Latest news with #RobertHinkle
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
U.S. judge denies Florida's request to dismiss suit over 2021 social media law
The lengthy suit over the 2021 state law punishing social media companies for deplatforming conservatives will continue, a U.S. judge ruled on May 22, 2025. (Photo by) A federal judge has denied Florida's motion to dismiss a lawsuit against a 2021 law punishing social media platforms for alleged censorship of conservatives. U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida issued an order Thursday denying the state's motions to toss the suit brought by two trade associations representing social media giants and to compel those companies to turn over information about their internal policies. The order came weeks after Hinkle held a hearing in Tallahassee in which he said he's still perplexed about what the Legislature meant to accomplish by trying to limit social media content moderation. Hinkle wrote that neither the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit nor the U.S. Supreme Court had questioned the plaintiffs' standing to sue Florida. NetChoice and co-plaintiff Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) argue that the law violates the First Amendment and is unconstitutionally vague. The two groups represent a number of the biggest social media companies, including Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, Reddit, Apple, and Pinterest. 'Once again, a judge has confirmed the importance of the First Amendment, rejecting Florida's attempts to evade review of its unconstitutional statute,' wrote Stephanie Joyce, director of CCIA's Litigation Center, in a press release Thursday. 'This law tries to force websites to speak as the state commands, which strikes at the heart of free discourse and democracy. We now move forward with demonstrating why this law must be struck down.' Hinkle is revisiting the case after the country's highest court punted it back to the Eleventh Circuit because the justices found that the appellate court had not conducted a proper analysis of the groups' First Amendment challenges, which in turn sent the case back to Hinkle. The law the Legislature passed following then-former President Donald Trump's banishment from social media platforms after the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol prohibits deplatforming any candidate for statewide political office. Additionally, SB 7072 granted the Florida Election Commission authority to fine platforms with gross revenues of more than $100 million or more than 100 million monthly users $250,000 per day for banning statewide candidates and $25,000 per day for candidates for other offices. In his order Thursday, Hinkle wrote that provisions in the law, such as one banning platforms from placing candidates' posts or posts about them in a less prominent position, would give candidates a statutory right to flood users' feeds. 'The defendants have not attempted to explain what these provisions really mean or how they would be applied. Nor have the defendants offered any theory under which a state can preclude this kind of curating without violating the First Amendment,' Hinkle wrote. Still, Hinkle, who originally issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the law, leaned toward a belief that provisions of the law are unconstitutional as applied to some of the companies rather than considering the law unconstitutional on its face. He used that reasoning to deny the state's motion to force the plaintiffs to turn over more information about specific companies. 'The plaintiffs' facial challenge to SB 7072, and perhaps even to its various provisions viewed in isolation, is likely to fail — and the disputed discovery, if allowed, would almost surely make no difference,' Hinkle wrote. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
05-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Federal judge dismisses lawsuit over medicaid oversight but allows amended complaint
A federal judge this week dismissed a lawsuit alleging the state failed to provide adequate oversight of Medicaid managed-care plans that care for people in their homes, but he gave plaintiffs three weeks to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit, filed in September on behalf of five adults with disabilities such as quadriplegia, Alzheimer's disease and debilitating genetic disorders, contends managed-care plans have not provided adequate information about decisions to reduce or deny services. Also, it contends a Florida Agency for Health Care Administration hearing process for appeals does not hold the plans accountable. But, siding with the state agency, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle's ruling said the plaintiffs lacked legal standing because none of them alleged they are not receiving services they need or are facing a reduction or denial of services. Hinkle gave the plaintiffs until April 24 to file an amended lawsuit and instructed them to 'address head-on the lack of a concrete, imminent injury to the plaintiffs themselves that is traceable to' the state health-care agency. The lawsuit alleged that notices sent to plaintiffs about benefits did not include enough information, failed to include policies or were received late. 'But none of the plaintiffs are currently facing a reduction in benefits. It is speculative that any plaintiff will face a reduction or denial of benefits in the future. It is even more speculative that the various issues they experienced in the past related to the notices will recur. Moreover, even in the past instances where the notices were allegedly insufficient, the plaintiffs for the most part ultimately succeeded in challenging the reduction or denial either before the plan or before AHCA,' Hinkle wrote in the 18-page ruling Wednesday. In addition, the judge said 'the issues with the notices are not traceable' to the state agency, which has contracts with the managed-care providers requiring that their plans comply with federal law. The plaintiffs also alleged that benefits were reduced while the review process was ongoing, which the secretary of the agency acknowledged 'is not supposed to happen,' Hinkle wrote. 'There apparently is no nonspeculative basis to believe it will happen again,' the judge wrote, adding 'there is also no reason to believe' the issue was traceable to the agency. Click here to download our free news, weather and smart TV apps. And click here to stream Channel 9 Eyewitness News live.
