⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The New York Court of Appeals interprets the state's Hateful Conduct Law. The law requires for-profit social media networks to provide a way to report hateful conduct and publish a policy explaining how they handle reports. Eugene Volokh, Rumble, and Locals obtained a federal injunction, arguing that the law compels speech. The Second Circuit then asked New York's highest court three state-law questions: can a general reporting tool comply without mentioning the statute's definition; can a general policy do the same; and must a network respond to a report? New York says generic tools and policies are enough, and no response is required. The plaintiffs say that reading erases most of the statute and rewrites it to avoid a First Amendment problem. After this argument, the court adopted New York's reading: it answered the first two questions yes and the third no.

Volokh v. James (No. 58) — New York Court of Appeals, argued May 21, 2026.