Our team combines unparalleled trial experience, creative thinking, and persistent attention to the facts and the law to develop successful constitutional challenges and victories in constitutional challenges.
We have earned remarkable results in challenging federal, state, and local laws and regulations that are detrimental to client businesses and interests—including laws that inhibit speech, land use ordinances that threaten to impede property development, and California’s prohibition on same-sex marriage.
Companies, media organizations, nonprofits, and individuals rely on our team for representation in a wide array of constitutional matters. We regularly challenge government restrictions on free speech, advocate for plaintiffs who claim injury from the content of speech, and defend clients against First Amendment and anti-SLAPP challenges. We are also at the forefront of First Amendment issues implicating internet speech, including those connected to allegedly defamatory posts on social media and other internet sites.
Our lawyers combine far-reaching trial experience, outstanding analytical skills, and strong written and oral advocacy to obtain the earliest possible victories for our clients while minimizing cost. Most of our attorneys have served as clerks to federal judges, which gives us an edge in building persuasive legal arguments that produce positive outcomes, both at trial and on appeal.
Experience
On behalf of Amazon and Twitch, secured a first-of-its-kind decision in New York state, with the New York appellate court dismissing lawsuits alleging our clients and other social media companies were liable for the fatal mass shooting in Buffalo, New York. The plaintiffs—victims of the shooting and their family members—contend the shooter was radicalized by extremist and racist content on social media and that his ability to livestream on Twitch motivated him to commit the crimes. The appellate court agreed with Twitch and the other social media companies, ruling that Section 230 affords them immunity, the First Amendment protects their conduct, and noted further that Twitch could not be liable for addiction. (See “Social media companies not liable for 2022 Buffalo mass shooting, New York court rules,” Reuters; “Social Media Cos. Score Toss Of 2022 Mass Shooting Suit,” Law360; “In Buffalo Shooting Massacre, Appellate Judges Dismiss Claims Against Social Media Companies,” Law.com).
Representing the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in a lawsuit challenging the decision by federal agencies to dismantle the National Center for Atmospheric Research. (See “Lawsuit challenges Trump admin’s plan to dismantle country’s largest climate research lab,” NBC News).
In a widely publicized suit, we obtained a preliminary injunction against California’s AB 1687, which prohibited the publication of age-related information on IMDb. The firm challenged the law on First Amendment, Commerce Clause, and preemption grounds. In accepting the firm’s arguments, the court held, “It is difficult to imagine how AB 1687 could not violate the First Amendment.”
Successfully struck down Measure R, a voter-enacted Malibu land use ordinance that The New York Times called “one of the most stringent anti-development measures ever attempted in the country.” Challenging the ordinance on behalf of two Malibu property owners, we prepared a brief demonstrating a nuanced understanding of constitutional, land use, and elections law, and then prevailed after a bench trial on a stipulated record. The firm continues to represent the property owners on appeal.
Obtained preliminary and permanent injunctive relief on behalf of university employees who were the victims of violence and threats of violence from individual extremists and groups of extremists. We successfully overcame First Amendment and anti-SLAPP challenges and prevailed on summary judgment in state court. In addition, we defended the outcome and injunction in collateral federal litigation, obtaining a ruling that was successfully upheld on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Successfully challenged Illinois’ wire-tapping statute. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the statute was unconstitutionally overbroad and violated the First Amendment.
Obtained anti-SLAPP victory for Internet Movie Database (IMDb.com). (See “IMDb Beats Lawyer’s Suit Over Alleged Film Date Error,” The Hollywood Reporter).
Challenged California’s voter initiative to prohibit same-sex marriage. Over the course of several years, our clients argued that Proposition 8 violated the California Constitution insofar as the proposition resulted in dramatic changes in the protections afforded to marginalized Californians and thus could not be implemented simply by voter referendum. We also challenged Proposition 8 in federal court, arguing on behalf of women’s rights groups that it unconstitutionally discriminated on the basis of gender and sex stereotyping.