curiae Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge, and Center for Democracy and Technology in Support of AT&T Mobility's Motion for Summary Judgment on Ringtones
Post Date: 07/02/2009
Filing Date: 07/01/2009
Document Summary: EFF has urged a federal court to reject bogus copyright claims in a ringtone royalty battle that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardize consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation.

Millions of Americans have bought musical ringtones for their mobile phones, often clips from a favorite popular song. Mobile phone carriers already pay royalties to song owners for the right to sell these snippets to their customers. But as part of a ploy to squeeze more money out of the mobile phone companies, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) has told a federal court that each time a phone rings in a public place, the phone user has violated copyright law. Therefore, ASCAP argues, phone carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what they claim is cell phone users' copyright infringement. In an amicus brief, EFF points out that copyright law does not reach public performances "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage" -- clearly the case with cell phone ringtones.

This is EFF's Amici Brief.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

US v. ASCAP: Memorandum of Law of Amicus Curiae The Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada in Support of ASCAP's Opposition to Verizon's Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Ringtones

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:18:36 GMT

Case Name: US v. ASCAP
Document Name: Memorandum of Law of Amicus Curiae The Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada in Support of ASCAP's Opposition to Verizon's Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Ringtones
Post Date: 07/03/2009
Filing Date: 07/01/2009
Document Summary: EFF has urged a federal court to reject bogus copyright claims in a ringtone royalty battle that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardize consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation.

Millions of Americans have bought musical ringtones for their mobile phones, often clips from a favorite popular song. Mobile phone carriers already pay royalties to song owners for the right to sell these snippets to their customers. But as part of a ploy to squeeze more money out of the mobile phone companies, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) has told a federal court that each time a phone rings in a public place, the phone user has violated copyright law. Therefore, ASCAP argues, phone carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what they claim is cell phone users' copyright infringement. In an amicus brief, EFF points out that copyright law does not reach public performances "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage" -- clearly the case with cell phone ringtones.

This is the memorandum of law of amicus curiae The Society of Composers, Authors, and Music Publishers of Canada in support of ASCAP's Opposition to Verizon's Motion for Summary Judgment Concerning Ringtones.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]

US v. ASCAP: Brief Amici Curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association, The Digital Media Association, The United States Telecom Association, The Internet Commerce Coalition, and The Consumer Electronics Association

Electronic Frontier Foundation — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 15:22:52 GMT

Case Name: US v. ASCAP
Document Name: Brief Amici Curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association, The Digital Media Association, The United States Telecom Association, The Internet Commerce Coalition, and The Consumer Electronics Association
Post Date: 07/03/2009
Filing Date: 07/01/2009
Document Summary: EFF has urged a federal court to reject bogus copyright claims in a ringtone royalty battle that could raise costs for consumers, jeopardize consumer rights, and curtail new technological innovation.

Millions of Americans have bought musical ringtones for their mobile phones, often clips from a favorite popular song. Mobile phone carriers already pay royalties to song owners for the right to sell these snippets to their customers. But as part of a ploy to squeeze more money out of the mobile phone companies, the American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP) has told a federal court that each time a phone rings in a public place, the phone user has violated copyright law. Therefore, ASCAP argues, phone carriers must pay additional royalties or face legal liability for contributing to what they claim is cell phone users' copyright infringement. In an amicus brief, EFF points out that copyright law does not reach public performances "without any purpose of direct or indirect commercial advantage" -- clearly the case with cell phone ringtones.

This is the Brief Amici Curiae of CTIA - The Wireless Association, The Digital Media Association, The United States Telecom Association, The Internet Commerce Coalition, and The Consumer Electronics Association.

Contributor: Electronic Frontier Foundation [Full Profile | Docs Posted]