Three upcoming SCOTUS cases to watch, according to NYU Law experts

As the price of streaming services like Netflix and Spotify increase, some consumers have turned to a previously-forgotten way of sharing content: illegal peer-to-peer file sharing services. Since the decision issued by the Supreme Court in A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster in 2001, individual perpetrators, not secondary companies, have been held legally responsible for sharing copyrighted material without paying creators. But starting with this upcoming Supreme Court term, which begins October 6, things may start to change-record companies including big labels like Sony are suing an internet provider for benefitting financially from customers' file sharing activities.

The case brings up important legal questions of who is responsible in copyright infringement issues and may result in a crackdown on user activities online. We talked to experts at NYU School of Law about some of the cases they're watching closely-including this one-and why they matter.

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment
After record companies complained to Cox Communications, an internet and cable services provider, that some of its customers used peer-to-peer file sharing services to share copyrighted music, Cox implemented a policy to warn or temporarily ban customers using these services. In practice, however, the company rarely terminated service for these activities. The record companies sued Cox, but not the users themselves.

"In this case, record industry copyright owners [argued] that Cox had not done enough to prevent further infringement by internet subscribers who, the plaintiffs allege, were using Cox's network for illegal BitTorrent file sharing. Lower courts held Cox liable as a contributory infringer-i.e., for facilitating others' infringement."

"But the Supreme Court's recent decision in Twitter v. Taamneh calls the validity of those lower court rulings into question," Sprigman says. "In Taamneh, the Supreme Court held that secondary liability requires conscious, culpable assistance in another's infringement-essentially, the secondary infringers have to aid and abet the direct infringer. The question in Cox v. Sony is whether Cox's inaction can amount to the level of assistance required by Taamneh.

"I'm co-authoring an amicus brief on behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union arguing that it cannot, and that a strict application of Taamneh is necessary to prevent secondary copyright liability from imposing a very large burden on free speech rights."

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections and Public Safety
For almost two decades, Damon Landor let his hair grow without cutting it, as part of his religious beliefs as a Rastafarian. Incarcerated in Louisiana in 2020, Landor was held in two correctional facilities that allowed him to maintain his hair uncut. After a transfer, however, his hair was forcibly cut by an intake guard. After his release, Landor sued the Louisiana Department of Corrections and the facility, as well as the prison's Warden and guard who shaved his head.

"The Court has recognized that similar Congressional language in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) grants federal prisoners the ability to sue guards for damages," Neuborne explains. "Since 'appropriate relief' appears in many statutes, the case could have a wide-ranging impact."

"Second, the force of RLUIPA as an effective way to protect the religious rights of inmates turns on whether guards take it seriously," he says. "In the absence of a damage remedy, guards are free to ignore the rights of prisoners with no real fear of consequences."

Louisiana v. Callais
In 2024, the state of Louisiana created a new congressional map, including a second majority-Black district, in response to a previous lawsuit that alleged that the old map violated the Voting Rights Act. A new lawsuit alleges that the second map violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because of racial gerrymandering.

"In order to ensure that Black voters have an equal opportunity to elect the candidates they prefer, the VRA requires under certain circumstances that districts be designed in which Black voters are likely to be able to elect their preferred candidates. The Court seems open to reconsidering the legal regime that has governed these issues since the 1980s."