​Religious liberty had already taken root in America long before the drafting of the U.S. Constitution. In 1649, the Maryland Toleration Act – passed in St. Mary’s City – became a landmark law protecting the free exercise of religion, a harbinger of the guarantees of the First Amendment.

On Saturday, April 18, 2026, that legacy comes alive at Historic St. Mary’s City with a “Free Exercise Walk” and roundtable discussion on why religious freedom still matters today.

At 10 a.m., Protect The 1st General Counsel Gene Schaerr and other experts will lead a discussion at the very site where the Toleration Act was created. They will explore how religious liberty continues to shape American life – from education to public participation – and why it remains essential at a time when religious expression is increasingly contested.

A tour and lunch will follow, offering a chance to reflect on the roots of a freedom too often taken for granted.

The message is simple: religious liberty did not begin with the First Amendment, and it will not endure without vigilance. The principles behind the Maryland Toleration Act still matter – and it is up to each generation to carry them forward.
​
Register here.

​The act of collecting the names of certain faculty members at a university in order to protect them from discrimination sounds like a good idea. But from a constitutional perspective, it can very quickly start to sound like a registration program, and nothing good can come from that.

Yet that’s exactly what’s happening at the University of Pennsylvania, where this month a federal judge ordered the school to turn over the names of Jewish faculty members. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is investigating the possibility of antisemitism and had issued a subpoena requesting the names.

Penn objected on privacy grounds and its decision was supported by the American Academy of Jewish Research and the school’s own Jewish Law Students Association. The Anti-Defamation League is skeptical too, on the basis of unintended consequences: “History has taught us to be vigilant when governments compile lists of people based on religious identity, and we hope that the EEOC’s important work can continue without such a list.”

From a First Amendment perspective, the privacy dangers inherent in the government’s subpoena and the judge’s order trace out a larger trajectory: publishing lists of names is a kind of outing, and that represents a direct threat to associational privacy. Anonymity – the right not to be known – is a particular kind of privacy, one that carves out space for a particular kind of free expression, namely the right to anonymous association.

Disclosure can quickly become exposure in today’s digital world, especially when the environment is as politically and culturally charged and prone to doxing as it is today. 

The order also sounds a discordant historical note.

The government’s request, no matter how well intentioned, is inadvertently contaminated by the most notorious crime in human history, the first stage of which began when the new Nazi government in April 1933 listed and purged Jewish professors from Germany’s universities. 

In this country, recall the Nixon “Jew count” episode of 1971. And lest we forget our Dickens, in A Tale of Two Cities lists were not just administrative tools but instruments of fate, symbols of cold-blooded revenge, and the literal difference between life and death.

At the very least, there is something coarse about such counts. Consider the vintage Saturday Night Live skit in which Tom Hanks played a game show host asking contestants to look at photos of celebrities and to press the buzzer to answer, “Jew or not Jew?” Answers: actor Michael Landon, Jew; then-Defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, not Jew.
​
We applaud the desire of the government to come to the protection of Jews on campus, many targeted by a fierce and vicious upwelling of hate. But a list of Jews on campus is too intrusive, too problematic. We urge the EEOC to find another way to protect Jews and people of all beliefs on campus.

​As Ken Klippenstein reports, the FBI is planning to create a new center to proactively track the social media posts of Americans who may be “domestic terrorists.” The dangers to privacy and the Fourth Amendment associated with such extensive surveillance are obvious. But when one considers the list of proposed categories, George Orwell’s notion of “thoughtcrime” leaps to mind rather than anything resembling actual terrorism.

The FBI’s suspect categories include:

• Three varieties of “anti”: anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity
• Three varieties of extreme: concerning migration, race, and gender
• Three varieties of hostility: toward traditional American families, religion, and morality

It’s a perfectly malleable list, capable of being repurposed according to what antagonizes whoever is in power. Today it’s atheists, agnostics, and Bernie Sanders supporters. (Good thing Thomas Paine, the anti-Christian patriot who helped spark the American Revolution, did not live to fall under suspicion from this list.) But tomorrow the government could just as easily cast suspicion on gun owners or perhaps once again target “radical traditional Catholics.”

According to the budget request that Klippenstein highlighted, airing your opinions on social media seems like the best way to get included in the new database:

“Domestic terrorists exploit a variety of popular social media platforms, smaller websites with targeted audiences, and encrypted chat applications. They use these platforms to recruit new adherents, plan and rally support for in-person actions, and disseminate materials encouraging radicalization and mobilization to violence.”

Terrorists do, in fact, use social media. They also use mobile phones, get around in cars, and eat at restaurants. Similarly, most of us use social media, and often use encrypted apps to protect our privacy. Once again, the government is using the broadest of brushes to make everyone a potential suspect.

In other words, warns Klippenstein, under such a regime we should all be officially “on notice.” The Biden administration had convinced itself that the First Amendment did not protect speech it regarded as disinformation or misinformation. Now the Trump administration is ready to use nebulous categories to render people suspect, from your local atheist to the anti-ICE protester.
​
More than ever before in our history, the federal government seems ready to demonize what citizens think. These are the times that try men’s souls.

Ever wonder where the phrase “Hobson’s Choice” comes from?
 
Thomas Hobson was an Elizabethan-era owner of a large stable in Cambridge, England, with 40 horses. This led new customers to believe they had a choice of mounts. Once they had put down the princely sum of four pounds, they discovered that the only horse they could choose was the one that Hobson had placed in the stable nearest the door. 
 
Hobson would fit right in with the state of Colorado, a repeat offender when it comes to testing the limits of the First Amendment with phony choices, only to get smacked down by the courts. The most-recent smackdown occurred when the Supreme Court ended Colorado’s attempt to control the speech of therapists. The Court’s ruling was 8-1, with a concurrence from liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.
 
A new controversy out of the state’s court system suggests Colorado hasn’t learned the lesson.
 
Jimmy Sengenberger of The Denver Gazette reports that Colorado’s judicial branch imposed a certification requirement on attorneys using its e-filing system – one that many lawyers say forces them into a compelled statement tied to the state’s policy agenda. It requires them to make a binding agreement – under “penalty of perjury” – that they will not use personal information from the system to cooperate with, participate in, or assist federal immigration enforcement.
 
Attorneys report that they could not access court filings unless they clicked “accept,” even after trying to decline. That puts lawyers in an impossible bind:

• Accept a government-imposed statement they may disagree with

 

• Or fail in their ethical duty to represent their clients

 
In the end, there is no choice. As one attorney put it, his professional obligations forced him to comply – even over his personal objection. That’s not consent. That’s coercion.
 
Compelled Speech, By Another Name

The First Amendment protects not only the right to speak – but the right not to speak. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the government cannot force individuals to endorse messages they do not believe.
 
Yet here, the state conditions access to the courts on agreement with a state-mandated certification. Critics say the rule is “blatantly content- and viewpoint-based,” raising serious constitutional concerns. 

Worse, the statutory authority cited for the rule reportedly does not clearly authorize such a requirement, leaving “considerable ambiguity” about its scope. When the government compels speech without clear authority – and ties it to access to justice – it crosses a dangerous line.
 
Lawyers are officers of the court, but they are also citizens with First Amendment rights. When the state pressures them to adopt specific positions – particularly on politically charged issues – it risks turning advocates into instruments of government policy.
 
Colorado has a choice – to continue down the road of speech control and add another loss to its record, or to finally embrace the principle that in America, the government does not get to script what we say.

When the Founders drafted the First Amendment, they were not writing on a blank slate. They were responding to a long, bitter history of governments punishing disfavored speakers – especially critics of official power.

That history is not abstract. It is the core of a new amicus brief filed by Protect the First Foundation and its co-amici – Neutral Principles and the Center for Individual Rights – challenging four executive orders targeting law firms that have drawn the ire of President Trump. It warns that what is happening now has happened before. And the warning comes with a remedy – the Founders’ gift of the First Amendment to protect speech.

At issue are executive orders that impose penalties on law firms because of the clients they represent, the lawyers they have hired, and the arguments they have made. That is not just politics. It is viewpoint discrimination – government retaliation for disfavored speech and association.

The Founders Knew This Playbook

Long before the American Revolution, English rulers used licensing systems to control who could speak and publish. Printers needed government approval. Critics were denied licenses. Dissenters were punished. And the secret Star Chamber enforced these rules without juries or meaningful safeguards. Its purpose was simple – to punish opposition.

America’s Founding generation saw this clearly. As the brief explains, these systems were “among the very evils they identified as threats to the freedoms they would later enshrine in the First Amendment.” What mattered was not just outright censorship. It was targeted punishment – the government’s ability to choose who could speak and publish, and who could not.

That same dynamic is at work today when the government uses its power to deny contracts, revoke access, or impose regulatory burdens on disfavored speakers.

The Stamp Acts – Regulation as Suppression

The British Crown did not always silence critics directly. Sometimes it taxed them into submission. The Stamp Acts imposed costs on newspapers and pamphlets, especially those used to spread political dissent. Meanwhile, pro-government publications were spared or supported. The result was predictable – critics were marginalized, and government-approved voices flourished.

The Founders understood this as a direct assault on the freedom of the press. As the brief notes, even indirect burdens – when applied selectively – were understood as assaults on freedom. 

That principle matters today. You don’t need to ban speech outright to violate the First Amendment. You can burden it, isolate it, and punish it through the selective use of government power. Witness the attempts by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew Ferguson to punish journalists and commentators.

Or consider the executive orders that would have stripped lawyers of the ability to obtain security clearances, do any kind of business with the government, or enter a federal building – perhaps including a courthouse.

“Seditious Libel” – Punishing the Critics

The clearest historical parallel is the doctrine of seditious libel – the crime of criticizing the government. Under British law, even truthful criticism could be punished. As one formulation had it, “the greater the truth, the greater the libel.”

The colonial trial of John Peter Zenger in 1735 became a turning point. Prosecuted for criticizing a royal governor, Zenger was acquitted by a jury that rejected the idea that government could punish its critics.

The Zenger case underscored for the Founders, who would later write the Constitution, that a government that can punish its critics is a government without limits.

The amicus brief draws a direct line from that history to today, noting that punitive actions against lawyers for representing unpopular clients or advancing disfavored arguments were understood as classic violations of core freedoms. 

Executive Power Was Meant to Be Limited

The danger is compounded when such actions are justified as exercises of executive discretion. The Founders had just fought a revolution against a king who claimed broad, unchecked authority. They determined not to allow any form of Caesarism in their new country.

As the brief explains, the Constitution’s grant of “executive Power” was understood to be narrow – focused on carrying out the law, not creating new authorities and punishing political opponents. Unchecked discretion was not a feature of the new system. It was the very abuse the Constitution was designed to prevent.

The Modern Echo

We have seen in the Biden Administration’s attempts to secretly censor “disinformation” on social media, and now in the Trump Administration’s attempt to punish speech, a return of concepts like licensing regimes, the Stamp Act, and seditious libel in modern form.

The Founders did not trust government – or anyone – to police speech fairly. That is why they wrote a rule, not a suggestion, forbidding the government from abridging the freedoms of speech, press, or association. Full stop.

It doesn’t matter what you think of a journalist, a law firm, or a commentator. An authority that can be used against them can one day be used against you.

If the punishment of speech is allowed to return, the First Amendment becomes not a shield for dissent – but a relic of a freedom we once had.

The Founders saw this danger clearly. The question now is whether we still do.

​The recent consent decree signed by the parties that settled Missouri v. Biden has been hailed by civil libertarians as a “major blow against social media censorship,” signaling that “Free Speech Wins Big in Court.”
 
Kenin Spivak in RealClearPolitics says, “not so fast.”
 
Missouri v. Biden (formerly Murthy v. Missouri) combined lawsuits filed by the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri with claims of several leading health care professionals. After a serpentine trip through the courts, including a remand from the Supreme Court to lower courts, the case has ended with that consent decree. Along the way, an egregious pattern of secret government censorship was exposed.
 
Spivak reports that the case revealed that 80 senior Biden officials and at least 11 federal agencies, including the White House, pressured social media companies into censoring conservative speech. Spivak writes:
 
“Underscoring the left’s strange and newly formed view that the First Amendment somehow does not protect ‘misinformation,’ ‘disinformation,’ or ‘malinformation’ (truthful information that nonetheless undermines the approved policy agenda), in 2021, CISA (Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency) director Jen Easterly claimed that social media speech is a form of ‘infrastructure’ that fell within her agency’s purview, and that Americans should not be allowed to make their own decisions about what is true.”
 
Spivak lists censorship targets that included YouTube’s suspension of The Hill newspaper for posts that included Donald Trump’s speech at the CPAC conference, Sen. Ted Cruz, actor James Woods, The New York Post, the Babylon Bee satirical site, and many more.
 
These facts landed hard in court. On July 4, 2023, federal judge Terry A. Doughty issued a preliminary injunction that blocked numerous federal agencies from communicating with social media companies for “the purpose of urging, encouraging, pressuring, or inducing in any manner the removal, deletion, suppression, or reduction of content containing protected free speech.” These included government requests to social media companies to delete posts that were critical of President Biden, gasoline prices, climate change, and social issues.
 
The judge likened the government’s actions to George Orwell’s Ministry of Truth from 1984.
 
One would hope that, in the face of such a massive violation of the First Amendment, the consent decree would arrive like the famous Apple MacIntosh TV ad in 1984, in which an athletic woman hurls a sledgehammer into Big Brother’s screen. Judging from Spivak’s account, the consent decree was more like a hurled paperclip.
 
The consent decree, Spivak writes, is “powerful-sounding pap” in which, for ten years, the Surgeon General, CDC, and CISA will refrain from threatening Facebook, Instagram, X, LinkedIn, or YouTube “with some form of punishment (i.e., an adverse legal, regulatory, or economic government sanction)” to remove or deemphasize protected speech.
 
Not included were other bad actors, including the Department of Homeland Security, the Justice Department, the State Department, and the FBI. The decree does not cover other social media companies or those that may arise in the next decade. It includes vague and easily exploited exceptions for “criminal activity” and “national security” that may leave the named plaintiffs vulnerable.
 
We would add that refraining from threatening is a weak standard – one that fails to account for the reality that in such “jawboning” explicit threats are often unnecessary when government officials issue demands to heavily regulated industries.
 
“The First Amendment and Americans have lost an opportunity that may not recur for a strong permanent injunction that would have been nearly impossible to amend, modify, or avoid,” Spivak writes. “Instead, we got press releases.”
 
Read his full piece here.

​Freedom of expression withers when governments are always watching. Our First Amendment freedoms to think, speak, publish, and worship as we choose are strengthened by the privacy protections of the Fourth Amendment.

For this reason, defenders of the First Amendment have much at stake in the looming reauthorization debate over Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). This surveillance authority, which Congress enacted to allow the surveillance of foreign threats on foreign soil, has been used extensively by the FBI to conduct warrantless surveillance of Americans millions of times in the last five years.

Section 702 was last reauthorized with a two-year extension in April 2024 under the Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA). It is now up for a reauthorization by April 20. Will the U.S. House reauthorize Section 702 the right way – by installing robust constitutional guardrails? Or will the House choose a “clean” reauthorization – rejecting all reform amendments – and continue to allow Americans’ personal communications to be swept up in a web of warrantless, at-will surveillance?

Protect The 1st General Counsel Gene Schaerr described how disregard of the Fourth Amendment has directly undermined the pillars of the First Amendment in testimony before Congress:
​

• Freedom of Religion: Under Section 702, the FBI illegally searched the communications of religious leaders who applied to the FBI's “Citizens Academy.” The FBI has shown an appetite to spy on the religious, from surveillance of “traditional radical Catholics” to Americans who attend their local mosque. If federal agencies can use collected data to generate comprehensive “religious dossiers” on every American, what’s next?

• Freedom of the Press: The expansion of what is called the “make-everyone-a-spy provision” under RISAA allows the government to force providers of office space, including landlords for media organizations, to facilitate warrantless surveillance. The FBI’s searches of journalists’ and political commentators’ communications have become a recurring practice.

• Freedom of Speech and Political Expression: “Backdoor searches” are another favorite FBI tactic – and when used to illegally surveil presidential campaigns and transitions, they amount to interference in political expression. Not to mention the warrantless search of the communications of 19,000 donors to a congressional campaign. “Political dossiers,” anyone? Better watch what you post on social media.

• Freedom of Assembly and Association: By purchasing sensitive digital data from brokers, the government acquires information that reveals Americans’ political activities and associations. Case in point: The FBI searched (without a judge-approved warrant) the communications of individuals participating in mass gatherings, specifically Black Lives Matter and January 6 protesters.

• The Right to Petition the Government: In a direct affront to citizens interacting with the justice system, the FBI conducted warrantless searches of victims who approached the Bureau to report crimes. The FBI also spied on a state judge who reported suspected civil rights violations committed by a local police chief.

As these examples illustrate, attempted reforms like RISAA in 2024 offered little in the way of meaningful guardrails on Section 702 operations. Congress has one more chance to get this right. The House must legally require government agents to obtain a warrant to search through Americans’ communications, with reasonable exceptions for emergencies.

Given that 80 percent of Congress’s constituents want these changes to become law, it seems like it should be easy. This is the time to reinforce that the “consent of the governed” still matters.