In a 4-3 opinion, the California Supreme Court ruled yesterday that Yelp.com cannot be ordered to remove negative posts against a San Francisco law firm that another judge determined were defamatory. The decision overturns a lower court’s ruling against Yelp, and affirms rules that protect internet platforms from legal liability over users’ posts.

Last Thursday California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA), granting California consumers the right to request that businesses disclose the categories and specific pieces of personal information that they collect about the consumer, the categories of sources from which that information is collected, the business purposes for collecting or selling the information, and the categories of 3rd parties with which the information is shared. The law, which goes into effect January 1, 2020, also authorizes California consumers to opt out of the sale of personal information by a business and will prohibit the business from discriminating against the consumer for exercising this right, including by charging the consumer who opts out a different price or providing the consumer a different quality of goods or services, except if the difference is reasonably related to value provided by the consumer’s data. Moreover, the CCPA makes it more difficult for businesses to sell personal information for consumers less than 16 years of age.

As often happens in June, the Supreme Court released some of its most highly anticipated decisions of the term (many of them decided 5–4 along predictable divisions). This year was no different.

A group of 18 attorneys general has filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration regarding the separation of families at the border. The Trump Administration’s “zero tolerance” policy has been under strict scrutiny by Democrats as it has resulted in the separation of children and parents. The lawsuit was filed on Tuesday, June 26, 2018 in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington and argues that the separation of children and parents is discriminatory and violates equal protection under the Constitution. The complaint also states that the act of separating families is the Trump Administration's means of deterring immigrants from entering the United States.

On Tuesday, June 26, 2018, United States District Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the Southern District of California granted the American Civil Liberties Union's request for a preliminary injunction seeking to reunite children affected by the Trump Administration's "zero-tolerance" immigration policy.

In its pending class action on behalf of separated immigrant families, the ACLU has filed a proposal that would require the Trump administration to reunify the families it has separated under its "zero tolerance" immigration enforcement policy within a month. The proposal would also require reunification within 10 days for children younger than 5; phone contact between parents and children within 7 days; a halt on separations unless there is clear evidence of danger to the child; and a prohibition on deporting parents without their children unless the parent knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to reunification before deportation.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government usually will need a warrant to collect large amounts of locations data about the customers of cellphone companies.

The zero tolerance immigration policy that has led to separating refugee parents from children at the U.S.-Mexico border faces its first legal challenge from a Guatemalan asylee.

A group of large law firms and non-profits have created a nationwide coalition aimed at reuniting immigrant families separated under the Trump administration's "zero tolerance" policy. The coalition's effort has been named Project Corazon, and it will establish a system for parents to confidentially seek legal support in learning the whereabouts of their children. It is estimated that over 2,300 children have been taken from their parents since the administration's policy was implemented this spring.

In one of the most highly anticipated decisions of the term, the US Supreme Court held today that states may require sellers who have no physical presence within the state to collect and remit sales taxes on goods sold to buyers in the state. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch joined. The decision overrules two prior cases in which the Court established and upheld the so-called "physical-presence rule" for sales tax, citing drastic changes in the reality of shopping and commerce.