President Trump’s appointment of Linda McMahon as U.S. Secretary of Education sends a single and unmistakable signal – this incoming administration will prioritize the expansion of school choice, and associated parental rights, across the country.
 
Opponents of McMahon’s appointment have already called her credentials into question, pointing to her tenure as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment as too undignified for a Cabinet secretary, disqualifying for any role that does not involve pointed elbow drops or figure-four leglocks. McMahon’s defenders cite her business acumen – building WWE into a multibillion-dollar powerhouse – as a demonstration that she is a manager and a leader.
 
What the oppositional hand-wringing actually boils down to is a fundamental policy disagreement between the educational establishment and the prospective new leader of the Department of Education. McMahon is an outspoken proponent of parental school choice, having co-founded the America First Policy Institute, in part, to advocate for “putting parents and students – not bureaucrats, unions, or politicians – in charge of educating our Nation’s next generation.”
 
As Protect The 1st has often pointed out, parents’ ability to choose how to educate their children is a fundamental First Amendment right, because it determines whether and to what extent parents will be able to extend their values (including those based on religion or belief) across generations. Parents should be able to freely choose a school that fits their child’s needs and to select an education that reflects their values.
 
It's an overdue blessing, therefore, that support for school choice is on the upswing. Today, according to EdChoice, there are 75 school choice programs operating across 33 states. A full quarter of the states have embraced some form of universal school choice. And in 2023, support for school choice reached 71 percent among voters, with strong majority backing across all political parties and demographics. Conversely, a 2024 Pew Research study shows that more than one-half of Americans say that traditional, public K-12 education is heading in the wrong direction.
 
With McMahon at the helm of the Department of Education against the backdrop of a GOP-led Congress, chances are better than ever that we’ll see passage of the Educational Choice for Children Act. This measure would provide tax credits for charitable contributions to organizations offering school choice scholarships.
 
In the meantime, we’re increasingly likely to see the nation’s second-largest state, Texas, join the broadening coalition fighting for the future of our children. In 2023, 21 Republicans joined 63 Democrats to vote down education savings accounts, a top priority for Gov. Greg Abbott. In 2025, 14 of those members are not returning to Austin, giving the governor an education choice majority in both chambers of the state legislature. 
 
Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that school choice is broadly supported among voters of both parties. November’s GOP sweep likely resulted in some part from the disconnect between Democrats and their constituents over our failing public education system. Democrats, simply put, need to listen to their core constituents, upset about public schools that have failed children for decades.
 
Until Democrats wake up – and PT1st hopes they will – the task of reform is left to elected conservatives. Regardless of party, we need political leaders who understand that the quality education and values we bequeath to our children are among the most important expressions of our core beliefs. McMahon’s nomination is nothing less than a “People’s Elbow” in favor of that proposition.  

​Award-winning journalist Catherine Herridge, who is being pressed by a federal judge to reveal her source for an investigative journalism series, has a lot on her plate.
 
She is walking the marbled halls of the U.S. Senate advocating passage of a bill, the PRESS Act, that would protect journalists and their sources. She is doing this while also facing the possibility of an $800 a day fine and jail time for not revealing the source behind her series of stories for Fox News in 2017.
 
Now Herridge is asking President-elect Trump to hear her out on why Senate passage of the PRESS Act is so important to independent, non-mainstream journalists who were so prominent in the last election. This new, rising sector of independent journalists, lacking the deep pockets of a newspaper or a network, are particularly vulnerable to government harassment. They are perhaps the most in need of a limited right to refuse demands from government prosecutors to reveal their sources. Here’s what Herridge told NewsNation:

​Following California’s lead, Michigan lawmakers are advancing legislation targeting election misinformation. It is a bill that is perhaps well-intentioned but nevertheless fatally flawed in its details. 
 
Senate Bill 707 would impose a fine of up to $1,000 on any individual who “knowingly makes a false statement or misrepresentation” to another regarding: the time, place, or manner of an election, the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility, criminal penalties associated with voting in an election, or an individual’s voter registration status or eligibility. Any entity or organization that employs, for an election related purpose, someone guilty of violating these provisions must prove a lack of prior knowledge or be fined up to $10,000.
 
Constitutional problems about speech abound with this one, as well as a myriad of process issues that would make enforcement difficult at best.
 
Like it or not, lies are largely constitutionally protected. To the extent they are not, legal remedies like libel and perjury already exist. In New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court held that even deliberate lies about the government are constitutionally protected. Even if we started punishing deliberate election-related falsehoods, questions will always persist about whether or not such falsehoods constitute jokes, parody, or satire.

Which brings us to the logistical problems at issue here. The bill defines the infraction at issue as requiring “the intent to impede or prevent another individual from exercising the individual’s right to vote in an election.” But proving intent around election adjacent representations is exceedingly difficult – and SB 707 fails to offer up a standard of proof for use in these situations (like, for example, clear and convincing evidence).
 
Moreover, the bill would put the burden of proof on the accused, hitting them with a requirement that one must prove a negative – that they had a lack of prior knowledge.
 
Precedent is all over the place on this issue. Legal scholar and PT1st Senior Advisor Eugene Volokh writes there appears be “some room” under United States v. Alvarez (2012) for narrow restrictions on lies regarding the “how, where, and when to vote.” Yet, in California, a very similar law to the one at issue here was recently enjoined by a United States federal court.
 
Another case out of Massachusetts might also provide some guidance. In Commonwealth v. Lucas (2015), the majority opinion noted that statutes punishing election-related falsehoods “may be manipulated easily into a tool for subverting its own justification, i.e., the fairness and freedom of the electoral process, through the chilling of core political speech.”
 
And therein lies our biggest concern. Even an unsuccessful case brought under this statute could still be used to throttle targeted political speech. No matter the outcome of a trial, the costs and risks of defending oneself in court is a punishment in itself.
 
We recognize the importance of protecting electoral integrity – and the increasing difficulty of doing so in this digital era. But the best, most constitutionally sound remedy against false speech is the same as the old one: counter-speech. Local authorities should always be at the ready to counter misleading statements about elections with a social media bullhorn.

​After extensive analyses of the recent election, let us suggest one more driver behind the dismal performance of Vice President Kamala Harris and the Democrats – their adamant refusal to listen to their constituents about school choice.
 
We’ve long appealed to Democratic politicians to be brave on school choice. For example, when Govs. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania and J.B. Pritzker of Illinois entertained modest tax breaks for school choice for needy children, they withdrew their support after being cuffed about the ears by the public teachers’ union.
 
How much longer can public unions bully elected officials to ignore the appeals of parents for more choice in education, especially from demographic groups long considered dependable Democratic voters? As the late economist Herb Stein said: If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.
 
Consider: Polling data from RealClear Opinion Research underscores that the growing bipartisan support for school choice crosses all demographic and political boundaries. In 2023, support for school choice reached 71 percent among voters, with strong backing from Democrats, Republicans, and Independents alike.
 
Minority support is especially pronounced: 73 percent of Black voters and 71 percent of Hispanic voters favor school choice. This surge in interest, especially among minority voters, likely contributed to a stronger minority turnout for Donald Trump, who has long championed school choice as a civil rights issue. Did Kamala Harris hurt herself by stiff-arming these voters who want better opportunities for their children?
 
The appeal of school choice lies in the frustrations many families feel toward public education systems that have struggled, especially in low-income and minority communities. Some public-school districts serving minority communities have a half-century record of graduating one class of students after another who are largely unprepared for success in adult life.
 
The legacy of underperformance in these schools has led many minority voters to demand alternatives, including charter schools and vouchers, that offer a more personalized approach to education. Protect The 1st advocates for these policies because they fulfill the ability of parents to exercise the First Amendment by extending their values to the next generation.
 
It is no mystery why school choice is sweeping the nation. One-quarter of the states have embraced some form of universal school choice. Texas is about to be next after the recent election added a solid majority to pass Gov. Greg Abbott’s school choice plan next year. The political landscape is shifting, and not just in red states. As long as Democrats consistently buckle to pressure from the government teachers union, they risk alienating a growing segment of an eroding voter base.
 
We urge elected Democrats to bravely reject political pressure from a special interest group. School choice is too important to be anything less than a bipartisan cause.

​An extreme measure that would give future U.S. Treasury Secretaries unprecedented authority to shut down non-profit, advocacy organizations remains a live option in Congress.
 
The “Stop Terror-Financing and Tax Penalties on American Hostages Act,” HR 9495, failed to pass the House last week. But it maintains momentum due to a little sweetener that is widely popular – a commendable side measure to offer tax relief to Americans held hostage in foreign countries. The main part of the bill would grant future U.S. Treasury Secretaries power to use secret surveillance to declare a tax-exempt, non-profit advocacy organization a supporter of foreign terrorism, and shut it down.
 
This provision, in essence, does one thing – it removes due process from existing law that allows the government to crack down on supporters of terrorist organizations. CRS reports that the IRS is already empowered to revoke the tax-exempt status of charitable organizations that provide material support to terrorist organizations, a power it has used.
                                                              
But current law also requires IRS to conduct a painstaking examination of the charge before issuing a revocation. It gives groups the ability to answer charges and to appeal decisions. But the “Stop Terror-Financing” bill would give targeted organizations a 90-day window to challenge the designation, while giving them no access to the underlying evidence behind the determination. An organization could challenge the designation in court but might not be able to access the charges against it due to the state secrets doctrine. In the meantime, being designated a terrorist-affiliate would be a death penalty for any organization and its ability to attract donors.
 
“The entire process is run at the sole discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury,” Kia Hamadanchy of the American Civil Liberties Union told the media. “So you could have your nonprofit status revoked before you ever have a chance to have a hearing.”
 
The latest attempt to pass this measure failed to reach a two-thirds majority needed to pass, with 144 Democrats and one Republican voting against it. Democrats were buoyed by a Who’s Who of liberal organizations, ranging from the ACLU to Planned Parenthood and the Brennan Center for Justice, that denounced the bill. Not surprisingly, pro-Palestinian groups were united in opposition as well.
 
But Republicans and conservatives would be well advised to consider the principled opposition to the bill by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky). He surely appreciates that this power, once created, could be used by future administrations against nonprofits of all sorts. Could a conservative organization be targeted as a supporter of terrorism for advocating, for example, a settlement with Russia (certainly a state sponsor of terror) in its war against Ukraine?
 
Conservative principles and an adherence to the Constitution should begin with the notion that the government should not have the unilateral right to shut down the speech of advocacy organizations on the basis of secret evidence from surveillance, even if you despise what they advocate.
 
Conservatives would also be well-advised to consider not how this law would be used in the near future, but by future administrations. Have they forgotten Lois Lerner and the attempt to use tax law to shut down conservative advocacy groups? “We don’t need to worry about alien terrorists,” Lerner wrote in an email justifying her actions against right-leaning organizations. “It’s our own crazies that will take us down.”
 
Conservatives should be wary. This bill creates a weapon that can be aimed in any direction.

​John Oliver implores the Senate to pass the PRESS Act! It's already passed the House unanimously.

It would protect journalists across the political spectrum from spying and the threat of jail time for doing their jobs.

​A FEMA official in Florida overseeing damage assessments in the wake of Hurricane Milton reportedly instructed workers to avoid homes displaying Trump signs. Screenshots provided to The Daily Wire shows that FEMA volunteers tasked with visiting sites impacted by the storm – and informing residents of government benefits – bypassed homes because they displayed Trump campaign signs.
 
According to screenshots of an internal FEMA chat, the supervisor in question stated that it would be “best practice” to “avoid homes advertising Trump.” At least one worker filed a whistleblower complaint, and FEMA has subsequently terminated the official responsible for the guidance.
 
These actions of a federal agency in Florida present a clear case study on the First Amendment’s “viewpoint neutrality” mandate, which prohibits the federal government from discriminating based on private speech. It also reaffirms the limits of the speech rights of federal employees, who may engage in political speech in their private capacities – but not in the course of their official duties… and certainly not in the context of critical disaster recovery efforts.
 
Should the Florida supervisor contest the termination, she might bring up the wild theories from some influencers that circulated in the wake of Hurricane Helene, another terrible storm that rocked the southeast just prior to Milton. In mid-October, a single armed man – potentially ginned up by conspiracy theories – was arrested in North Carolina for making threats against FEMA.
 
There is still no rational argument that avoiding Trump-supporting households in Florida – part of a 74 million-vote majority – is a narrowly tailored solution aimed at achieving a compelling government interest. 
 
This story does not negate the good work FEMA has done in the wake of recent disasters, but it should serve as an instructive lesson to government employees tasked with upholding the Constitution.

​You probably had the same reaction we did to the story late last week that someone had sent racist text messages to the phones of African-Americans in at least 19 states: We hope they find the SOB.
 
Identifying the troll who blasted out text messages to thousands of Americans telling them to be ready to “pick cotton” would be satisfying. The troll could expect public shaming, likely loss of employment, business boycotts, social ostracism, as well as civil lawsuits. Many of the victims of this text attack did not understand that this was a mass event, not specifically aimed at them. Some were children. The texts caused some to understandably fear for their personal safety. So this was not an ugly prank. It was an attack on Americans’ sense of well-being.
 
All true. But was the message itself a crime?
 
Probably not. In a landmark decision, Brandenburg v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1969 found that the speech of the Klu Klux Klan, as odious as it was, could not be outlawed. The Court found that only speech that is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action” could be deemed illegal. Otherwise, the First Amendment protects hate speech.
 
In every report of the text message we’ve read, there was no imminent threat of lawless action. And yet this text message managed to insult many Americans to the core and disturb the psyche of the nation. This attack – and others that are sure to follow – force us to ask if the Brandenburg standard needs revision. After all, the numbers of Americans exposed to the Klan’s ugly rhetoric in a park in Ohio was tiny. With the reach of digital technology, this message slapped thousands of Americans in the face. Amplified by social and traditional media, it then reached most Americans.
 
Thus, digital technology takes the speech of the marginal and the weird and gives it a national bullhorn.
 
Critics of the Brandenburg standard argue that if you demonize a racial or religious group before millions of people, you might egg on a few unstable individuals to commit acts of violence. This is not a theoretical concern. Consider the hate behind the slaughter that occurred at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh in 2018, or the killing of 10 Black customers at a Buffalo grocery store in 2023. The killer, at his sentencing, expressed remorse and said: “I believed what I read online and acted out of hate.”
 
Defenders of the Brandenburg standard point out that other countries that have hate laws have widened the circle of forbidden speech to an absurd extent. Governments have prosecuted people for soberly criticizing religious dogmas as narrow-minded. Others have prosecuted people for expressing traditional beliefs on sexual behavior advocated by all the world’s major religions.
 
As a First Amendment organization, we take a maximalist position on speech – holding that the antidote to bad speech is more speech. But we also acknowledge that digital amplification raises new questions about heightened risks. So far, we have more questions and concerns than answers. We invite you to follow us as we explore the tension between speech and safety more deeply in the coming year.

​Can we admit now that building out large bureaucracies in college administrations to investigate and punish speech crimes was a mistake?
 
A few decades ago, purported ugly behavior by an undergraduate was a matter policed by the Dean of Students. Those who behaved in an uncivil manner were called in by the dean for a “little talk.” Guided by common sense and wisdom, and depending on the seriousness of the matter, the dean might talk through a student’s emotional problem, issue an admonishment, or with reluctance turn to the possibility of suspension or even expulsion.
 
But students accused of speech infractions today don’t face the Dean of Students. They face long, legalistic investigations, often with their future at stake. Consider Pace University in New York, where Houston Porter, 28, is facing a sex-based discrimination probe. He is accused of “aggressively pointing” at a transgender student and misgendering her during a recent panel about “Saving Women’s Sports.”
 
The panel grew progressively heated as discussants debated the impact of New York’s Proposition 1 ballot measure. This measure codifies gender identity in state law. The panel, which included a constitutional lawyer and two state senate candidates, discussed if such a new law would force women’s sports teams to accept biological men.
 
When the panel opened for questions, the event erupted into chaos.
 
“There were a bunch of people in my face,” Porter told The New York Post. “I felt like I was getting swarmed.” He strenuously denies that he addressed an individual by the wrong pronoun and did not make any gestures toward anyone. A dean of old might have left the matter at that. But Pace is conducting a lengthy investigation of Porter under Title IX, a law prohibiting sex-based discrimination at any educational institution that receives federal funding.
 
Porter, a third-year law student, could now face expulsion or be suspended from practicing law altogether. Even a disciplinary action against him could have lifelong consequences since the bar exam requires applicants to disclose disciplinary actions they have faced.
 
“Any type of punishment will be super-detrimental to my reputation and to my professional career,” Porter told The Post. “It feels like my whole world is crumbling down. I feel like everything that I’ve been working toward might be destroyed over a misunderstanding.”
 
Let’s be clear. Members of sexual minorities, on college campuses and elsewhere, are sometimes discriminated against and physically assaulted. College administrations have a moral as well as a legal obligation to protect all their students from harassment and assault.
 
No one, however, is alleging that Porter did anything except point at someone and use the wrong pronoun – which again, he strongly denies. What is there is for Pace to investigate? Yet university bureaucracies, fearful of Title IX and the U.S. Department of Education, turn even trivial incidents like these into lengthy inquisitions, often concluding with an auto-da-fé. Curiously, it is usually those on the right side of these issues – like Porter, a member of the conservative Federalist Society – who get keelhauled. Did anyone swarming or verbally attacking Porter use foul or “aggressive” language? Did anyone else point a finger? Or worse?
 
The overreaction of universities would be laughable if the consequences weren’t so gravely serious for victims and chilling for speech. The mix of official intimidation, sanctioned and protected harassment, and self-righteous ostracism brings to mind the worst abuses of the McCarthy era. It is time to slim down the resources and authorities of these overweening campus bureaucracies and make it clear that Title IX exists to address serious discrimination, not purported (and in this case, literal) finger-pointing.

​Ever thought you had cancelled a subscription to a publication or an app only to find it has been renewed for another year on your credit card account? This is one of the most common problems reported to the Federal Trade Commission.
 
In response, the agency recently announced a “click-to-cancel” rule for subscriptions, gym memberships, and associations. We think that’s good news. Now why doesn’t the FTC, or the Labor Department, extend this logic to make it just as easy for a worker to resign from a labor union?
 
Unlike an angry consumers’ right to cancel The Washington Post, when a worker is forced to remain in a union, she has to pay dues to subsidize union political speech that she may disagree with. This is what happened to Kristine Kirk who attempted to resign from the Los Rios Classified Employees Association, a union for employees of a community college district in California. Or consider the 21 lifeguards, also in California, who wanted to resign as dues-paying members of a public-employee union but couldn’t.
 
FTC Chair Lina Khan said that some businesses require consumers to go through “endless hoops” to end their subscriptions. That’s nothing compared to the California lifeguards, who were told that they could only resign their union membership during a single thirty-day period every four years. This is typical of attempts at resignation that are blocked by such dilatory tactics and state “maintenance-of-membership” statutes.
 
The most egregious aspect of this compelled union membership is that it violates American workers’ First Amendment right not to pay for political speech that they may vigorously disagree with. This at the heart of a similar lawsuit by attorney Daniel Crowe, who is suing to be released from having to pay dues to the Oregon Bar Association, which prints magazine articles and makes statements with a partisan slant.
 
Isn’t the First Amendment important enough to allow these members to resign their union or association membership with one click?
 
The FTC itself is now a union shop. FTC staff just voted to join the National Treasury Employees Union. Can they resign or are they all captive dues-payers for union speech for now on?
 
How about it, FTC?

​There’s no denying that the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, has a maverick streak. Earlier this year, the court ruled that geofence warrants of cellphone data of suspects and innocents alike are inherently unconstitutional. Law enforcement, which routinely collects such data from the scene of a crime or around a suspect, found its practices upended.
 
And now… oops, they did it again. This week, the Fifth Circuit invalidated settled IRS regulations in a way that is certain to upend speech protections under the law, at least in states under the Fifth Circuit’s purview.
 
The court’s unanimous three-judge panel ruling on a healthcare organization’s tax exemption opens up for revision IRS regulations on 501 (c) (4) “social welfare organization’s” right to engage in political speech. This ruling concerns the current regulation stipulating that these groups can engage in political activities if 51 percent of their funds are spent on approved activities, like public education. Political activity – including ads and social media campaigns – are allowed if they account for no more than 49 percent of the group’s spending. The Fifth Circuit ruled that 501 (c) (4)s can now no longer qualify for tax exemptions if their political activity is at a level that is judged “substantial.”
 
As a result of the Fifth’s ruling it is anyone’s guess how other courts and the IRS will come to define the “substantial” standard for 501 (c) (4) organizations. If spending 49 percent of an organization’s time and money on political activity is substantial, how about 39 percent? Would 29 percent be too much? Five percent?
 
Critics of the 49 percent rule have long argued that it allows donors to pass so-called “dark money” through tax exempt educational organizations to fund political ads for and against candidates. This criticism sharpened in the aftermath of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in 2010 that held that private groups unaffiliated with political campaigns are not limited by the donation limits set by law and enforced by the Federal Election Commission.
 
The Supreme Court found that limiting what someone can spend on their opinions about the issues and candidates of the day is a limit on speech itself. Protect The 1st agrees and defends Citizens United as a cornerstone of the First Amendment’s protection of speech. Undoing that standard would subject all political speech in America to bureaucratic regulation and parsing.
 
A possible collateral casualty of the Fifth’s ruling is donor privacy. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in NAACP v. Alabama in 1958 that organizations have a right to withhold the identities of their donors. In this age of doxing and political retaliation against individuals and their businesses, the wisdom of NAACP seems greater than ever. The Fifth’s decision to open the rule to revision will almost certainly lead to efforts to force the disclosure of donors to 501 (c) (4) organizations. This opening has not exactly gone unnoticed. One advocate for donor disclosure told The Wall Street Journal that donors should be revealed if the tax law was “interpreted the way that we believe it should be.”
 
In the interest of full disclosure, Protect The 1st is organized as a 501 (c) (4), and we use our status to advocate for the PRESS Act, which protects the notes and sources of journalists from compelled exposure, as well as other important First Amendment causes, from donor privacy to the free exercise of religion. For our part, we believe that under all circumstances Americans have the right to freely associate and advocate for their opinions. Full stop. That is what the founders had in mind when they wrote and passed the First Amendment.

​Protect The 1st filed a brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a case in which a public school teacher was terminated over a search of her old retweets of social media memes. While a seemingly small case, it could have outsized influence over the speech rights of millions of Americans.
 
The case involves a public schoolteacher, Kari MacRae, who was hired by the Hanover High School in 2021. Months before, MacRae had been a candidate for the local school board in this Massachusetts town. At that time, she had shared and liked on her TikTok account several memes and videos poking fun at “woke” ideology. (You can decide for yourself what you think of MacRae’s reposted memes, highlighted in this Boston.com article.)
 
Hanover High learned of the unearthing of MacRae’s old TikTok reposts from local media. It then placed MacRae on administrative leave to conduct a 14-day investigation. The school then fired her.
 
MacRae sued for wrongful termination and the violation of her rights only to lose in federal district court and then on appeal before the U.S. First Circuit. In our view, the First Circuit misapplied a framework that if not reviewed and overturned by the Supreme Court, will leave the speech rights of government employees – 15 percent of the U.S. workforce – at risk.
 
The Supreme Court has already held in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) that when government “employees are speaking as citizens about matters of public concern,” they “must face only those speech restrictions that are necessary for their employers to operate efficiently and effectively.” The First Circuit instead embraced a “balancing” standard between personal rights and public responsibilities.
 
Protect The 1st responds: “Framed in Garcetti’s terms, this case asks whether government employers, to ‘operate efficiently and effectively,’ must have carte blanche to punish their employees not for what they are now saying, but for anything they have ever said – even before they were hired. If the First Amendment means anything in this context, the answer to that question must be no. An alternative holding would silence prospective government employees lest their speech, whenever it was made, could later be cited as a reason to destroy their careers.”
 
We warn that if the First Circuit’s standard were adopted broadly, “fully protected speech could lose its protection with time – an untenable proposition.” Protect the 1st also told the Court:
 
“… that in a world where many people spend their lives online, a rule that anything they say there can later be the impetus for their termination from government employment would impose an unconscionable burden on the right to speak on issues of public concern: It would chill pre-employment speech at the front end and give a modified heckler’s veto to bad actors at the back end.”
 
We urge the Supreme Court, which has taken up few First Amendment cases so far in this term, to grant the petition and reverse the First Circuit’s erroneous ruling.