Top Five US Supreme Court Cases to Watch in the New Year

The US Supreme Court heard some blockbusters early in the term on affirmative action and how much power state officials have to set rules for federal elections, making it a hard act to follow in the new year.

But the second half of the term won’t be a total sleeper with cases to come on the breadth of liability shields for social media companies and the fate of President Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness plan.

“There are still a handful of big issues coming down the pike,” said Roman Martinez, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP and member of the firm’s Supreme Court and Appellate Practice.

Here’s a look at some of the most notable cases either on deck or waiting in the wings.

Social Media

The court will hear a case Feb. 21 challenging the scope of laws designed to shield social media companies from liability for content that’s posted by third parties.

It’s a case that Martinez said has the potential to upend the way the internet’s legal regime has worked for decades.

In Gonzalez v. Google, the justices will consider the scope of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act and whether that protection remains when a platform targets certain content to a user based on past activities on the site.

At the center of the dispute is the family of an American woman killed in a 2015 Islamic State (ISIS) attack in Paris. The family argues Alphabet Inc.'s Google should be liable for allowing the terror group to use YouTube to help carry out its attacks. A similar case, known as Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh, that centers on an ISIS attack in Istanbul will be argued Feb. 22.

The justices could also agree to hear Moody v. NetChoice LLC, a case pending that questions the constitutionality of a Florida law making it illegal for social media companies to suspend politicians’ accounts. The law also forces companies to make disclosures about how and when they censor speech online.

Tech trade groups, whose members include Twitter Inc. and Amazon.com Inc., argue the law violates the First Amendment right private companies have to exercise editorial discretion over what speech to disseminate.

A similar challenge to a Texas social media law is also pending before the justices in NetChoice v. Paxton.

Student Loans

President Joe Biden’s plan to wipe out over $400 billion in student loan debt for some 40 million Americans is also on tap for argument Feb. 28.

The justices denied the federal government’s request for an emergency order reinstating the policy in December and sent the matter to its merits docket to be fully briefed and argued.

It later agreed to hear a separate case from two borrowers who are ineligible for debt relief. They argue they weren’t given the opportunity to urge Biden in comments to expand the program’s eligibility.

The cases are Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown.

Attorney Client Privilege

In re Grand Jury, the justices will look at a conflict that commonly arises with corporate counsel—namely, whether the attorney client privilege sweeps broadly enough to encompass business communications.

At issue are “dual purpose” communications, in which lawyers act as both legal and business advisers. The court will consider whether such communications can be withheld from opposing counsel under the attorney-client privilege, or whether they, too, must be turned over. Arguments are scheduled for Jan. 9.

Patent Eligibility

The justices haven’t yet agreed to hear Tropp v. Travel Sentry, but the issues raised seem inevitable for review.

It involves the line between patentable and unpatenable applications under Section 101 of federal patent laws—a line that courts and patent examiners have struggled to draw since the court’s 2014 ruling setting out a two-part test.

The justices asked the US solicitor general whether they should resolve the dispute in Tropp, after declining to hear a similar case the government had urged them to take. The move signals the justices were perhaps searching for a clean vehicle to decide the dispute once and for all. An argument date hasn’t yet been set.

Dog Toys

While not a blockbuster, the court’s decision to review a trademark dispute over a whiskey-shaped dog toy has captured the attention of canine and whiskey lovers alike.

Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. argues VIP Products LLC infringed on the trademark for its Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle in making the “Bad Spaniels” parody dog toy. VIP Products counters the Ninth Circuit correctly ruled the toy is an expressive work protected by the First Amendment.

The justices are now being asked in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC whether a humorous use of another’s trademark on a commercial product is subject to heightened First Amendment protection from claims of trademark infringement. Arguments haven’t yet been scheduled.