In a huge procedural win for Laura Loomer, the D.C. Court of Appeals has agreed to hear the merits of her lawsuit against Google. (Read, “Big Tech Must Face Appeal of Anti-Conservative Conspiracy Claims.”)
The lower court dismissed Loomer’s lawsuit, writing in its order:
This case is brought by conservative activists who allege that America’s major technology firms have conspired to suppress their political views. The Plaintiffs raise non-trivial concerns. But because they have failed to tie these concerns to colorable legal claims, the Court must dismiss their Amended Complaint.
Google had sought to have the lower court’s ruling summarily affirmed, which is what happens when a case is weak and the Court of Appeals concludes it would be a waste of time to hear the case.
The D.C. Court of Appeals issued an order saying, “The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action.”
In layman’s terms, this means Laura Loomer has a real case. She may lose. She may probably lose. But she’s credibility in the arena.
Upon consideration of the motion for summary affirmance, the oppositions thereto, and the replies, it is ORDERED that the motion for summary affirmance be denied. The merits of the parties’ positions are not so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Appellees be limited to one joint brief, not to exceed 13,000 words. See Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(7). Because the court has determined that summary disposition is not in order, the Clerk is instructed to enter a briefing schedule and to calendar this case for presentation to a merits panel.