Get tomorrow's brief in your inbox
Today: Two new class actions target website tracking practices: Citigroup faces allegations of using tracking pixels to intercept visitor communications without consent, and Mazda is accused of tracking users who explicitly declined cookies. The Supreme Court may soon weigh in on Missouri's congressional redistricting fight, with Justice Kavanaugh fast-tracking briefing on an emergency application raising Elections Clause questions. Meta's multi-state child safety settlement is drawing First Amendment scrutiny from legal scholars.
Citigroup Tracking Pixel Class Action
A class action filed against Citigroup alleges the bank deployed tracking pixels on its website to intercept electronic communications of visitors without their knowledge or consent. The lawsuit raises claims under federal and state wiretapping and electronic surveillance statutes.
Mazda Accused of Tracking Users Who Declined Cookies
Plaintiff Vishal Shah filed a class action alleging Mazda Motor of America's website presented a cookie consent mechanism that allowed visitors to decline all tracking cookies, then continued monitoring their browsing activity regardless of that choice. The complaint targets the gap between Mazda's consent interface and its actual data collection behavior.
Missouri Congressional Map Dispute Reaches Supreme Court
Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to block a unanimous Missouri Supreme Court ruling that reinstated the state's 2022 congressional map. The state court held that Missouri's constitution authorizes a referendum on HB 1, the 2025 redistricting law expected to give Republicans a seventh House seat, and that the 2022 map remains in effect pending a voter referendum. Hoskins argues the ruling violates the Elections Clause by allowing 3.3% of voters to suspend a legislatively enacted map via petition. Justice Kavanaugh set a noon Monday response deadline, signaling the Court intends to act quickly.
Meta Child Safety Settlement Draws First Amendment Concerns
Meta reached a settlement with 47 state attorneys general in a child safety lawsuit. Legal scholars, including Jeff Kosseff, have characterized the settlement structure as a form of jawboning, arguing it effectively restricts First Amendment-protected activity through government pressure rather than direct regulation. Separately, the State Department's claims that its former Global Engagement Center colluded with a Stanford research consortium to suppress online speech during the 2020 election were analyzed by Renée DiResta, who found the supporting documents were already public, did not support the collusion claim, and overstated the scale of content flagging.
Supreme Court Allows White House Ballroom Construction to Proceed
The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff challenging construction of a White House ballroom likely lacked standing to sue. The decision turned on aesthetic standing doctrine but, according to legal analysts, failed to clarify the broader standard for who can bring suit based on aesthetic, cultural, or environmental harms. The ruling leaves standing doctrine in this area unsettled.
Habeas Corpus Risks in Political Speech Detention Cases
Jonathan Hafetz analyzed the constitutional risks of detaining noncitizens based on their political speech. He argued that detention in these cases constitutes a distinct constitutional injury requiring separate proceedings from standard immigration court, and warned that conflating detention and removal erodes due process protections for habeas review.