Netchoice: Reject Late Intervention in Texas Social Media Appeal
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals should deny a late-filed motion to intervene in Netchoice v. Paxton, said Netchoice in an opposition filing Monday. The motion was filed earlier this month by pro se intervenor Leonid Goldstein, who argues…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
that Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s case doesn’t represent Goldstein and that the court should issue its mandate upholding Texas’s social media law. The mandate has been stayed pending Netchoice petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari in the case, but Goldstein said the mandate should be issued urgently to prevent social media platforms from suppressing “life saving medical information, including effective treatments for COVID-19. Most such treatments are based on ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine.” The motion also says the platforms are state actors that suppress speech and that Netchoice didn’t have standing to bring the case. Intervenor filings on appeals are commonly held to a high standard that Goldstein hasn’t met, Netchoice said Monday. Goldstein isn’t a proper party to the litigation, raises “meritless” arguments, and could have sought to intervene earlier in the case and didn’t do so, Netchoice said. Goldstein’s motion “does not provide any reason -- let alone an ‘imperative’ one -- to intervene and disrupt the status quo while orderly appellate review of HB20’s constitutionality continues at the U.S. Supreme Court,” said Netchoice.