| Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | == General standing == | | == General standing == |
| | *Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) | | *Clapper v. Amnesty Int'l USA, 568 U.S. 398 (2013) |
| | + | *''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992) |
| | == General procedure == | | == General procedure == |
| | *''Ashcroft v. Iqbal'', 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (“plausibility” standard for pleadings “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully”) | | *''Ashcroft v. Iqbal'', 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (“plausibility” standard for pleadings “asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully”) |
| Line 10: |
Line 11: |
| | *''[[Children’s Health Def. v. Facebook]]'', 546 F. Supp. 3d 909, 926, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“the phrase ‘vaccine misinformation’ is a general one that could encompass many different types of speech and information about vaccines,” and thus the “general statements” by Congressman Schiff and the CDC concerning “vaccine misinformation” did not “mandate[] the particular actions that Facebook took with regard to [the plaintiff’s] Facebook page”) | | *''[[Children’s Health Def. v. Facebook]]'', 546 F. Supp. 3d 909, 926, 930 (N.D. Cal. 2021) (“the phrase ‘vaccine misinformation’ is a general one that could encompass many different types of speech and information about vaccines,” and thus the “general statements” by Congressman Schiff and the CDC concerning “vaccine misinformation” did not “mandate[] the particular actions that Facebook took with regard to [the plaintiff’s] Facebook page”) |
| | *''Hart v. Facebook'', No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) (content moderation measures by Twitter and Facebook had “no causal relationship with the Federal Defendants’ actions, and no court order as to the Federal Defendants could redress it”) | | *''Hart v. Facebook'', No. 22-cv-00737, 2022 WL 1427507 (N.D. Cal. May 5, 2022) (content moderation measures by Twitter and Facebook had “no causal relationship with the Federal Defendants’ actions, and no court order as to the Federal Defendants could redress it”) |
| | + | *''Huber v. Biden'', No. 21-cv-06580, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (dismissing a claim of conspiracy between President Biden and Twitter to violate [[First Amendment]] rights) |
| | + | *''Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner'', 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (the First Amendment “safeguard[s] the rights of free speech” by placing “limitations on state action, not on action by” private actors) |
| | + | *''Lugar v. Edmondson Oil'', 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (the requirement of [[state action]] “avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed”) |
| | == Other == | | == Other == |
| | *Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) | | *Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984) |
| Line 25: |
Line 29: |
| | *''Honig v. Doe'', 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988) (limits federal adjudication to “actual, ongoing controversies”) | | *''Honig v. Doe'', 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988) (limits federal adjudication to “actual, ongoing controversies”) |
| | *Hooks v. Landmark Indus., 797 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2015) | | *Hooks v. Landmark Indus., 797 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2015) |
| − | *''Huber v. Biden'', No. 21-cv-06580, 2022 WL 827248 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 18, 2022) (dismissing a claim of conspiracy between President Biden and Twitter to violate [[First Amendment]] rights)
| |
| | *In re S. Recycling, 982 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2020) | | *In re S. Recycling, 982 F.3d 374 (5th Cir. 2020) |
| | *Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm., 995 F.3d 993 (D.C. Cir. 2021) | | *Info. Ctr. v. Drone Advisory Comm., 995 F.3d 993 (D.C. Cir. 2021) |
| | *Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) | | *Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345 (1974) |
| | *Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, 572 U.S. 118 (2014) | | *Lexmark Int'l v. Static Control Components, 572 U.S. 118 (2014) |
| − | *''Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner'', 407 U.S. 551 (1972) (the First Amendment “safeguard[s] the rights of free speech” by placing “limitations on state action, not on action by” private actors)
| |
| − | *''Lugar v. Edmondson Oil'', 457 U.S. 922 (1982) (the requirement of [[state action]] “avoids imposing on the State, its agencies or officials, responsibility for conduct for which they cannot fairly be blamed”)
| |
| − | *''[[Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife]]'', 504 U.S. 555 (1992)
| |
| | *Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1988) | | *Manax v. McNamara, 842 F.2d 808 (5th Cir. 1988) |
| | *McCormack v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988) | | *McCormack v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 845 F.2d 1338 (5th Cir. 1988) |