Chief Justice John Roberts has denied South Carolina’s attempt to invoke the 11th Amendment to block a subpoena in Google’s antitrust case, leaving many wondering about the wider implications for state immunity claims in federal lawsuits.
At a Glance
- Chief Justice Roberts rejected South Carolina’s claim of 11th Amendment immunity.
- The subpoena is part of a multi-state antitrust lawsuit against Google.
- A district court ruled South Carolina waived immunity by joining the lawsuit.
- A trial concerning the antitrust allegations is scheduled for March 2025.
Roberts Dismisses South Carolina’s Immunity Claim
Chief Justice John Roberts has dismissed South Carolina’s effort to evade a subpoena issued in Google’s antitrust lawsuit. The South Carolina Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism aimed to shield itself under the 11th Amendment, which protects states from certain lawsuits. However, given that South Carolina is part of the collective legal action against Google, the Supreme Court found the immunity claim invalid.
Google subpoenaed the department for records related to its online advertising. South Carolina declined to comply, prompting a district court to rule against the state by stating the immunity defense was void upon entry into the lawsuit. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit further upheld this ruling.
In an effort to avoid divulging advertising data to Google, South Carolina’s parks department has framed itself as separate from the attorney general’s antitrust lawsuit against the company. @KelseyReichmann https://t.co/SJBoL0lTlA
— Courthouse News (@CourthouseNews) October 3, 2024
Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision
South Carolina’s appeal to the Supreme Court highlighted its concerns about forfeiting appeal rights or facing contempt of court. Lawyers for the parks department argued that this decision imposes on state governance and ignores fundamental federalism principles. Google countered that halting compliance jeopardizes its antitrust defense, emphasizing the subpoenaed records as pivotal.
“When the state waived its immunity by voluntarily joining the suit against Google, it ‘nullified’ any immunity defense that any of its arms, including SCPRT, could have otherwise asserted.” – unanimous three-judge 4th Circuit panel
The antitrust case, involving multiple states, accuses Google of monopolizing the online advertising sector. The lawsuit’s trial is set for March 2025, with impending filing deadlines. Though the parks department’s attempt to pause the subpoena was overturned, its challenge symbolized the delicate navigation required between state and federal authorities in antitrust contexts.
Ethical Concerns: Senate Judiciary Committee and Chief Justice Roberts
Apart from this antitrust case, Chief Justice Roberts has also denied a request by the Senate Judiciary Committee to address ethical standards, amidst reports concerning Supreme Court justices. Roberts referenced the importance of maintaining judicial independence as he declined to testify, further providing a “Statement on Ethics Principles and Practices” with support from all justices.
“Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.” – Chief Justice John Roberts
Reports had surfaced regarding Justice Clarence Thomas’s relationship with a conservative donor, which sparked inquiries into ethical guidelines for justices. Despite Roberts’ response, Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin plans to hold a hearing on this issue, aiming for enhanced accountability among justices.
Sources
2. Chief Justice Roberts declines to testify at Senate’s Supreme Court ethics hearing
