Connect with us

National

11th Circuit: Big Tech not liable for role in 2016 Pulse nightclub shooting

Three-judge panel says act not ‘international terrorism’ under law

Published

on

A federal appeals court in Atlanta has upheld a decision finding social media companies aren’t liable in the 2016 Pulse nightclub mass shooting for giving the shooter access to ISIS propaganda found to have inspired the attack.

In a 31-page decision issued on Wednesday, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals found the trio of Big Tech companies named in the case — Twitter, Facebook and Google — can’t be sued for their role in the shooting despite arguments they illegally aided and abetted the shooter under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

“We are deeply saddened by the deaths and injuries caused by Mr. Mateen’s rampage, but we agree with the district court that the plaintiffs failed to make out a plausible claim that the Pulse massacre was an act of ‘international terrorism’ as that term is defined in the ATA,” the decision says. “And without such an act of ‘international terrorism,’ the social media companies—no matter what we may think of their alleged conduct—cannot be liable for aiding and abetting under the ATA.”

The panel consisted of U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan, an Obama appointee; U.S. Circuit Judge Adalberto Jordan, a Trump appointee; and U.S. Circuit Judge Julie Carnes, another Obama appointee. Jordan wrote the decision on behalf of the judges.

The mass shooting led to the deaths of 49 patrons and injured 53 others, mainly Latino because of the Latino theme of the gay nightclub that night, and at the time was the deadliness mass shooting in the U.S. history. (A shooting Las Vegas the following year claimed 60 lives and surpassed fatalities at the Pulse nightclub.)

The shooter, Omar Mateen, had declared allegiance to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, also known as ISIS and a designated foreign terrorist organization, which later claimed responsibility. Upon review after the attack, Mateen was found to have used Facebook to write posts and make searches about ISIS — and was even found to have been searching for ISIS content as he was perpetuating the assault.

The survivors and estates of the victims making up the 62 plaintiffs in the case argued the social media companies were liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which make criminal aiding and abetting in a terrorist attack.

But, as the 11th Circuit points out, ISIS despite claiming responsibility for the attack and was never found to have engaged in planning the massacre, or was even aware of his plans, therefore not liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act. Instead, the court finds Mateen was “self-radicalized,” making a distinction between his attack and an act of international terrorism as defined under the law

“Mr. Mateen was self-radicalized while living in Florida and committed mass murder there,” the decision says. “A case involving a foreign terrorist who is radicalized overseas, plans his attack there, and then travels to the United States (or elsewhere) to commit an act of mass destruction may well fit the § 2332(1)(C) bill. … But this case, given the allegations in the complaint, is not close to that hypothetical.”

The plaintiffs had also sought damages from the Big Tech companies under Florida state law for negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful death.. The 11th Circuit, however, also rejected that argument on the basis they failed to adequately brief proximate the argument and therefore abandoned the challenge.

The 11th Circuit upholds a decision from a federal district court in Florida throwing out the case. Another court, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, made a similar ruling last year in a separate case, finding social media companies weren’t liable for the San Bernardino, California shooting in 2015.

Attorneys for the plaintiff victims and survivors didn’t immediately respond Friday to the Washington Blade’s request to comment on whether or not they would seek review of the decision, either by “en ban” consideration of the full court or a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme Court. Representatives for social media companies also didn’t immediately respond to the Blade’s request to comment.

Advertisement
FUND LGBTQ JOURNALISM
SIGN UP FOR E-BLAST

State Department

Rubio mum on Hungary’s Pride ban

Lawmakers on April 30 urged secretary of state to condemn anti-LGBTQ bill, constitutional amendment

Published

on

Secretary of State Marco Rubio during his confirmation hearing on Jan. 15, 2025. (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

More than 20 members of Congress have urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio to publicly condemn a Hungarian law that bans Pride events.

California Congressman Mark Takano, a Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Equality Caucus, and U.S. Rep. Bill Keating (D-Mass.), who is the ranking member on the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s Europe Subcommittee, spearheaded the letter that lawmakers sent to Rubio on April 30.

Hungarian lawmakers in March passed a bill that bans Pride events and allow authorities to use facial recognition technology to identify those who participate in them. MPs last month amended the Hungarian constitution to ban public LGBTQ events.

“As a NATO ally which hosts U.S. service members, we expect the Hungarian government to abide by certain values which underpin the historic U.S.-Hungary bilateral relationship,” reads the letter. “Unfortunately, this new legislation and constitutional amendment disproportionately and arbitrarily target sexual and gender minorities.”

Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s government over the last decade has moved to curtail LGBTQ and intersex rights in Hungary.

A law that bans legal recognition of transgender and intersex people took effect in 2020. Hungarian MPs that year also effectively banned same-sex couples from adopting children and defined marriage in the constitution as between a man and a woman.

An anti-LGBTQ propaganda law took effect in 2021. The European Commission sued Hungary, which is a member of the European Union, over it.

MPs in 2023 approved the “snitch on your gay neighbor” bill that would have allowed Hungarians to anonymously report same-sex couples who are raising children. The Budapest Metropolitan Government Office in 2023 fined Lira Konyv, the country’s second-largest bookstore chain, 12 million forints ($33,733.67), for selling copies of British author Alice Oseman’s “Heartstopper.”

Former U.S. Ambassador to Hungary David Pressman, who is gay, participated in the Budapest Pride march in 2024 and 2023. Pressman was also a vocal critic of Hungary’s anti-LGBTQ crackdown.

“Along with years of democratic backsliding in Hungary, it flies in the face of those values and the passage of this legislation deserves quick and decisive criticism and action in response by the Department of State,” reads the letter, referring to the Pride ban and constitutional amendment against public LGBTQ events. “Therefore, we strongly urge you to publicly condemn this legislation and constitutional change which targets the LGBTQ community and undermines the rights of Hungarians to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.”

U.S. Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jim Costa (D-Calif.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Ami Bera (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) signed the letter alongside Takano and Keating.

A State Department spokesperson on Wednesday declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Federal Government

HRC memo details threats to LGBTQ community in Trump budget

‘It’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives’

Published

on

President Donald Trump (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

A memo issued Monday by the Human Rights Campaign details threats to LGBTQ people from the “skinny” budget proposal issued by President Donald Trump on May 2.

HRC estimates the total cost of “funding cuts, program eliminations, and policy changes” impacting the community will exceed approximately $2.6 billion.

Matthew Rose, the organization’s senior public policy advocate, said in a statement that “This budget is more than cuts on a page—it’s a direct attack on LGBTQ+ lives.”

“Trump is taking away life-saving healthcare, support for LGBTQ-owned businesses, protections against hate crimes, and even housing help for people living with HIV,” he said. “Stripping away more than $2 billion in support sends one clear message: we don’t matter. But we’ve fought back before, and we’ll do it again—we’re not going anywhere.”

Proposed rollbacks or changes at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services will target the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program, other programs related to STI prevention, viral hepatitis, and HIV, initiatives housed under the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, and research by the National Institutes of Health and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Other agencies whose work on behalf of LGBTQ populations would be jeopardized or eliminated under Trump’s budget include the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Small Business Administration, and the U.S. Department of Education.

Continue Reading

U.S. Supreme Court

Supreme Court allows Trump admin to enforce trans military ban

Litigation challenging the policy continues in the 9th Circuit

Published

on

The Supreme Court as composed June 30, 2022 to present. Front row, left to right: Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., and Associate Justice Elena Kagan. Back row, left to right: Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett, Associate Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, Associate Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, and Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. (Photo Credit: Fred Schilling, The Supreme Court of the U.S.)

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump-Vance administration to enforce a ban on transgender personnel serving in the U.S. Armed Forces pending the outcome of litigation challenging the policy.

The brief order staying a March 27 preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington notes the dissents from liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order requiring Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to effectuate a ban against transgender individuals, going further than efforts under his first administration — which did not target those currently serving.

The DoD’s Feb. 26 ban argued that “the medical, surgical, and mental health constraints on individuals who have a current diagnosis or history of, or exhibit symptoms with, gender dysphoria are incompatible with the high mental and physical standards necessary for military service.” 

The case challenging the Pentagon’s policy is currently on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The lead plaintiff is U.S. Navy Commander Emily Shilling, who is joined in the litigation by other current transgender members of the armed forces, one transgender person who would like to join, and a nonprofit whose members either are transgender troops or would like to be.

Lambda Legal and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, both representing the plaintiffs, issued a statement Tuesday in response to the Supreme Court’s decision:

“Today’s Supreme Court ruling is a devastating blow to transgender servicemembers who have demonstrated their capabilities and commitment to our nation’s defense.

“By allowing this discriminatory ban to take effect while our challenge continues, the Court has temporarily sanctioned a policy that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with prejudice.

“Transgender individuals meet the same standards and demonstrate the same values as all who serve. We remain steadfast in our belief that this ban violates constitutional guarantees of equal protection and will ultimately be struck down.”

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer noted that courts must show “substantial deference” to DoD decision making on military issues.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the military ban to go into effect is devastating for the thousands of qualified transgender servicemembers who have met the standards and are serving honorably, putting their lives on the line for their country every single day,” said GLAD Law Senior Director of Transgender and Queer Rights Jennifer Levi. “Today’s decision only adds to the chaos and destruction caused by this administration. It’s not the end of the case, but the havoc it will wreak is devastating and irreparable. History will confirm the weight of the injustice done today.”

“The Court has upended the lives of thousands of servicemembers without even the decency of explaining why,” said NCLR Legal Director Shannon Minter. “As a result of this decision, reached without benefit of full briefing or argument, brave troops who have dedicated their lives to the service of our country will be targeted and forced into harsh administrative separation process usually reserved for misconduct. They have proven themselves time and time again and met the same standards as every other soldier, deploying in critical positions around the globe. This is a deeply sad day for our country.”

Levi and Minter are the lead attorneys in the first two transgender military ban cases to be heard in federal court, Talbott v. Trump and Ireland v. Hegseth.

U.S. Rep. Mark Takano (D-Calif.) issued a statement on behalf of the Congressional Equality Caucus, where he serves as chair.

“By lifting the lower court’s preliminary injunction and allowing Trump to enforce his trans troop ban as litigation continues, the Supreme Court is causing real harm to brave Americans who simply want to serve their nation in uniform.

“The difference between Donald Trump, a draft dodger, and the countless brave Americans serving their country who just happen to be trans couldn’t be starker. Let me be clear: Trump’s ban isn’t going to make our country safer—it will needlessly create gaps in critical chains of military command and actively undermine our national security.

“The Supreme Court was absolutely wrong to allow this ban to take effect. I hope that lower courts move swiftly so this ban can ultimately be struck down.”

SPARTA Pride also issued a statement:

“The Roberts Court’s decision staying the preliminary injunction will allow the Trump purge of transgender service members from the military to proceed.

“Transgender Americans have served openly, honorably, and effectively in the U.S. Armed Forces for nearly a decade. Thousands of transgender troops are currently serving, and are fully qualified for the positions in which they serve.

“Every court up to now has found that this order is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the Roberts Court – without hearing any evidence or argument – decided to allow it to go forward. So while the case continues to be argued, thousands of trans troops will be purged from the Armed Forces.

“They will lose their jobs. They will lose their commands, their promotions, their training, pay and benefits, and time. Their units will lose key players; the mission will be disrupted. This is the very definition of irreparable harm.”

Imara Jones, CEO of TransLash Media, issued the following statement:

“The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold Trump’s ban on transgender soldiers in the military, even as the judicial process works its way through the overall question of service,  signals that open discrimination against trans people is fair game across American society.

“It will allow the Trump Administration to further advance its larger goal of  pushing trans people from mainstream society by discharging transgender military members who are currently serving their country, even at a time when the military has struggled recently  to meet its recruiting goals.

“But even more than this, all of my reporting tells me that this is a further slide down the mountain towards authoritarianism. The hard truth is that governments with authoritarian ambitions have to  separate citizens between who is worthy of protection and who’s not. Trans people are clearly in the later category. And this separation justifies the authoritarian quest  for more and more power. This  appears to be what we are witnessing here and targeting trans people in the military is  just a means to an end.”

Continue Reading

Popular