A U.S. appeals court on Jan. 6 appeared inclined to allow lawsuits alleging major social media platforms were designed to be addictive for young users to proceed, as several judges questioned whether it was too early to consider whether the companies are immune from such claims. Facebook and Instagram parent Meta Platforms and other social media companies urged a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reverse rulings forcing them to face more than 2,200 lawsuits. The companies, which also include Snapchat and parent Snap Inc., YouTube and parent Alphabet Inc. and TikTok and parent ByteDance, argue that a federal law known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 shields them from liability stemming from what is posted on their sites, including allegations they failed to warn the public about the addictive nature of their platforms. Filed by states, municipalities, school districts and individuals, the lawsuits allege that social media has contributed to a wave of depression, anxiety and body image issues in children, creating a mental health emergency among American youth in recent years. The cases, which have been centralized before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, seek damages, penalties and restitution from the companies. The companies are appealing Rogers’ orders in 2023 and 2024 that largely allowed the litigation to move forward. An attorney for Meta, which led the companies' appeal, faced skeptical questions from all three of the judges on the panel, who questioned whether it was appropriate for the appeals court to weigh in at this early stage in the case, as Meta was requesting. Most appeals come after a court has made a conclusive, final decision in a case, the judges said. Meta attorney James Rouhandeh responded that Rogers' orders were conclusive because they force Meta to defend against the litigation. "It would be an enormous thing to require defendants to have to defend these types of suits," especially when they are precluded by Section 230, Rouhandeh said. Circuit Judge Jacqueline Nguyen, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, said Rogers had indicated in her orders that she was open to considering the companies' argument that they are shielded from liability later in the litigation. All three of the judges also questioned Meta's argument that Section 230 provides the companies with immunity from all lawsuits. The plaintiffs argued that Section 230 doesn't cover the claims in the lawsuits because it only protects against liability related to content published by third parties on the websites. "Here our complaints are about features that they can remedy without looking at any third party content at all," Shannon Stevenson, the solicitor general of Colorado who is representing the states that have sued, told the panel. Meta's argument that Section 230 shields the company from all the plaintiffs' claims isn't borne out in the statute's language, Nguyen told Rouhandeh. "When Congress wants to give immunity from suit, it knows how to say that," Nguyen said. Circuit Judge Mark Bennett, an appointee of President Donald Trump, and U.S. District Judge Kiyo Matsumoto of the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation, who was appointed by Republican former President George W. Bush, were also on the panel. The case is People of the State of California v. Meta Platforms Inc, 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-7032.

A U.S. appeals court on Jan. 5 agreed to expedite an appeal of a court loss by U.S. business and research groups that are challenging President Donald Trump's $100,000 fee on new H-1B visas for highly skilled foreign workers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation's largest business lobbying group, had argued that a speedy review was needed in order to preserve employers' rights ahead of the once-annual H-1B visa lottery scheduled to begin in March. The Trump administration did not oppose the quicker timeline, and the court agreed to a plan that will allow oral arguments to proceed in February. The Chamber of Commerce and White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The annual process is the only opportunity for most U.S. employers that wish to hire skilled workers through the H-1B program to apply for the visas, according to the Chamber’s court filings. "Those employers' ability to participate in the H-1B program this year therefore hinges on the outcome of this appeal; without relief by March, it will be too late,” the Chamber said in court papers filed on Jan. 2. The Chamber is appealing a December 24 decision by a U.S. district judge, who concluded that the new fee fell within the president's broad powers to regulate immigration. Before Trump imposed the new $100,000 fee in September, H-1B visas had typically come with about $2,000 to $5,000 in fees depending on various factors. The H-1B program allows U.S. employers to hire foreign workers with training in specialty fields. Technology companies in particular rely heavily on workers who receive H1-B visas. The program offers 65,000 visas annually, with another 20,000 visas for workers with advanced degrees, approved for three to six years. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has separately issued a new regulation that replaces the random selection of the lottery with a new allotment system that prioritizes visas for higher-skilled and higher-paid foreign workers. The rule is scheduled to go into effect on February 27. The Trump administration has said that the H1-B program has been abused by U.S. employers who seek to replace American workers with lower-paid foreign workers. The Chamber said in its lawsuit that the new fee would force businesses that rely on the H-1B program to choose between dramatically increasing their labor costs or hiring fewer highly-skilled foreign workers. A group of Democratic-led U.S. states and a coalition of employers, nonprofits and religious organizations have also filed lawsuits challenging the fee. The case is Chamber of Commerce v. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, No. 25-5473.

Officials are expecting a large crowd to fill the Nueces County Courthouse, when a jury trial is set to begin for a former officer charged in the failed response to the Uvalde school shooting in 2022. Adrian Gonzalez, who was employed as a police officer with the Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District when the deadly mass shooting happened May 24, 2022, at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, faces 29 counts of abandoning or endangering a child, according to court documents. The case was transferred from Uvalde to Corpus Christi earlier this year. Jury selection for the trial starts Jan. 5, with about 450 potential jurors reporting to the site at 8 a.m. that day, said Nueces County Sheriff J.C. Hooper. Jury selection might take a couple of days, he said. Since finding out about two months ago that the trial would be held in Nueces County, local law enforcement have been coordinating with the Texas Department of Public Safety, the Texas Rangers and the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Office to ensure safe access and security. Nueces County will provide all of the security measures during the trial, with bailiffs present in the courtroom. An additional security checkpoint area will be set up in the courthouse lobby so that people can move into the court tower more quickly, the sheriff said. “A significant, very collaborative operations plan is in place, and I’m confident that we can provide a safe and secure and orderly venue to get this trial completed,” Hooper said. “The prediction is the trial will take three weeks, but you just never know.” Members of the Uvalde County Sheriff’s Office, the Uvalde County District Attorney’s Office, along with Nueces County officials and the Texas Rangers are expected to attend the trial. The trial will be open to the public and will be adjudicated by visiting judge Sid Harle, whom Gov. Greg Abbott reappointed in September as the presiding judge of the 4th Administrative Judicial Region of Texas. The 4th Administrative Judicial Region did not respond to a request for information about the case transfer to Nueces County. Both the sheriff’s office and the Nueces County judge’s office have fielded phone calls from national media sources, the sheriff said, and local, state and national media could attend the trial. County officials aren’t certain how many reporters will be there, but they will plan accordingly, he said. A designated parking area near the courthouse will be available for media to park, he said. Court TV will livestream the trial, he said, so that people who are not in the courtroom will be able to watch it. Video and audio will also be streamed to a secondary viewing area at the courthouse, he said. He said that moving the case to Nueces County increased the likelihood that a jury could be selected from a larger pool of potential jurors and also provided more spacious accommodation and viewing areas at the courthouse for the prosecution and defense teams and witnesses during the trial. “We’re just guessing it’s going to be very well attended, because we know there are family members of the victims coming from Uvalde,” he said. “There will be a prosecution team, a defense team and over 50 witnesses. “Our goal is to see that it goes off in a safe, secure, orderly environment, and I believe we are prepared to provide that,” Hooper said.