Our mission is to preserve and defend America’s free-enterprise system by litigating, educating, and advocating for free-market principles
Washington, DC
Joined April 2010
- Tweets4.2K
- Following917
- Followers1.1K
- Likes330
With the end of spooky season nigh, here are 5 things that give WLF a fright! 😱
5. Courts allowing outsiders to control a company's legal decisions. Especially when the company is based overseas.
4. Federal agencies acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury. When the same agency makes the accusations and decides the outcome.
3. The Supreme Court siding with Colorado in Suncor—a decision that could have major implications for climate-related lawsuits.
2. Class-action lawsuits that include people who weren't actually harmed.
1. Lawsuits driven by lawyers rather than the people they're supposed to represent.
#HappyHalloween #businesscivilliberties #ruleoflaw
Washington Legal Foundation retweeted
In a quick verdict, Monsanto won the first Roundup trial since the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated a key claim in thousands of cases. law.com/2026/10/29/monsanto-…
It's hard to imagine something more blatantly unconstitutional than this. What's the harm to consumers that the disclosure prevents? How is an AI performer different than a human performer?morganlewis.com/pubs/2026/10…
.@WLF was pleased to join @AmTortReform and the other 13 groups as a signatory to this letter. No good can come from the release of this "White Paper."
1/ We joined 15 groups urging @OMBPress to reject @HHSGov & @US_FDA’s proposed “ultraprocessed food” definition. It lacks scientific consensus, could sweep in ~70% of the food supply, and hands trial lawyers a new tool for lawsuits. protectingtaxpayers.org/wp-c… 🧵
Join us next week on Nov. 3rd at 1:00 PM as our panel of experts discuss the upcoming oral arguments for the Dept. of Labor v. Sun Valley Orchards case.
On Nov. 10th, #SCOTUS will be hearing whether the @USDOL has statutory & constitutional authority to penalize employers for violating contractual obligations to foreign and domestic workers. Our panelists will dive into the parties' legal arguments, offer their insights on the judge's perspectives, and explore the implications of this case on future employment law. Register today: us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi…
@ilan_wurman @UMNews @amit_r_vora @KasowitzLLP @Littler
#employmentlaw #RuleOfLaw #webinar
With the pendulum of Congressional control possibly swinging back into a different set of hands, anxiety over Congress’ investigative functions and goals is rising. Who will be marked for #oversight? Will businesses be swept into actions House & Senate committees take against federal agencies and the White House? How is oversight different from enforcement actions or litigation?
As our panel of experts explained, preparation and a sober, measured approach are needed when #Congress comes calling. Listen to their experienced insights and tips from today's webinar: youtu.be/FbshZwaJg8c?si=-7Ge…
#businesscivilliberties @Kirkland_Ellis @EmoryLaw @BrownsteinHyatt
Thanks @AmTortReform for sharing!
When fraud is profitable, there’s more of it. Our Pres.Tiger Joyce writes in @WLF’s Legal Pulse about the enterprise behind litigation fraud, and how courts and lawmakers can shut it down. 👇
wlf.org/2026/10/26/wlf-legal…
REMINDER! Don't forget to register for @WLF's webinar tomorrow at 1:00PM! With control of the legislative and oversight agendas at stake in next week’s election, our panel of experts in congressional oversight and investigations will discuss the steps private sector organizations of all types, including nonprofits and corporations, must take to prepare for the 120th Congress.
Register today!
@Kirkland_Ellis @EmoryLaw @BrownsteinHyatt
#economicliberties #congressionalinvestigations
Register here! wlf.org/programs/marked-for-…
Washington Legal Foundation retweeted
🚨 California Threatens Free Speech Yet Again: NetChoice Sues to Stop Unskippable Government Warnings on Social Media
LOS ANGELES, Calif.—NetChoice sued California yesterday to stop the government's latest attack on websites that display fully protected speech. AB 56 is a law that will force websites to put up state-scripted "warning" messages discouraging Californians from using online services and promoting the government's controversial views on social media. This is compelled speech, a direct violation of the First Amendment.
"The First Amendment is not a suggestion,” said @Paul_Taske, Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “California cannot force a private website to act as a mouthpiece for its preferred message. The State is free to speak for itself, but the Constitution forbids it from forcing others to speak for it. A federal court already blocked Colorado's nearly identical law, and there is no First Amendment exception for California.”
WHY CALIFORNIANS SHOULD CARE:
1. The warnings take up as much as 75% of the screen for up to 30 seconds, cannot be skipped, and come back up every hour after three hours online, no matter how many times users have seen them.
2. An unconstitutional law protects no one, and in this case, it actively undermines the public's access to diverse perspectives and information.
3. California is exploiting legitimate concerns about mental health to justify its attacks on speech services.
4. Politicians are using "public health" as a backdoor way to control online speech. States cannot do by "warning label" what they are unable to do by outright ban. A federal court already blocked Colorado's nearly identical law on First Amendment grounds, and California's should fall too.
5. California doesn't trust adults to make their own choices, or parents to make decisions for their own families. Unless a site has verified a user is over 17, everyone gets the warning.
Today, the Sixth Circuit heard oral arguments for Ohio Telecom Association v. FCC. Roman Martinez, arguing for @OhioTelecom, is absolutely right.
The Congressional Review Act isn't just "a thumb on the scale, it’s a thousand-pound weight on deregulation.” When agencies go too far, the #CRA empowers #Congress to delete the expansive rule and handcuff the agency from trying to reissue it ever again. After a CRA repeal of a data-breach reg, however, the #FCC did just that.
The CRA is a watchmen on the walls of the Constitution's separation of powers, not an easily fooled Inspector Clouseau.
To learn more, read WLF's brief: wlf.org/case/ohio-telecom-as…
Backed by sweeping authority and guided by few rules, congressional investigations pose unique challenges to those directly targeted or indirectly affected.
With the Midterm Elections fast approaching, significant turnover is anticipated in both houses, as well as potential change in party control, which complicates strategies and exacerbates the risks.
Join us next week on October 28th at 1:00PM as our speakers share their decades of experience from public and private participation in oversight and help viewers assess their readiness. Register today! us06web.zoom.us/webinar/regi…
@Kirkland_Ellis @EmoryLaw @BrownsteinHyatt
#Congress #economicliberties
Congratulations to our friends at @TheBuckeyeInst for its successful petition for cert! buckeyeinstitute.org/researc…
To learn why #Paramount should prevail, read @WLF's amicus brief. The statute doesn't permit Salazar's class action. And thank goodness - personalized advertising is what keeps the internet from going behind a paywall.
The court on Wednesday seemed likely to let a lawsuit alleging that a website owned by entertainment giant Paramount Global violated a 1988 video privacy law when it shared information with Facebook go forward, at least for now.
scotusblog.com/2026/10/court…
Wise counsel from someone who knows it and lived it. axios.com/2026/10/13/frackin… @APIenergy
Justice Kavanaugh put it precisely right, the question is whether the #SupremeCourt is a "textualist" one or a "literalist" one. Salazar needs the Court to read the Video Privacy Protection Act entirely shorn of context to prevail, but—as Justice Barrett has aptly noted—such a "vacuum is no home for a textualist."
#SalazarvParamount #oralarguments
Tomorrow, #SCOTUS will hear oral arguments for Salazar v. Paramount Global, a case examining who qualifies as a “consumer” under the Video Privacy Protection Act. @WLF filed an amicus brief in the case, and our Senior Litigation Counsel, Zac Morgan, will be participating in @WCL_PIJIP's “IP at the Supreme Court Series” post-argument panel at 5pm.
To hear his thoughts, check out the event here: american.edu/wcl/impact/init…
@AUWCL
