Photo of Megan Crowley

Megan Crowley

Megan Crowley is a nationally recognized litigator who serves as co-chair of Covington’s Government Litigation practice. In her practice, Megan draws upon her experience at the U.S. Department of Justice where she litigated constitutional, statutory, and administrative law cases of national significance. In addition to her federal practice, Megan has extensive experience challenging unconstitutional state actions, and defending against novel uses of state consumer protection laws by State Attorneys General.

Most recently, The American Lawyer named Megan “Litigator of the Week” for her successes in obtaining a preliminary injunction against the state of Montana’s ban of TikTok and securing the complete dismissal of a consumer protection lawsuit brought by the Indiana Attorney General. Megan also was a key member of the Covington team that represented TikTok in its successful challenge to the Trump Administration’s efforts to ban the app, as well as the team that represented Xiaomi Corporation in its successful challenge to the Department of Defense designation that would have banned the company from U.S. financial markets.

Megan has particular expertise representing technology companies in cutting-edge litigation relating to data privacy, and in 2022, she was named a Law360 Rising Star in Privacy. Megan also regularly represents clients in litigation under the Administrative Procedure Act, as well as disputes related to Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, government demands for data under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and the First Amendment.

Megan maintains a robust pro bono practice, focused on civil rights litigation. She played a central role on the team representing the University of California in its challenge to the government’s rescission of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, obtaining a nationwide injunction and, ultimately, a 5-4 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Contact:Read more about Megan CrowleyEmail

The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue opinions in the coming months in two highly-anticipated cases — Moody v. NetChoice, L.L.C. (11th Cir.) and NetChoice, L.L.C. v. Paxton (5th Cir.) — that could potentially have significant implications for how companies moderate content on their platforms.Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Expected to Rule on NetChoice Cases in the Coming Months

Today, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Gonzalez v. Google LLC, a case about whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (47 U.S.C. § 230) protected YouTube’s recommendation algorithms from a claim of secondary liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA). In a short, three-page per curiam opinion, the Court avoided addressing the…

Continue Reading The U.S. Supreme Court Punts on Section 230 in Gonzalez v. Google LLC

On September 16, the Fifth Circuit issued its decision in NetChoice L.L.C. v. Paxton, upholding Texas HB 20, a law that limits the ability of large social media platforms to moderate content and imposes various disclosure and appeal requirements on them.  The Fifth Circuit vacated the district court’s preliminary injunction, which previously blocked the Texas Attorney General from enforcing the law.  NetChoice is likely to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Fifth Circuit’s decision.

HB 20 prohibits “social media platforms” with “more than 50 million active users” from “censor[ing] a user, a user’s expression, or a user’s ability to receive the expression of another person” based on the “viewpoint” of the user or another person, or the user’s location.  HB 20 also includes various transparency requirements for covered entities, for example, requiring them to publish information about their algorithms for displaying content, to publish an “acceptable use policy” with information about their content restrictions, and to provide users an explanation for each decision to remove their content, as well as a right to appeal the decision.Continue Reading Fifth Circuit Upholds Texas Law Restricting Online “Censorship”