WOODHULL FREEDOM FOUNDATION v. U.S.

No. 18-5298.

948 F.3d 363 (2020)

WOODHULL FREEDOM FOUNDATION, et al., Appellants v. UNITED STATES of America and William P. Barr, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the United States, Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Decided January 24, 2020.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Robert L. Corn-Revere , Washington, DC, argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Ronald G. London , Washington, DC, Lawrence G. Walters , Daphne Keller , David Greene , Aaron Mackey , and Corynne McSherry .

Catherine R. Gellis was on the brief for amici curiae Floor64, Inc. d/b/a The Copia Institute, et al. in support of plaintiffs-appellants.

Allen Dickerson and Zac Morgan were on the brief for amicus curiae Institute for Free Speech in support of appellants.

Brian M. Willen , New York, NY, and Lauren G. White , San Francisco, CA, were on the brief for amicus curiae Center for Democracy & Technology in support of plaintiffs-appellants.

James Turner was on the brief for amici curiae Freedom Network USA, et al. in support of appellants.

Courtney Dixon , Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Jessie K. Liu , U.S. Attorney, and Scott R. McIntosh , Attorney. R. Craig Lawrence , Assistant U.S. Attorney, entered an appearance. Ken Paxton , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Texas, Kyle D. Hawkins , Solicitor General, Karen L. Watkins , Assistant Attorney General, Steven Marshall , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Leslie Rutledge , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas, Ashley Moody , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Florida, Chris Carr , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Georgia, Lawrence G. Wasden , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Idaho, Curtis T. Hill, Jr. , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Indiana, Derek Schmidt , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Kansas, Andy Beshear , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Jeff Landry , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Maura Healey , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Keith Ellison , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Minnesota, Jim Hood , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Timothy C. Fox , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Montana, Dave Yost , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Ohio, Mike Hunter , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Alan Wilson , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Carolina, Jason Ravnsborg , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of South Dakota, Sean D. Reyes , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Utah, Mark R. Herring , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Patrick Morrisey , Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of West Virginia, were on the brief for the amici curiae States in support of appellees.

Christopher J. Schmidt , Jonathan B. Potts , St. Louis, MO, and Adam L. Shaw , Washington, DC, were on the brief for amicus curiae National Center for Missing and Exploited Children in support of appellees and affirmance.

David Boies , Fairfax, VA, and Karen A. Chesley , New York, NY, were on the brief for amici curiae Legal Momentum, et al. in support of defendants-appellees.

Opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment by Circuit Judge Katsas.


The district court dismissed a pre-enforcement challenge to a federal statute reflecting Congress's continual goal of protecting minors online while promoting a free and open internet upon concluding that no plaintiff had demonstrated standing under Article III of the Constitution. Upon review, we hold for the following reasons...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases