U.S. Supreme Court opinions: May 18 Thursday, May 18, 2023

The United States Supreme Court has issued six new opinions.

In Gonzalez v. Google LLC the court held that the Ninth Circuit’s judgment—which held that plaintiffs’ complaint was barred by §230 of the Communications Decency Act—is vacated, and the case is remanded for reconsideration in light of the Court’s decision in Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1333_6j7a.pdf

in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi the court held that Amgen’s two patent applications—purporting to cover all antibodies that bind and block the PCSK9 receptor involved in LDL cholesterol metabolism—fail to satisfy the Patent Act’s enablement clause, see 35 U. S. C. §112(a).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-757_k5g1.pdf

In Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc. v. Goldsmith the court held that the “purpose and character” of the Andy Warhol Foundation’s particular commercial use of Lynn Goldsmith’s photograph—17 U. S. C. §107(1)—does not favor AWF’s “fair use” defense to copyright infringement.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-869_87ad.pdf

In Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh the court held that the plaintiffs’ allegations that the social-media-company defendants aided and abetted ISIS in its terrorist attack on a nightclub in Instanbul, Turkey fail to state a claim under 18 U. S. C. §2333(d)(2).

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1496_d18f.pdf

In Ohio Adjutant General’s Dept. v. FLRA the court held that the Federal Labor Relations Authority had jurisdiction over this labor dispute because a State National Guard acts as a federal agency for purposes of the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U. S. C. §7101 et seq., when it hires and supervises dual-status technicians serving in their civilian role.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1454_6kgm.pdf

In Polselli v. IRS the court held that when the Internal Revenue Service issues a summons pursuant to 26 U. S. C. §7602(a) in aid of collecting a tax liability, the exception to the notice requirement in §7609(c)(2)(D)(i) applies even if the delinquent taxpayer has no legal interest in the accounts or records summoned.

Read the court's opinion at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-1599_l5gm.pdf