reputational-harm

6 cases — ← All topics

Case Title Lower Court Docketed Status Flags Tags Question Presented
25-789 Angela Kay Plese v. Ronald Austin, et al. Tennessee 2026-01-06 Pending civil-liability constitutional-law defamation first-amendment free-speech reputational-harm Whether the First Amendment allows a plaintiff who suffers no reputational harm to recover for defamation.
25-115 Monica Miller, et al. v. Letitia James, Individually and in Her Official Capacity as Attorney General of New York Second Circuit 2025-07-30 Denied Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) civil-rights defamation first-amendment free-speech reputational-harm standing Do Petitioners have standing to challenge the Attorney General's statements and are those statements protected by the First Amendment when they allege…
23-1135 Saline Parents, et al. v. Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General District of Columbia 2024-04-18 Denied Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2) chilling-effect domestic-terrorism first-amendment free-speech government-surveillance reputational-harm standing Standing-to-challenge-government-policy
21-802 Coral Ridge Ministries Media, Inc., dba D. James Kennedy Ministries v. Southern Poverty Law Center Eleventh Circuit 2021-11-30 Denied Amici (4)Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (14) actual-malice common-law curtis-publishing-co-v-butts defamation first-amendment free-speech public-figure reputational-harm sullivan Whether the Court should reconsider the 'actual-malice' standard in defamation cases involving public figures
19-910 K. G. S., Individually and as Guardian and Next Friend of Baby Doe, a Minor Child v. Facebook, Inc. Alabama 2020-01-22 Denied calder-effects-test calder-v-jones due-process effects-based-test fourteenth-amendment online-activity personal-jurisdiction reputational-harm virtual-contacts walden-v-fiore Whether virtual contacts can establish specific personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant under the effects-based test of Calder v. Jones
18-5194 Teofil Brank v. United States Ninth Circuit 2018-07-10 Denied Response WaivedIFP 18-usc-875d criminal-law extortion hobbs-act reputation reputational-harm rule-of-lenity scheidler-v-now statutory-interpretation Whether threats to reputational harm fall within the ambit of the Hobbs Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1951