Up Next At High Court: ISP Liability & State Subpoena Suits

By Editorial Team

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to begin its December oral argument session, focusing on crucial legal issues such as internet service providers' liability for customers' infringing activities and the requirement for subjects of state subpoenas to challenge them in state court before federal court claims. Here's a breakdown of the upcoming week's oral arguments:

Internet Provider Liability

On Monday, the Supreme Court will deliberate on whether internet service providers can be held accountable for not disconnecting customers engaged in online infringing activities. This case stems from Cox Communications Inc.'s appeal to overturn a Fourth Circuit decision that found the company liable for copyright infringement by failing to terminate accounts associated with music piracy. Cox argues that mere failure to disconnect a customer is not enough for liability and that the Copyright Act's willfulness standard was misinterpreted. The federal government and music publishers counter that providers cannot ignore knowledge of unlawful activities by customers.

Persecution Determination Appeals

Also on Monday, the justices will consider whether federal courts must defer to Board of Immigration Appeals' determinations on asylum seekers facing persecution. The case involves a family from El Salvador challenging the BIA's decision that prior threats and actions they faced did not amount to persecution. The family argues that courts should decide what constitutes persecution for consistent application of the law, while the government contends that asylum eligibility is a factual matter best left to immigration authorities.

State Subpoena Challenges

On Tuesday, the high court will tackle the issue of whether subjects of state subpoenas must first challenge them in state court before federal claims. First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc. seeks to reverse a Third Circuit ruling that dismissed its First Amendment challenge to a New Jersey subpoena. The nonprofit argues that requiring state court challenges first creates a legal dilemma, while the federal government supports its right to file a federal pre-enforcement challenge under Section 1983.

Prospective Constitutional Challenges

Wednesday's arguments will focus on whether a previously convicted defendant can file a civil rights suit seeking relief from potential future convictions. Gabriel Olivier challenges a Mississippi ordinance and seeks injunctive relief from future charges. The Fifth Circuit dismissed his lawsuit under Heck v. Humphrey, but Olivier argues that his suit only seeks to prevent future convictions and does not challenge past ones.

These cases highlight the diverse legal issues facing the Supreme Court in the upcoming week, with implications for internet providers, asylum seekers, state subpoena subjects, and previously convicted individuals seeking prospective relief.