Joshua J. Schroeder

Joshua J. Schroeder owns and operates SchroederLaw, a law firm located in Oakland, California that is focused on constitutional law at the intersection of intellectual property, immigration law, and social justice. We opened our doors right before the pandemic in 2020, and have been rolling with the punches ever since. Our story, like so many these days, is one of resilience and perseverance in unprecedented times.

In the pandemic, and during the transition of power after January 6, 2020, we never lost sight of our purpose. That purpose is to bring the best services to our clients possible in pursuit of justice. As crises continued to sweep the nation, we focused our efforts inward publishing several papers in scholarly journals to pass on our knowledge and expertise to rising lawyers.

At this time, we are especially interested in developing our appellate capabilities. If you had a case in immigration court, federal court, or in California or Oregon state court and select other jurisdictions and are considering appeal, please visit www.jschroederlaw.com and schedule your initial consultation. We are interested in consulting with other firms and accept referrals.

Our legal research and writing capabilities are extensive and authoritative. Please review the publications page for a sampling of topics and issues we are working on. These include artist rights, intellectual property matters, immigrant rights, federal jurisdiction, civil liberties and civil rights, social justice issues, non-profit formation, and much more.

Lewis & Clark Law School

J.D. (2013) | Law

2010 - 2013

Westmont College

B.A. (2008) | Philosophy

2004 - 2008

Joshua J. Schroeder, America’s Written Constitution: Remembering the Judicial Duty to Say What the Law Is, 43 Cap. U. L. Rev. 833 (2015).

Joshua J. Schroeder, Bringing America Back to the Future: Reclaiming a Principle of Honesty in Property and IP Law, 35 Hamline J. Pub. L. & Pol’y 1 (2014).

Joshua J. Schroeder, Choosing an Internet Shaped by Freedom: A Legal Rational to Rein in Copyright Gate Keeping, 2 Berkeley J. Ent. & Sports L. 48 (2013).

Joshua J. Schroeder, Conservative Progressivism in Immigrant Habeas Court: Why Boumediene v. Bush is the Baseline Constitutional Minimum, 45 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change: The Harbinger 46 (2021)

Joshua J. Schroeder, Leviathan Goes to Washington: How to Assert the Separation of Powers in Defense of Future Generations, 15 Fla. A&M U.L. Rev. 1 (forthcoming, 2021).

Joshua J. Schroeder, The Body Snatchers: How the Writ of Habeas Corpus was taken from the People of the United States, 35 Quinnipiac L. Rev. 1 (2016).

Joshua J. Schroeder, The Boomer Interregnum: How Conservative Thought Dressed Up as Memory Will Shape an America that the Founders Never Intended, 56 New Eng. L. Rev.: Forum ___ (forthcoming, 2022).

Joshua J. Schroeder, The Dark Side of Due Process – Part I: A Hard Look at Penumbral Rights and Cost/Benefit Balancing Tests, 53 St. Mary's L.J. 1 (forthcoming, 2022).

Joshua J. Schroeder, The Dark Side of Due Process – Part II: Why Penumbral Rights and Cost/Benefit Balancing Tests are Bad, 53 St. Mary's L.J. 1 (forthcoming, 2022).

Joshua J. Schroeder, The Dark Side of Due Process – Part III, How to Use Irreverent Double-Talk to Speak Back to Bad Men, 53 St. Mary's L.J. 1 (forthcoming, 2022).

Joshua J. Schroeder, We Will All Be Free or None Will Be: Why Federal Power is Not Plenary, but Limited and Supreme, 27 Tex. Hisp. J. L. & Pol'y 1 (forthcoming, 2021).

SchroederLaw

Owner/Founder

2020 - Current

State Bar of California

Member

2015 - Current

Oregon State Bar

Member

2014 - Current

California

State Bar of California

Since 2015

Oregon

Oregon State Bar

Since 2014

9th Circuit

Since 2017

Civil Rights

Discrimination, Police Misconduct, Privacy Law

Appeals & Appellate

Civil Appeals, Federal Appeals

Immigration Law

Asylum, Citizenship, Deportation Defense, Family Visas, Green Cards, Immigration Appeals

Intellectual Property

• Constitutional Law

Q. Our account got terminated by YouTube

January 10, 2022

A: Greetings! Here I will discuss only general information regarding the topic you mentioned here. Nothing I express below creates a lawyer/client relationship. I encourage anyone experiencing a de-platforming issue to schedule a consultation with a lawyer that knows this practice area to get the ball rolling on your matter. De-platforming can be a serious issue for internet content creators who make their money from streaming content online. The way the law works in a de-platforming matter might depend upon whether copyrighted content or illegal/illicit material was being shared or engaged with on an internet platform and/or the personal behavior exhibited towards the internet platform in question. Whatever the case, internet platforms generally tend to regulate themselves, and maintain their own policies to moderate their own sites. Internet companies currently have a wide berth given by the government to moderate their own sites under section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as amended by FOSTA-SESTA in 2018 and the safe-harbor provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Recent controversies over the First Amendment implications of private moderation of content online blossomed in an extremely complicated fashion over the past two decades. These controversies seemed to pinnacle with Twitter's ban of former President Trump after he appeared to use Twitter to organize a violent insurrection at the Capitol Building on January 6, 2021. After the insurrection Twitter-ban of former president Donald J. Trump, Justice Thomas wrote a long concurrence in Biden v. Knight First Amendment Institute appearing to explain why Congress should amend telecom laws in Trump's favor. To make the issue even more confusing, Thomas's concurrence was written into the controversial SCOTUS shadow docket, attached to a writ of certiorari grant vacating a previous Second Circuit decision as moot (a procedurally controversial move in its own right for several reasons). The Second Circuit's previous decision was that it was unconstitutional for Trump to block a Twitter user that expressed disagreement with him on Twitter. Of course, not everybody's internet platform account is connected with politics or government, and the reasons most users get de-platformed are probably not as hotly contested as Trump's use of Twitter to allegedly cause an insurrection. While most de-platformed users' matters will be for smaller potatoes, the Trump Twitter-ban and Thomas concurrence is an example of what is top of mind regarding the issue of online content moderation and de-platforming today. It demonstrates how confused and divided America seems to be over the issue currently, and the extremely divisive nature of discussions about First Amendment rights over the internet content moderation is unlikely to calm down any time soon.

View More Answers ›