Good morning!

On Monday, the US Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Murthy v Missouri, a case that requires the justices to consider whether the government coerced or “significantly encouraged” social media executives to remove disfavored speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Tech Policy Press has a package of items this week to help you prepare:

• Backgrounder: Supreme Court to Hear Oral Argument in Murthy v. Missouri – Gabby Miller breaks down the timeline and key questions in the case.

• Podcast: What's at Stake in Murthy v Missouri? – Dean Jackson spoke to experts including the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University's Mayze Teitler and Jennifer Jones, and the Tech Justice Law Project's Meetali Jain.

• Doctrinal Disarray: Amicus Briefs in Murthy v. Missouri and NRA v. Vullo Reveal How Divided Legal Commentators Are on Jawboning Questions – The Supreme Court has taken up two jawboning cases both of which present a hodgepodge of factual scenarios, writes the Knight First Amendment Institute's Mayze Teitler.

• A Conspiracy Theory Goes to the Supreme Court: How Did Murthy v Missouri Get This Far? – Justin Hendrix and Ryan Goodman say it is of concern that so much of the underlying evidence in the case is misleading.

• First Amendment Defenders and the Supreme Court Should Reject the Jawboning Bogeyman – As the Supreme Court weighs this case, it should re-examine the Fifth Circuit’s review of the evidence closely to see how well it corresponds to reality, writes Dean Jackson.

• Review of Amicus Briefs Filed in Murthy v. Missouri Before the Supreme Court – Maria Fernanda Chanduvi, Divya Goel, Gabby Miller, and Mateo García Silva summarize the briefs.
  

There's a great deal more on the site this week, including two pieces that consider the new Online Safety Bill proposed in Canada, two pieces on surveillance technologies in India, and coverage of the TikTok ban.

Have a great week!

-Justin