No. 21 - _________ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Freedom Watch, Inc. and Laura Loomer Petitioners v. Google, Inc., Facebook, Inc., Apple, Inc., and Twitter, Inc. Respondents On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI /s/ Larry Klayman Larry Klayman, Esq. Klayman Law Group, P.A 2020 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20006 (561)558-5336 [email protected] i QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit err by failing to find that the District of Columbia Human Rights Act’s prohibition on political discrimination does not require a physical location? 2. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit err by failing to find that Respondents are subject to the First Amendment to the Constitution? 3. Did the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit err by failing to find that Respondents had violated the Sherman Act? ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Petition for Writ of Certiorari ................................................................... 1 Opinions Below ......................................................................................... 1 Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 1 Constitutional Provisions Involved .......................................................... 2 Statement of the Case ............................................................................... 2 Reasons for Granting the Writ ................................................................. 7 This Case Raises Crucial Constitutional Issues That Must Be Addressed, Especially Considering the Current COVID-19 Pandemic ......................................................................................... 7 The D.C. Circuit’s Ruling on Petitioners’ First Amendment Claims Does Not Comport With this Court’s Recent Ruling in Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) ..................................... 12 The D.C. Circuit’s Rulings on Petitioners’ Antitrust Claims Are Erroneous and Do Not Consider Recent Lawsuits Brought by the United States of America Against Respondents ..................... 15 Section 1 Claims ................................................................... 16 Section 2 Claims ................................................................... 24 Conclusion ............................................................................................... 27 iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (2009) ................................................ 21 Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp, 472 U.S. 585 (1985) ........................................................................... 24, 25 Atl. Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc. v. Mesa Air Grp., Inc., 295 F. Supp. 2d 75 (D.D.C. 2003) ...................................................................................... 16 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) ................. 20, 22, 27 Carparts Distribution Ctr. v. Auto. Wholesaler's Ass'n, 37 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1994) ................................................................................... 10, 11 City of Moundridge v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 471 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 2007) ........................................................................................................ 24 Del-Orden v. Bonobos, Inc., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209251 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 20, 2017) .......................................................................................... 10 Fed. Trade Com. v. Lukens Steel Co., 454 F. Supp. 1182 (D.D.C. 1978) ...................................................... 17, 20 National Federation of the Blind v. Scribd Inc., 97 F. Supp. 3d 565 (D. Vt. 2015) ............................................................................................ 10 Packingham v. North Carolina, 137 S. Ct. 1730 (2017) ............. 12, 13, 27 Statutes District of Columbia Human Rights Act ................................. 8, 9, 11, 12 iv PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Freedom Watch, Inc. (“Freedom Watch”) and Laura Loomer (“Ms. Loomer”) (collectively “Petitioners”), by and through Larry Klayman, Esq., respectfully petition this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (“D.C. Circuit”) OPINIONS BELOW On August 5, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a per curiam order denying Petitioners’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc. App. 121. On May 27,2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a per curiam judgment affirming the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. App. 117 - 120. JURISDICTION The D. C. Circuit issued a per curiam order denying Petitioners’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc. App. 121. Pursuant to the Court’s March 19, 2020 order regarding filing deadlines due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, Petitioners ‘s Petition for Writ of Certiorari must 1 be filed within 150 days from the date of the order denying petition for rehearing, which is January 4, 2021.1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED United States Constitution, Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Petitioners brought this suit against Respondents, all of whom are major technology and social media corporations, in response to their well-documented and publicized anti-competitive pattern and practice of suppressing and censoring conservative content. The Amended Complaint sets forth in extreme detail news publications which include admissions from employees employed by Respondents that such targeted suppression and censorship was, indeed, occurring. For example, this includes admissions, inter alia, from employees of 1 The exact date is January 2, 2021, which is a Saturday. 2 Respondent Facebook that their conduct had a chilling anti-competitive effect on conservative news.” App. 008. As set forth below, Respondents’ conduct violates not only the Constitution, but also numerous federal and state statutes. Respondents’ status as large and influential technology corporations, who can pay for and employ well-funded lobbyists to do their bidding, simply cannot shield them from liability in this regard. They must be held to the same level playing field as everyone else. This Amended Complaint is centered upon Respondents’ “conspiracy to intentionally and willfully suppress politically conservative content,” App. 004, and the resulting severe damages that this conspiracy has had on Freedom Watch and Ms. Loomer, both of whom are prominent conservative organizations/figures who rely on social media platforms to “to inform the public about [their] conservative advocacy and to raise the funds through donations to further its public advocacy and mission.” App. 011. The aim of this conspiracy to use anti-competitive means to suppress politically conservative content was to “take down President Donald Trump and 3 his administration with the intent and purpose to have installed leftist government in the nation’s capital and the 50 states.” App. 017. The Amended Complaint sets forth in detail how Respondents have acted anticompetitively to suppress and censor conservative content. For instance, YouTube, which is owned and operated by its parent company, Respondent Google, demonetized the channels of the conservative Prager University and Western Journal and also targeted conservative pundit Alex Jones of InfoWars due to their conservative political viewpoints. App. 006 - 007. Furthermore, the Amended Complaint details how Google has censored conservative content via its search engine, with “an incredible 96% of Google search results for ‘Trump’ news came from liberal media outlets, using the widely accepted Sharyl Attkisson media bias chart.” App. 007. Indeed, only recently, whistleblowers and former employees revealed how Google was trying to “influence the 2020 election process against Trump.” One stated, “[t]hey have very biased people running every level of the company…. They have quite a bit of control over the political process. That's something we should really worry about. They really want 4 Trump to lose in 2020. That's their agenda."2 And, after this case was filed the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as tens of attorneys general throughout the states, sued these unbridled social media companies in a manner similar to Petitioners – who were ahead of the pro-competitive curve. The Amended Complaint thus sets forth in detail how Facebook has in concert with other social media giants anticompetitively censored and suppressed conservative content, including through the admissions of it former employees who admitted that they “routinely suppressed news stories of interest to conservative readers from [its] influential ‘trending’ news section” App. 008. In 2018, Facebook instituted an algorithm change that further suppressed conservative content. App 009. According to a study by Western Journal, “Liberal publishers have gained about 2 percent more web traffic from Facebook than they were getting prior to the algorithm changes implemented in early February. On the other hand, conservative [and thus Republican] publishers have lost an average of nearly 14 percent of their traffic from Facebook.” App 2 https://www.newsweek.com/google-engineer-anti-trump-conservative-