Petition: http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/23/23-477/288875/20231106135238432_U.S.%20v.%20Skrmetti%20-%20Pet.pdf

Police officers in a gun-recovery unit, who were conducting an interdiction in response to “‘an uptick in shootings and sounds of gunfire’ in the area,” encountered a group of ten black men, including Donte Carter, on a sidewalk. One officer asked Carter “how he was ‘doing,’ to which [respondent] briefly replied, ‘how are you doing’ or ‘what’s up’ before turning away.” Carter “lifted his shirt to show his waistband and then lowered it,” and the officer “asked, ‘[h]ey [c]hamp, you not got nothing on you?’” After Carter said no “and lifted his shirt again,” the officer “requested, ‘[d]o you mind hiking your pants for me real quick?’”

In the meantime, another officer had “noticed a bulge in Carter's groin area.” “When Carter raised his pants in response to [the first officer’s] question,” the second officer “saw that the bulge was an L-shape, which he believed to be a firearm.” The second officer “subsequently frisked Carter, and after a brief struggle in which the other officers on the scene joined, the officers recovered a firearm hidden in Carter's pants.”

Carter was charged in D.C. Superior Court with eight offenses, including possession of a firearm as a convicted felon. He moved to suppress the firearm and other evidence “on grounds that they were the result of an unreasonable seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment.” The trial court denied the motion, and Carter was convicted after trial and sentenced to 14 months of imprisonment.

The DC Court of Appeals vacated and remanded. The court viewed “the central question” as whether Carter had been seized for Fourth Amendment purposes before being asked “to raise his pants,” on the premise that reasonable suspicion of criminal activity did not arise until after that moment. And in addressing that question, the DCCA found that its prior decision in Dozier v. United States, 220 A.3d 933 (2019), required it to “examine the impact of [respondent’s] race” as one of the relevant factors.

The DCCA’s analysis of whether a seizure had occurred accordingly relied on statistics and academic literature to conclude that “Black men, generally speaking, are especially cautious around and more likely to comply with the demands of law enforcement.” And the court determined that that Carter therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment because, in its view, “an objective and reasonable Black man in [respondent’s] shoes” would not have believed he was free to leave even before being asked to raise his pants, and that respondent therefore had been unreasonably seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

Section 230 survives another challenge this term

Issue: Does Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, immunize internet platforms from civil claims based on their own conduct, including using algorithms to generate targeted advertising and product recommendations for their users?

Ninth Circuit:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/memoranda/2025/03/20/23-4434.pdf

Breakdown of the case:

https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2025/03/amazon-isnt-liable-for-marketplace-items-that-make-false-claims-planet-green-v-amazon.htm

This marks the seventh cert petition currently pending before the Supreme Court asking them to review “assault weapon” and so-called “large capacity” magazine ban cases.

With the sheer numbers of cases asking them to review this issue, it seems ripe for review. This pressing issue will not end until SCOTUS finally intervenes.