The nation’s highest court convened Monday morning to hear oral arguments in two pivotal cases that could reshape digital copyright enforcement and asylum protections for Central American refugees.
At 10 a.m. ET on December 1, the Supreme Court justices began deliberating Cox Communications v. Sony Music Entertainment (case 24-171), a landmark copyright dispute that has captured the attention of internet service providers and entertainment companies nationwide. The case centers on whether ISPs can be held liable for their customers’ copyright infringement activities online.
The second case, Urias-Orellana v. Bondi, Attorney General (24-777), addresses critical asylum protections for Salvadoran refugees, potentially affecting thousands of individuals seeking sanctuary in the United States. The outcome could significantly impact how immigration courts evaluate claims from Central American asylum seekers fleeing violence and persecution.
These dual hearings represent some of the most consequential legal questions facing the Court this term. The copyright case could fundamentally alter how internet companies manage user-generated content and respond to piracy allegations, while the asylum case may redefine protection standards for vulnerable populations from El Salvador and neighboring countries.
The Cox Communications dispute has drawn widespread industry attention, as telecommunications giants and streaming platforms await clarity on their legal obligations when users engage in copyright violations. Meanwhile, immigration advocates are closely monitoring the Salvadoran asylum case, viewing it as a potential watershed moment for refugee rights.
Both cases emerged from complex lower court proceedings and have generated extensive legal briefs from stakeholders across multiple sectors. The Court’s eventual decisions, expected by summer 2025, will likely influence federal policy and corporate practices for years to come.
Legal experts anticipate spirited questioning from the justices on both matters, given the significant economic and humanitarian implications at stake. The proceedings mark another busy day for a Court already grappling with numerous high-profile constitutional questions this term.
