This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

participatory / Appellate Practice

Evolving First and Second Amendments


This week our guests address developments in First and Second Amendment jurisprudence that relate closely to recent California case law.

Paul Levy, from Public Citizen, contends that the First District Court of Appeal should have, in last week's ruling ZL Technologies v. Doe, endorsed a stricter standard applied to defamation plaintiffs seeking the identities of anonymous online posters on review sites. There, the 1DCA approved a test requiring plaintiffs make out a prima facie case of defamation, but didn't go as far as the prevailing majority rule, which involves a balancing of equities, and requires plaintiffs to show why such a balancing favors them.

David Kopel then will address the consolidated cases of Wrenn v. District of Columbia and Matthew Grace and Pink Pistols v. District of Columbia, which were decided by a split D.C. Circuit court this week, and in which the panel struck down a regulation requiring D.C. gun owners to show they had a special need to carry their firearms in public. The ruling conflicts, at least arguably, with the 9th Circuit's Peruta decision, which affirming the propriety of California's 'good cause' requirement gun owners must meet to be allow to get a concealed carry permit. The disharmony in the opinions could potentially compel the U.S. Supreme Court to address the matter in the near future.


Related Tests for Appellate practice

participatory/Appellate Practice

Sugar Wars: A New Hope

Feb. 16, 2018

Can required warning labels on soda advertisements pass First Amendment muster? An en banc 9th Circuit will reconsider the question, after striking such a San Francisco ordinance last year. Our guests Ted Mermin (Public Good Law Center), Ben Winig (ChangeLab Solutions) and Bob Corn-Revere (Davis Wright Tremaine) offer opposing viewpoints.

participatory/Appellate Practice

DACA and the Limits of Reliance

Feb. 9, 2018

Professor Zachary Price (UC Hastings College of the Law) discusses why courts should be wary of overstating the reliance interests that arise from federal non-enforcement regimes, and says that - whatever one's views on the underlying policy - separation of powers concerns recommend reversal of the Northern District's DACA injunction.

participatory/Appellate Practice

An 'Unsettling' Reversal?

Feb. 2, 2018

What does the 9th Circuit's unwinding of a multi-state class action settlement against Hyundai augur for future nationwide suits, or for already concluded claims like the ND CA's $15B Volkswagen settlement? Andrew Trask (McGuire Woods; Class Action Countermeasures) discusses.

general/Appellate Practice

When the 9th Circuit turns to the California Supreme Court

Aug. 25, 2017
By Peder K. Batalden, Felix Shafir

Recent cases suggests that the 9th Circuit might be applying a less stringent standard for when it feels obliged to certify a question about California law to the state high court

participatory/Appellate Practice

Arcane Clauses Employed

Jul. 21, 2017
By Zachary Clopton, Sophia Lakin, Theresa Lee

Guests discuss two lesser-known pieces of federal law gaining prominence in recent suits against the current administration; Professor Zachary Clopton (Cornell Law) addresses the threshold inquiry of whether Emoluments Clause questions are justiciable, and Sophia Lakin and Theresa Lee (ACLU) discuss their Federal Advisory Committee Act claims just filed against President Trump's Committee on Election Integrity

participatory/Appellate Practice

PAGA prevails; Takings doctrine gets trickier

Jul. 14, 2017
By Glenn Danas, Bryan W. Wenter

A unanimous California Supreme Court deems discovery of fellow employee contact information in PAGA claims permissible, as lead counsel Glenn Danas explains (Capstone Law APC); and Bryan Wenter (Miller Starr Regalia) discusses how SCOTUS passed up a perfect opportunity this term to clarify Takings law, and instead rendered it even more complex

participatory/Appellate Practice

Podcast: High Court Highlights

Jul. 7, 2017
By Dale Carpenter, John C. Eastman, Michael Romano, Adam Winkler

How a split California Supreme Court leaves uncertainty about Prop 36 resentencing discretion, and a unanimous Texas high court queries the 'constellation of benefits' guaranteed same-sex marriages by 'Obergefell;' plus, commentary on a liberal-justice-driven pro-business SCOTUS term, and what dicta nuances foretell for next term's immigration battles