​On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee took a big step forward in expanding school choice nationwide by marking up and passing the Educational Choice for Children Act by a vote of 23-16. This is the furthest a school choice measure has ever advanced in Congress. With strong support from the House majority, this bill has a promising chance of passing the Senate next year, potentially becoming a landmark in the movement for educational freedom.
 
The Educational Choice for Children Act aims to provide tax credits for charitable donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) that support needy children. These scholarships can be used for private or religious schools, homeschooling, and other non-public educational options. The legislation includes express protections for religious schools, ensuring that parents can choose a learning environment consistent with their beliefs without fear of government interference.
 
Notably, the bill includes safeguards to prevent federal, state, or local government entities from exerting control over private or religious schools. It also prohibits discrimination against educational institutions based on their religious character, providing a robust defense of religious freedom in education. This bill advances the fundamental rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, reinforcing the right of parents and families to freely exercise religious belief.
 
Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) said during the hearing, “The credit will create a new pathway to fund scholarships and open new opportunities for countless families to have a say in where they want to send their children to school and tailor their education to their specific needs.”
 
With a quarter of all states now having comprehensive or universal school choice policies, this movement is spreading across the country like a prairie fire. Protect The 1st has been hard at work alongside allies, coalition partners, and leaders on Capitol Hill to promote this legislation in Washington, D.C., as well as the states. We support the national, bipartisan movement in favor of school choice because the ability to choose a school that aligns with one’s values – whether secular or religious – is one of the most profound expressions of the First Amendment we can make.
 
If passed, the bill would pave the way for millions of students to access better educational opportunities that align with their values and needs. As Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a key proponent of the bill, declared that school choice is “a civil rights issue,” giving parents the freedom to choose the best education for their children, regardless of their socioeconomic status.
 
With the growing support for school choice, this bill can be a historic step toward expanding educational freedom in the United States. It reflects a commitment to empowering parents and enhancing educational options for all children, reaffirming the importance of the First Amendment in safeguarding individual rights in education.
 
The path forward remains challenging, but the momentum behind this bill is unmistakable.

Stanford University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Wisconsin have all embraced a viewpoint neutral stance that refrains from speaking out on the issues of the day. Protect The 1st hopes they will become national trendsetters for higher education.
 
The pitfalls of the old approach were made clear when the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, bedeviled by pro-Palestinian protests, cut a deal to end the protests in May. The administration agreed to consider severing ties with Israeli firms and to put the university’s prestige behind a call for a ceasefire in Gaza.
 
This was only a recent example of how university administrations became opinion factories, spitting out one declaration after another on the issues of the day. For example, the University of Pennsylvania put out a statement denouncing the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. Stanford spoke out on Israel and Gaza.
 
The outspokenness of universities to take positions on the crisis of the day was a hard turn from the standards of the 1967 University of Chicago Kalven Report, forged in the crucible of the Vietnam era. The Kalven Report advocated that universities be true to their stance as fora for free speech by refraining from commenting on issues that don’t affect them as institutions.
 
This is partly out of concern for allowing maximum range for free thought and free speech on campus. A professor, after all, might legitimately believe that Israel has the right to prosecute the war against the terrorists of Hamas, or that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision was correctly decided.
 
There are costs when universities negate opinions, as they did with their stance on Israel. These costs can be tangible when they offend the sensibilities of donors, as well as lawmakers who approve budgets for public universities. In the case of UW Milwaukee, the administration seemed panicked into trying to appease groups that used force to seize part of the campus. Such appeasement often encourages more pressure, turning the university into a mouthpiece for anyone willing to take over a quad or university building. It is no coincidence that Harry Kalven, who chaired the committee that produced the University of Chicago’s report on university neutrality, also coined the term “heckler’s veto.”
 
Appeasing the most animated and sometimes violent activists on campus with official statements is a guaranteed way to get more of the same. The challenge for universities is to be neutral without seeming heartless.
 
“The neutrality of the university as an institution arises then not from a lack of courage nor out of indifference and insensitivity,” the Kalven Report declared. “It arises out of respect for inquiry and the obligation to cherish a diversity of viewpoints. And this neutrality as an institution has its complement in the fullest freedom for its faculty and students as individuals to participate in political action and social protest.”
 
Here’s a tip for administrators: When a university is confronted with the next burning moral question, the best answer – after making clear that the university is a neutral forum – is have at the ready a list of professors and student groups willing to speak to the media. Let the university community speak out on the issues of the day. And let them disagree.

​Maine is openly defying the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin by forcing religious schools to comply with a state antidiscrimination law in order to receive state tuition funds. This action directly contradicts and attempts to nullify the Supreme Court's decision that states cannot exclude religious schools from publicly available tuition assistance programs solely because they are religious.
 
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin, which Protect The 1st supported with an amicus brief, was a significant win for religious liberty. The Court decided that Maine's exclusion of religious schools from its tuition assistance program violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The decision followed precedents like Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer and Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, which established that states cannot discriminate against religious entities in public benefit programs.
 
Despite these clear directives, Maine lawmakers amended state laws to impose new conditions that effectively continue the exclusion of religious schools. Maine now requires all schools participating in the tuition program to comply with the Maine Human Rights Act. For many religious schools, these requirements conflict with their traditional religious beliefs about sexuality, making participation impossible.
 
Maine’s actions are a clear attempt to sidestep the Supreme Court's decision by creating a new set of rules specifically targeting religious institutions. By imposing conditions that contradict the faith of religious schools, the state seeks to maintain their exclusion from public funding, which undermines the constitutional mandate.
 
Two lawsuits have already been filed challenging Maine's new rules, arguing that the state’s policy violates constitutional rights. The cases, brought by Crosspoint Church in Bangor and the Roman Catholic Diocese of Portland, highlight the ongoing conflict between state law and the Supreme Court’s ruling. The plaintiffs argue that Maine's policy is designed to discriminate against religious schools.
 
The state's resistance goes beyond policy disagreement: It attacks the very principle of religious liberty. By enforcing a policy already struck down by the Supreme Court, Maine penalizes religious exercise and undermines parents' rights to choose a religious education for their children. This act of government overreach must be addressed to uphold constitutional rights.
 
Maine’s defiance also puts it at odds with the supremacy of the federal government and the Supreme Court – a principle that many young men from Maine gave their lives to uphold. States cannot be permitted to nullify federal law through legal maneuvering.
 
Courts must ensure that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are respected. Maine’s defiance must be corrected to prevent further erosion of religious freedom.

​Can students who vehemently object to the religious beliefs of a religious college force that college to accept them and their beliefs? Would doing so be a blow for personal liberty, or a way to use the power of the law to force religious institutions to change their doctrine?
 
The Ninth Circuit considered these questions and came down hard on the side of religious liberty by affirming a lower court’s dismissal of just such a case.
 
At the center of that case is Title IX, the landmark civil rights law passed in 1972 that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” at any educational institution that receives federal funding. A longstanding religious exemption, however, makes an exception for any school that is “controlled by a religious organization” and where “the application of [Title IX] would not be consistent with the religious tenets of such organization.”
 
In Hunter v. Department of Education, 33 LGBTQ+ students who applied to religious educational institutions, or attended such a school, brought suit against the government alleging that they experienced discrimination on the basis of their sexuality or gender identity. This may have seemed like a slam dunk. Some courts, the Ninth Circuit included, have interpreted Title IX’s prohibitions to also include discrimination based on such factors in addition to traditional understandings of biological sex.
 
The plaintiffs argued that Title IX’s religious exemption violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In effect, they sought to prevent the future use of federal financial assistance (such as tuition grants and student loans) at religious schools that operate in accordance with their traditional beliefs on gender and sexuality.
 
In parsing the establishment claim, the court applied 2022’s Kennedy v. Bremerton precedent, which set forth a “historical practices” test in determining whether government action inappropriately assists religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. Writing for the court, Ninth Circuit Judge Milan D. Smith reinforced the basic tenets of religious liberty:
 
“First, the history of tax exemptions for religious organizations near the time of the Founding suggests that statutory exemptions that operate as a subsidy to religious institutions do not violate the Establishment Clause according to its original meaning. Second, case law evinces a continuous, century-long practice of governmental accommodations for religion that the Supreme Court and this court have repeatedly accepted as consistent with the Establishment Clause.”
 
In analyzing the equal protection claim, the court found that that the exemption survives all manner of judicial scrutiny because:
 
“[It] substantially relates to the achievement of limiting government interference with the free exercise of religion. The exemption does not give a free pass to discriminate on the basis of sex to every institution; it contains limits that ensure that Title IX is not enforced only where it would create a direct conflict with a religious institution’s exercise of religion.”
 
There is no question that the LGBTQ+ community has faced – and continues to face – harmful and insidious discrimination on many fronts. But preventing students from accessing desperately needed financial resources to attend educational institutions whose teachings align with their sincerely held religious beliefs is not an appropriate means of redress. The First Amendment to the Constitution exists in large part to protect the free exercise of religion – even when a religious organization’s teachings may offend one’s sensibilities. To do otherwise would be to use the power of the government to forcibly change religious dogma, a recipe for unending social strife and culture war. The best solution for the plaintiffs is to attend the one of the vast majority of schools that hold no such religious dogma.
 
Protect The 1st served in an advisory capacity on this case, and we celebrate this win for religious freedom. At the same time, we recognize that we must remain ever vigilant in seeking to strike an appropriate balance between religious freedom and equality – both of which are of critical importance to a free and functioning republic.

In a major win for free speech, a federal judge reinstated Maud Maron to the Manhattan Community Education Council 2 after she was removed for speaking against an anonymous student article she deemed antisemitic. Judge Diane Gujarati ruled the regulation used to remove her was unconstitutional, stating, “Securing First Amendment rights is in the public interest.”
 
Maron’s removal followed her public criticism of that anonymous student article that ran in a school publication, which she called antisemitic in an interview with The New York Post. Her comments, made as a concerned parent, drew the ire of Schools Chancellor David Banks, who invoked Chancellor’s Regulation D-210 to justify her ousting. Banks claimed her statements crossed a line, but Judge Gujarati found this regulation itself overstepped constitutional bounds by suppressing free speech.
 
The ruling also overturned another rule that prohibited parents from criticizing the conduct of school officials, affirming their right to speak freely at board meetings and online. Maron, celebrating the decision, declared: “Free speech rights protect parents when they speak up about our children’s education — on matters routine and controversial.”
 
The case highlights how policies like Chancellor's Regulation D-210 have been used to suppress dissent under the guise of maintaining order. Introduced during New York City’s de Blasio administration, these regulations have been criticized as overly broad and punitive toward those challenging the status quo.
 
By ruling in Maron's favor, the court affirmed that parents and community members must be free to discuss and debate educational policies. The decision is a reminder that such discourse is protected by the First Amendment, which allows open discussion on issues impacting children’s education.
 
Maud Maron's case sends a powerful message to school boards and education officials across the country: in America, the right to speak freely, even when the speech is uncomfortable or controversial, is fundamental. For those in authority, the lesson is clear — silencing critics isn’t maintaing order. It’s undemocratic and unconstitutional.

​The recent wave of government actions against social media platforms — from Brazil’s suspension of X to France’s charges against Telegram’s CEO — reveals a downward global trend in official respect for free speech in the digital age. Framed as efforts to protect public safety, national security, or the democratic process, governments around the world are increasingly bold in controlling what can be said and who can speak online.
 
While some actions target harmful content, many governments (including, as Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attests, our own) risk outright censorship that stifles dissent and restricts access to information.
 
Exhibit A is Brazil, in which the Supreme Court, led by Justice Alexandre de Moraes, ordered a nationwide block on X, formerly Twitter, after the platform refused to appoint a legal representative in the country. This decision follows confrontations over X’s refusal to remove content and block accounts linked to “disinformation” and “extremism” – even though some of the blocked accounts are those of a Brazilian senator and prominent critics of the current administration. X’s Elon Musk understandably is concerned that such “regulation” could be used to censor dissent and control public discourse. So he refused to appoint a legal representative who almost surely would be arrested and prosecuted.
 
Justice de Moraes frames his efforts as a battle against misinformation, citing X's failure to comply with directives as evidence of its disregard for Brazilian law. But Elon Musk, a "free speech absolutist," correctly portrays these actions as overreach by an authoritarian judge.
 
France recently charged Telegram CEO Pavel Durov with failing to prevent illicit activities on his platform. Some argue that pressure from the U.S. Congress and Biden Administration for TikTok to divest from its Chinese parent company is also censorship, though many (Protect The 1st included) have concerns about TikTok’s threats to the data privacy of 170 million Americans and national security.
 
What is clear is that governments are more aggressively regulating platforms they see as threats to public order or sovereignty. Each presents a mix of justifications and overreach. Brazil's crackdown on X is seen by some as necessary to safeguard democracy, while others view it as an overreaction that threatens rights. France’s prosecution of Durov is an overreach if it criminalizes encryption and undermines privacy. Concerns over the data practices of TikTok, its parent ByteDance, and the Chinese government are legitimate, while cracking down on perceived “Chinese-friendly” content would be a clear First Amendment issue.
 
It is true that social media platforms wield considerable power to shape public discourse and influence the conduct of elections; however, methods to counter these threats risk stifling dissent, restricting information, and setting dangerous precedents for censorship. For example, targeting Starlink, Musk's satellite internet provider, for X’s fines seems excessive. Similarly, arresting Durov risks conflating the platform with the actions of Telegram’s users.
 
Is there a better path? Regulators should focus on transparency, accountability, and due process rather than outright bans. Overregulation risks losing a vibrant, open digital space where even controversial ideas can be freely exchanged. If not carefully calibrated, efforts to protect will become efforts to suppress.
 
It won’t be easy, but democratic governments must both defend against illegal content and protect principles of free speech and the robust sharing of information – even when that information is deemed to be wrong.

​Earlier we compared the First Amendment records of Sen. J.D. Vance and Gov. Tim Walz, finding the two vice presidential candidates problematic with notable bright spots.
 
So how do the two candidates at the top of the ticket compare on defending speech? Answer: Even more problematic, but also with some bright spots.
 
Vice President Kamala Harris
 
As a U.S. Senator, Harris in 2017 co-sponsored an amendment with her fellow Californian and leading Democrat, the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein, that would have required federal agencies to obtain a probable cause warrant before the FISA Court could allow the government to review the contents of Americans’ emails. Protecting Americans from warrantless surveillance of their private communications concerning personal, political, and religious lives is one of the best ways to protect speech.
 
As a senator, Harris also defended the First Amendment rights of social media platforms to moderate their content. This is not surprising given that she was from California and big tech is one of her best backers. The Washington Post reports that Karen Dunn, one of Google’s top attorneys in against the Biden administration’s antitrust case, is a top Harris advisor. This closeness suggests a danger that a Harris administration might lean heavily in support of using friendly relations with big tech as a backdoor way to censor critics and conservative speech.
 
Consider that Harris once called for the cancellation of former President Donald Trump’s then-Twitter account, saying:
 
“And the bottom line is that you can’t say that you have one rule for Facebook and you have a different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply, which is that there has to be a responsibility that is placed on these social media sites to understand their power … They are speaking to millions of people without any level of oversight or regulation. And that has to stop.”
 
Why does it have to stop? Americans have spoken for two centuries without any level of oversight or regulation. You might find the speech of many to be vile, unhinged, hateful, or radical. But unless it calls for violence, or is obscene, it is protected by the First Amendment. When, exactly, did liberals lose their faith in the American people and replace it with a new faith in the regulation of speech?
 
Worse, as California Attorney General, Harris got the ball rolling on trying to force nonprofits to turn over their federal IRS Form 990 Schedule B, which would have given her office the identities of donors.
 
Under Harris’s successor, this case went to the U.S. Supreme Court. Protect The 1st was proud to submit an amicus brief, joined with amici from a coalition of groups from across the ideological spectrum. We demonstrated that the likely exposure of donors’ identities would result in various forms of “cancellation,” from firings and the destruction of businesses, to actual physical threats. A Supreme Court majority agreed with us in Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta in 2021 that the same principle that defended Alabama donors to the NAACP extends to all nonprofits.
 
The Biden-Harris administration has also been mum on worldwide crackdowns on speech, from a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice’s cancellation of X, to hints from the French government that this U.S.-based platform might be the next target after the arrest of Telegram CEO Pavel Durov.
 
Former President Donald Trump
 
This is a harder one to judge. It’s long been said that Donald Trump wears better if you turn the sound off.
 
On the plus side, President Trump took a notably strong approach in supporting surveillance reform. A victim himself of illicit surveillance justified by the FBI before the FISA Court with a doctored political dossier and a forged document, President Trump was sensitive to the First Amendment implications of an overweening surveillance state. To his credit, he nixed the reauthorization of one surveillance authority – Section 215, or the so-called “business records provision.”
 
During the pandemic, Trump issued guidance in defense of religious liberty. He said: “Some governors have deemed liquor stores and abortion clinics essential but have left out churches and houses of worship. It’s not right. So I’m correcting this injustice and calling houses of worship essential.” He backed up his defense of religious liberty by appointing three Supreme Court Justices – Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett, and Brett Kavanaugh – who have been strong defenders of religious liberty.
 
But turn the sound back on and you will hear Donald Trump call the American press “the enemy of the people.” Call the media biased, corrupt, in the bag for the Democrats, whatever you like … but “enemy of the people?” Trump’s rhetoric on the media often edges toward physical hostility. As president, he mocked a CNN reporter who was hit with a rubber bullet while covering the 2020 riots in Minneapolis. “Remember that beautiful sight?” Trump asked.
 
At a time when journalists are under threat in America and around the world, this is a decidedly un-American way to confront media bias.
 
Donald Trump has also called for a loosening of the libel laws to allow elected officials to more easily pursue claims against journalists without having to meet the Supreme Court’s “actual malice” standard. We agree that there is room for sharpening libel law in the age of social media amplification, but allowing wealthy politicians to sue news outlets out of business would be one effective way to gut the First Amendment.
 
So what should we conclude? Both Harris and Trump have mixed records. Both have taken bold stands for speech. Both have treated the opposition as so evil that they do not deserve legal protections. Both seem capable of surprising us, either by being more prone to censorship or to taking bold stands for free speech.
 
Whatever your political leanings, urge your candidate and your party to lean on the side of the First Amendment.

​The ever-astute Ayaan Hirsi Ali details the decline of free speech in Britain in a way that perfectly delineates the American distinction between incitements to violence (“fighting words”) and speech that is merely ugly.
 
“After the recent [anti-Muslim] riots, people were given prison sentences for posting words and images on social media. In some cases, the illegal incitement to violence was obvious. Julie Sweeney, fifty-three, got a fifteen-month sentence for a Facebook comment: ‘Blow the mosque up with the adults in it.’ Lee Dunn, fifty-one, on the other hand, got eight weeks for sharing three images of Asian-looking men with captions such as ‘Coming to a town near you.’”
 
Ali writes in The Spectator that a “triple whammy” at the end of the century ended a long period of liberalization in the UK’s speech laws – the arrival of fundamentalist Islam in the West, the rise of far-left critical theories of social justice and the advent of the internet as the public square. The UK’s Online Safety Act, passed by the Tory government, could serve as a “censor’s charter” because of its “inclusion of the phrase ‘legal but harmful’ to characterize certain content.”
 
“The losers in all this are not the hapless fools languishing in jail because of their crude online posts,” Ali writes. “The losers are the millions of people who believe the government exists to protect us from foreign enemies and criminals, not to prohibit ideas, words or images that might offend.”

​When a professional association makes a political statement that some members disagree with – and membership in that association is compulsory – are the First Amendment rights of the dissenting members violated? The answer, according to the Ninth Circuit is … well, it’s complicated. 
 
Oregon attorney Daniel Crowe filed suit against the Oregon State Bar (OSB) following publication of the April 2018 issue of the “Bulletin,” the state Bar’s dedicated publication. In that issue, the Bar published two statements on “White Nationalism and [the] Normalization of Violence.”
 
The first statement, emblazoned with OSB’s logo and signed by six OSB officers, responded to the 2017 white supremacist rally in Charlottesville, condemning violence and “the proliferation of speech that incites such violence.” So far, not much a decent person could disagree with there.
 
The second statement, featured on the opposite page and signed by the presidents of seven Oregon Specialty Bar Associations, built on the first statement and criticized President Trump’s actions in “allow[ing] this dangerous movement of racism to gain momentum.”
 
You don’t have to be a Trump supporter to see the shoehorning of members in the service of a debatable political proposition.
 
Crowe, joined by other attorneys as well as a non-profit called Oregon Civil Liberties Attorneys, filed suit against OSB, arguing that the organization’s use of mandatory dues for activities not “germane” to its purpose violates Crowe’s right to freedom of speech and freedom of association.
 
The case so far has taken a meandering path.
 
First, a federal judge dismissed Crowe’s lawsuit, finding that OSB’s activities were in fact “germane to improving the quality of legal services.” Crowe appealed.
 
Then, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of Crowe’s freedom of speech claim (noting he had received a refund for his portion of the costs of the “Bulletin” publication, thus satisfying any injury). At the same time, the court found that Crowe’s freedom of association claim could proceed.
 
Finally, the lower court, on remand, held that OSB’s predominantly non-partisan, germane activities precluded the freedom of association claim.

Still with us?
 
Back to the Ninth Circuit, which upon another appeal has now found in Crowe’s favor. Writing for the court, Judge Michelle T. Friedland said:
 
“Crowe has demonstrated an infringement on his freedom of association because he objects to certain communications by the Bar that would reasonably have been imputed to the Bar’s members. We also hold that the infringement was not justified because the communications in question were not related to the Bar’s regulatory purpose.”
 
A related question – whether the OSB is entitled to sovereign immunity as an arm of the state – was also addressed. The court found that it is, though Crowe’s claims against individual officers may now proceed.
 
This is a complicated case. But the simplest solutions are to either scale back or eliminate mandatory membership in the Bar altogether, or for the Bar to refrain from making political statements on behalf of its members.
 
OSB published a statement condemning violence right next a statement condemning Trump’s role in promoting violence. If it isn’t an explicit endorsement of that particular statement, it’s close enough to seem so to a reasonable observer.

​Daron Djerdjian is a popular economics professor at Occidental College in Los Angeles, highly rated by students on online review sites. He is also reportedly the last full-throated proponent of free-market economics at Occidental. And yet Djerdjian was, after years of exemplary reviews, released from his contract.
 
This is just one more sign of how, at many leading universities, an ideological monoculture has taken root. This is not to say that academics with conservative or “classically liberal” views are being routinely expelled from the academy, as Djerdjian was. In the economics, law, and humanities departments of many leading universities, conservatives have simply not been hired in the first place.
 
More than one-third of Americans identify as “conservative.” Yet the best jobs in academia are off limits to them. Liberals, no less than conservatives, should find this replacement of intellectual diversity by an ideological monoculture a sign of moral and intellectual rot in higher education. But what to do about it?
 
Indiana lawmakers believe they have the solution. Indiana has passed a new law that requires professors to demonstrate “intellectual diversity” in order to retain tenure at public universities and colleges. This law relies on university trustees, often politically appointed, to enforce this vague mandate. This approach is rooted in the state's argument that professors lack First Amendment rights in their classrooms because their speech is “government speech.” This law not only won’t have the intended effect. It is as misguided as it is dangerous.
 
Defenses of this law echoes similar arguments made in Florida, where that state seeks to control university curricula through legislative measures like the Stop WOKE Act, which restricts discussions about gender and race. Despite their stated aims of promoting diversity of thought, such laws ultimately threaten to erode the very foundation of academic freedom. By framing professors’ classroom speech as merely “government speech,” the state reduces educators to mouthpieces for the state, stripping them of their role as independent thinkers.
 
The Indiana law, much like Florida’s Stop WOKE Act, risks creating a chilling effect on academic discourse, where professors may self-censor to avoid jeopardizing their careers. This would not only harm educators but also deprive students of the robust education that comes from engaging with challenging and diverse ideas.
 
There are better ways to counter ideological uniformity in academia than through constitutionally questionable laws that undermine academic freedom. First, efforts should focus on protecting faculty and students, designating campuses as open for expressive activity of all kinds, as New Hampshire just did.
 
Occidental College is a private, liberal arts institution. If it were located in Indiana, it would be unaffected by this new law. But it is perfectly valid for donors, both wealthy individuals and institutions, to press private universities and colleges, as well as the fundraising arms of public universities, to accept more intellectual diversity in the hiring of professors.
 
The university ideological monoculture cannot – and should not – be strongarmed out of existence. The answer to the policing of speech on campus in not more policing.
 
Protect The 1st will keep an eye on this Indiana law and how it unfolds.

​The resignation of Minouche Shafik as president of Columbia University closes the tumultuous months since the congressional hearing that has now led to the resignations of three Ivy League presidents. Many conservatives, led by Rep. Elise Stefanik, accused Shafik of foot-dragging in her response to violent campus protests.
 
But there is much more to this story. And it is not what many conservatives think.
 
Inside Higher Education reports that the real catalyst for Shafik’s resignation was not timidity in the protection of free speech. It was a faculty backlash over Shafik’s recent conciliatory remarks before Congress and her eventual crackdown on students violently occupying buildings. In doing so, Shafik upheld the rule of law and the openness of the Columbia campus to all but was condemned by those prioritizing ideological conformity over free speech.
 
The irony here is stark. The very people who purport to defend free speech have effectively silenced a university president for enforcing the law in defense of free speech. This contradiction is reminiscent of the twisted logic that characterized the 1960s Berkeley “Free Speech” Movement. Originally, this movement began as a fight for the rights of students to engage in political activities on campus. But the Free Speech Movement quickly turned to speech coercion.
 
Today, Columbia’s situation shows how this mentality has morphed into a bizarre inversion of free speech principles. Apostates are silenced or threatened. Physical intimidation and the disruption of university operations – effectively silencing the speech and association rights of the many in the service of the few – are now tolerated or even celebrated as legitimate forms of expression. This shift is not just confined to Columbia.
 
Universities, once bastions of free inquiry, are now becoming environments where only certain viewpoints are deemed acceptable. This creates a chilling effect, where students and faculty may feel pressured to conform to prevailing ideologies or risk facing social or professional consequences. The very essence of academic freedom – exploring, challenging, and debating diverse perspectives – is being eroded in favor of a narrow, ideologically driven discourse.
 
This troubling development reflects the growing influence of Herbert Marcuse’s “Repressive Tolerance,” an essay that has increasingly shaped contemporary academic thought. Marcuse argued that true tolerance should not be extended to ideas or actions that reinforce the status quo, and that society must suppress regressive elements to allow for progressive change.
 
The forced resignation of Shafik appears to be a real-world application of this philosophy. “I am still an employee of Columbia University, and she’s not,” one faculty member crowed on X. By ousting a leader who defended law and order, as well as the proper functioning of the university, Columbia’s faculty has, in effect, endorsed a selective approach to free speech – one that tolerates only those forms of expression that align with their ideological preferences.
 
Shafik’s subtly forced departure represents a loss for the fundamental principles of free expression and academic freedom. The fact that she was pressured to leave for doing the right thing – cracking down on students breaking the law – shows how far the academy has strayed from its commitment to open discourse.
 
Her departure is not a victory for free speech. It is a clear manifestation of the Orwellian doublethink that now pervades higher education.

​A letter sent on Monday to the House Judiciary Committee by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg should put to rest whether “jawboning” by the government of highly regulated social media companies on their content moderation is taken as mere suggestions, or as something much more.
 
Zuckerberg wrote to the committee Chairman Jim Jordan:
 
“Officials from the Biden Administration, including the White House, repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID-19 content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot of frustration with our teams when we didn’t agree. Ultimately, it was our decision whether or not to take content down, and we own our decisions, including COVID-19-related changes we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure. I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret that we were not more outspoken about it. I also think we made some choices that, with the benefit of hindsight and new information, we wouldn’t make today. Like I said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly that we should not compromise our content standards due to pressure from any Administration in either direction – and we’re ready to push back if something like this happens again.”
 
Zuckerberg also addressed the Hunter-Biden laptop story in the lead up to the 2020 election. He writes that the FBI warned Meta that this story was Russian disinformation. So when Meta saw a New York Post story reporting on the allegations, “we sent that story to fact-checkers for review and temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply.”
 
“It’s since been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation, and in retrospect, we shouldn’t have demoted the story. We’ve changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn’t happen again … for instance, we no longer temporarily demote things in the U.S. while waiting for fact-checkers.”
 
As Protect The 1st has said before, government jawboning of highly regulated companies on content moderation cannot help but veer toward censorship. If government agents want to identify a post as dangerous or as foreign disinformation, let them do so publicly.

​How far can a judge go in imposing speech-related restrictions on a convicted person? That’s the question in U.S. v. Goodwyn, a case that tests the boundaries of judicial authority and the First Amendment.
 
In this instance, Daniel Goodwyn, who was present in the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol, found himself subjected to stringent computer monitoring as a condition of his supervised release. This condition was imposed despite his relatively minor offense – being inside the Capitol for only 36 seconds without engaging in the mob’s violence or destruction. A federal judge imposed the condition that software would be installed on Goodwyn’s computer to monitor it for any signs that he is engaging in “disinformation,” or that (being defended by Tucker Carlson on his show) Goodwyn should use digital sites for fundraising on the off chance he might invest funds in future crimes or try to rehabilitate himself on “extremist media.”
 
This situation demands careful reflection on the role of the judiciary in regulating speech, especially speech that is politically charged. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of expression, including the right to espouse unpopular or even controversial (and yes, outright stupid) views. PT1st Senior Legal Advisor Eugene Volokh notes that the imposition of conditions that monitor and restrict speech based on its content raises serious constitutional concerns. Volokh emphasizes that while the judiciary has the authority to impose conditions on those under supervised release, these conditions must be narrowly tailored and must not infringe upon fundamental freedoms.
 
Parallels between Goodwyn’s case and the U.S. v. Burroughs case (2010) further illustrate how far the court overreached. In Burroughs, a federal court rejected a computer monitoring condition for a far more serious offense than Goodwyn’s, one involving sexual crimes against a minor. The D.C. Court of Appeals in that case reasoned that the mere potential for future criminal conduct over the internet did not justify such a broad restriction. If monitoring was deemed excessive in a case involving serious and ongoing criminal behavior, how can we justify a similar condition for an individual convicted of a non-violent, one-time offense like Goodwyn’s?
 
The First Amendment jurisprudence sets a high bar for restricting speech, even when that speech is false or advocates for controversial ideas. The court’s broad prohibition against spreading “disinformation” about January 6th appears to run afoul of these precedents. As Volokh notes, the language of the political arena is often harsh and imprecise, but that is precisely the type of speech the First Amendment is designed to protect.
 
While the events of January 6th deserve appropriate legal responses, we must ensure that these responses do not encroach on the fundamental freedoms that define our nation. The judiciary has a responsibility to balance the need for public safety with the need to protect constitutional rights. In U.S. v. Goodwyn, this balance seems to have tipped too far in favor of restriction. We look forward to further developments in this case.

​New Hampshire Gov. Chris Sununu (R) recently signed a new law that protects free speech on that state’s public campuses. HB 1305 declares all outdoor portions of public college and university campuses to be open to expressive activity, while allowing administrators to impose reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.
 
This is in keeping with the Supreme Court opinion in Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989) that allows the government to impose such restrictions. Critically, the Court majority also held that such restrictions must be content-neutral and narrowly tailored.
 
New Hampshire is hardly the epicenter of the campus speech wars. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) rates the University of New Hampshire as one of the best campuses in the country for respecting speech. Perhaps that is why lawmakers took notice when students at the University of New Hampshire Franklin Pierce School of Law started a “Free Exercise Coalition” only to receive pushback from the Student Board Association in granting it official recognition as a school club. The group says it is “an open member coalition of religious students and their allies, all with a passion to see America’s foundational religious freedoms be restored and respected.”
 
The Student Board Association blocked recognition of the Free Exercise Coalition – as well as the student Christian Legal Society – for being discriminatory by holding traditional beliefs about sex and marriage. A faculty advisor for the coalition reportedly withdrew his name, making the group’s application to receive official recognition incomplete. It took considerable lobbying, with the backing of the First Liberty Institute, for the Free Exercise Coalition to be officially recognized.
 
Now, thanks to Gov. Sununu’s signature, the Supreme Court’s standard is codified into New Hampshire law. The new law also prevents harassment – “expression that is so severe, pervasive, and subjectively and objectively offensive, that a student is effectively denied equal access to educational opportunities or benefits.” In other words, it allows campuses to crack down on those who would exercise a heckler’s veto by creating an unsafe environment.
 
On New Hampshire’s public campuses, advocating hate and violence against individuals is now prohibited. Administrators must counter any antisemitic event that targets Jewish faculty and students, as has happened at Columbia and UCLA with “Jew Free Zones.” Restricting those who would shut down speech and students’ freedom of movement is fully in the spirit of the First Amendment.

​We’ve already heard a lot of rowdy speech from the two vice-presidential candidates, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Republican U.S. Sen. J.D. Vance. Would they be as generous in applying the First Amendment to others as they do to themselves?
 
Tim Walz, who, despite correct opinions regarding the tragedy of Warren Zevon being left out of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, hasn’t been as on the money when it comes to which types of speech are protected and which are not. In 2022, Walz said on MSNBC:
 
“There's no guarantee to free speech on misinformation or hate speech, and especially around our democracy. Tell the truth, where the voting places are, who can vote, who's able to be there….”
 
As PT1st senior legal advisor Eugene Volokh points out in Reason: “Walz was quite wrong in saying that ‘There's no guarantee to free speech’ as to ‘hate speech.’ The Supreme Court has made clear that there is no ‘hate speech’ exception to the First Amendment (and see here for more details). The First Amendment generally protects the views that the government would label ‘hateful’ as much as it protects other views.”
 
Legal treatment of misinformation is more complicated. In United States v. Alvarez, the Supreme Court held that lies “about philosophy, religion, history, the social sciences, the arts, and the like” are largely constitutionally protected. Libel, generally, is not – though, in a defamation case, a public official can only succeed in their claim if they can show that a false statement was published with “actual malice” – in other words, “with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Categories of intentional misinformation that are patently not protected include lying to government investigators and fraudulent charitable fundraising.
 
Walz may be on firmer ground when it comes to lies about the mechanics of voting – when, where, and how to vote. Thirteen states already ban such statements. As Volokh writes, “[I]f limited to the context that Walz seemed to have been describing – in the Court's words, ‘messages intended to mislead voters about voting requirements and procedures’ – Walz may well be correct.”
 
On freedom of religion, Walz’s record as governor is concerning. During the pandemic lockdowns, the governor imposed particularly harsh restrictions on religious gatherings, limiting places of worship to a maximum of ten congregants, while allowing retailers to open up at 50 percent capacity. An ensuing lawsuit, which Walz lost, resulted in an agreement granting religious institutions parity with secular businesses.
 
Walz also signed a law prohibiting colleges and universities that require a statement of faith from participating in a state program allowing high school students to earn college credits. As the bill’s sponsor conceded, the legislation was intended in part to coerce religious educational institutions into admitting students regardless of their beliefs – diluting their freedom of association. That controversy is currently being litigated in court. Little wonder the Catholic League declared that “Tim Walz is no friend of religious liberty.”
 
The Knights of Columbus might agree – at least as pertains to the broader ticket. In 2018, during the federal judicial nomination hearing for Brian Buescher, then-Sen. Kamala Harris criticized the organization for its “extremist” (read: traditional) views on social issues. Harris also sponsored the “Do No Harm” Act, which would have required health care workers to perform abortions in violation of their religious beliefs. 
 
Regarding Vance, the former Silicon Valley investor is hostile to the speech rights of private tech companies (who certainly enjoy the same First Amendment protections as any other person or group). In March, the senator filed an amicus brief in support of the State of Ohio’s lawsuit against Google, which seeks to regulate the company as a common carrier. In his brief, Vance argues Google’s claim that it creates bespoke, curated search results that directly conflict with its past claims of neutrality. Sen. Vance writes:
 
“[Google’s] functions are essentially the same as any communications network: it connects people by transmitting their words and exchanging their messages. It functions just like an old telephone switchboard, but rather than connect people with cables and electromagnetic circuits, Google uses indices created through data analysis. As such, common carrier regulation is appropriate under Ohio law.”
 
Vance’s argument creeps in the direction of Texas and Florida laws that seek to regulate social media companies’ internal curation policies. Both laws were found wanting by the Supreme Court. The Court in a strongly worded remand on both laws wrote:
 
“[I]t is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression – to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks is biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their audiences.”
 
Yet Vance also attempts to “un-bias” social media platforms, leaving little to no room for independent curatorial judgment.

On the plus side, Vance has cosponsored numerous bills aimed at curtailing government censorship, including the “Free Speech Protection Act,” which prohibits government officials from “directing online platforms to censor any speech that is protected by the First Amendment.” He also sponsored the PRESERVE Online Speech Act, which would force social media companies to disclose government communications urging the censoring or deplatforming of users.
 
As the election season progresses, we can hope for more clarity on the candidates’ positions regarding our First Amendment freedoms. It is already clear, however, that both candidates are far from purists when it comes to protecting other people’s speech.

​The European Union’s Digital Services Act is an object lesson in how laws that purport to prevent the spread of “misinformation” and “disinformation” are destined to turn regulators into little tyrants.
 
Thierry Breton, European Commissioner for the Internal Market, is threatening Elon Musk and his social media company X with legal consequences if he airs his interview with former President Donald Trump. In a letter to Musk, Breton wrote that X must see to it that “all proportionate and effective mitigation measures are put in place regarding the amplification of harmful content in connection with relevant events, including live streaming, which, if unaddressed, might increase the risk profile of X and generate detrimental effects on civic discourse and public security.”
 
In other words – don’t let Europeans hear the unfiltered words of a former U.S. president and major party nominee, or the EU will sanction your business.
 
This is so breathtakingly – unselfconsciously – Orwellian that it almost reads as parody.
 
Yes, much of what Donald Trump says – about the size of the crowds being drawn by his opponent, Vice President Harris, suggesting that AI was used to make them seem larger – could be fairly characterized as misinformation or disinformation. Or just plain silly. The so-called “missile gap” that dominated the U.S. election in 1960 was also patently untrue. Today, claims made by the vice president that the U.S.-Mexico border is closed and secure could be characterized in the same light. So undoubtedly could statements made by French President Emmanuel Macron or German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Indeed, politicians of all political stripes and national origins stretch or distort the facts so regularly that fact-checking politicians (and, in turn, the fact-checkers) has become an ever-increasing part of journalism and an important part of the public debate.
 
It must not become the business of regulators to make their own determination of what is true or not true in a political campaign and then censor statements made by candidates. We cannot allow government to cut up democratic debate into little sanitized snippets where bureaucrats and politicians in positions of power get to create their own narrative and punish anyone who strays from the orthodoxy.
 
Let Thierry Breton be a lesson to all the scolds in this country who want to give Washington similar powers. They would rob the voters of their ability to make up their own minds and substitute a sanitized, government-approved narrative that the public could challenge only at its peril. That would be a truly “detrimental effect on civil discourse.”

​Aristotle wrote that anybody can get angry. The hard task is to “be angry with the right person, and to the right degree, and at the right time, and for the right purpose.”
 
We don’t know if Judge Mark Scarsi of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is a student of Aristotle. But when he issued a preliminary injunction on Tuesday ordering UCLA to not allow parts of its campus to be off-limits to Jewish students, his order came out hot. Judge Scarsi wrote:
 
“In the year 2024, in the United States of America, in the State of California, in the City of Los Angeles, Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith. This fact is so unimaginable and so abhorrent to our constitutional guarantee of religious freedom that it bears repeating. Jewish students were excluded from portions of the UCLA campus because they refused to denounce their faith.”
 
The plaintiffs in the case are Jewish students who have a religious belief about the importance of the State of Israel. Several students, under threat of violence, were barred from the path to UCLA’s Powell Library. Others could not access the university’s  Royce Quad because to do so they would either have to denounce their faith or meet those who promised violence.
 
As the judge notes, UCLA does not dispute these facts. Instead, it argues that it has no responsibility to protect the religious freedom of its Jewish students because the exclusion was engineered by a third party, in this case student and off-campus protesters angry about the tragedy in Gaza.
 
Judge Scarsi responds: “But under constitutional principles, UCLA may not allow services to some students when UCLA knows that other students are excluded on religious grounds, regardless of who engineered the exclusion.”
 
A preliminary injunction is usually a tell about where a court is going. In this case, it is more like a bullhorn.

​Many free speech advocates were disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion Murthy v. Missouri, which could have defined the limits of government “jawboning,” or informal coercion of social media platforms’ content management. The opinion turned out, instead, to be a procedural kicking of the can down the road. True to form, the FBI followed up on this opening by announcing it will continue to highlight misinformation and disinformation for social media companies during the election season. The good news is that the FBI is now at least committed to keeping the public somewhat informed about government communications with private tech companies.
 
Murthy v. Missouri involved well-supported allegations of covert efforts by the government to influence social media content moderation during the Covid-19 pandemic. Under pressure from federal and state actors, social media companies engaged in widespread censorship of disfavored opinions, including those of medical professionals commenting within their areas of expertise.
 
As we wrote of that opinion, “When pressure to moderate speech is exerted behind the scenes – as it was by 80 FBI agents secretly advising platforms what to remove – that can only be called censorship.” Yet the Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on the merits of the case, finding that the plaintiffs’ grievances against the government were too attenuated to constitute standing. With the 2024 presidential election on the horizon – and with it the likelihood of disinformation efforts by U.S. adversaries abroad – the issue of government jawboning and content moderation is back in a big way.
 
According to a recent memo issued by the Department of Justice, the FBI “will resume regular meetings in the coming weeks with social media companies to brief and discuss potential [Foreign Malign Influence or FMI] threats involving the companies' platforms.” The government promises to develop new policies to “ensure that the public is aware that DOJ’s sharing of information with social media companies about potential FMI threats to national security, including election interference, is undertaken pursuant to carefully calibrated protocols that protect First Amendment rights.”
 
The plan also calls for an explicit promise that the FBI will tell social media companies that it is offering an advisory opinion. It will not, we are told, compel them to act.
 
The FBI’s specific plans for keeping Americans informed of its efforts are anemic, but a sign of progress. The plan references making new standard operating procedures public and accessible online, as well as creating a new website to “collect and highlight in a single location relevant resources, guidance, and other materials …” We’ll have to wait and see just how comprehensive such a repository can be against the backdrop of national security.
 
Still, the FBI is at least moving in the direction of transparency. We’ve long held that transparency has always been the missing link in the government's approach to its communications with social media platforms. We won’t rest until misinformation or disinformation is identified publicly, rather than through the quiet direction of social media platforms. Flagging posts on the FBI’s open website would respect the public's intelligence, the principle of free expression, while showcasing how democracy works. The government's role should be clear and open, fostering an environment where informed decisions are made before the public.
 
Ideally, content moderation decisions might look something like context annotations that offer some degree of explanation for why a particular post might be flagged or removed. That way, Americans can see for themselves why a decision was made – and whether it related to an actual Foreign Malign Influence effort versus a fringe or disfavored opinion put forth by someone’s eccentric uncle.
 
None of this reduces the need for the Supreme Court – or Congress – to establish a rule by which we can all live when it comes to communications between the government and tech platforms on content. In the meantime, we can only hope that the controversy sparked by recent litigation will eventually lead to actual transparency.

​A recent case in Castle Rock, Colorado, tests the boundaries of government’s ability to limit the free exercise of religion, which seems to be a pastime for Colorado officials. This time official restrictions test the role of religious exercise in the novel context of zoning regulations.
 
Since 2019, the local Rock Church has provided shelter to homeless residents of Castle Rock. It offers them the use of RVs on its property for temporary housing. Since that time, town officials have repeatedly attempted to block those efforts, citing zoning restrictions.
 
In January, following unsuccessful attempts at negotiation, the Rock Church brought suit against Castle Rock in federal court, alleging First Amendment violations. It also alleges violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which prohibits governments from imposing land use rules that substantially burden religious exercise.
 
The Rock Church says that sheltering the homeless and feeding the hungry is a religious mandate specifically required by the Bible. They argue that Castle Rock’s repeated intervention to enforce the church grounds’ designation as a “Planned Development” zone – which, the town argues, does not permit the use of RVs for temporary housing – substantially burdens the free exercise of their religion.
 
A federal court has now preliminarily enjoined the town from enforcing its land use laws against the church and its temporary shelter ministry.
 
While the preliminary injunction is a positive first step, it remains to be seen how far the court will finally rule in this case. RLUIPA bars enforcement of a “land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of … a religious assembly or institution, unless the government demonstrates” it is “in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” That is a very tough standard for the government to meet.
 
This strict scrutiny standard of constitutional law holds that laws that place burdens on constitutional rights are presumptively invalid unless the government can prove their enforcement to be vital. The government must also show that no other less burdensome means of achieving their aims exists. RLUIPA offers a standard of legal review that provides an ingrained level of defensive protection for our rights.
 
To ensure that the town did not try to question the beliefs and practices of the church, U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico wrote in his opinion:
 
“To the extent there is a dispute about whether the Church’s stated beliefs actually require it to provide shelter on its own property, there is no reason to second-guess the Church at this point, regardless of how idiosyncratic or mistaken the Town may find its beliefs to be … To hold otherwise would invite the sort of ‘trolling through a person’s … religious beliefs’ and ‘governmental monitoring or second-guessing’ of ‘religious beliefs and practices’ that … is forbidden by the First Amendment.”
 
Judge Domenico also found that Castle Rock articulated no specific, compelling governmental interest in preventing the on-site sheltering of homeless people on Rock Church land. The RVs are parked on large lots at considerable distance from residential areas. Even local officials agree there have been no safety concerns or incidents to date.
 
Although this is just a preliminary injunction, the Rock Church will, for the time being, be able to resume efforts to house the homeless. Religious expression through charity and action is surely the kind of religious expression Congress had in mind when it passed RLUIPA.

​Sam Brownback – the former U.S. Senator, Kansas governor, and ambassador – describes the day in May 2022 when Chase Bank refused to allow him to make a deposit on behalf of the nonprofit organization he now leads, the National Committee for Religious Freedom. He was told that account had been cancelled.  
 
When Brownback asked why, he was only told that the decision was made by “corporate.” Two weeks later, Brownback and his nonprofit received a formal notification from Chase that the account had been formally closed. Brownback then undertook a prolonged attempt to persuade Chase to explain its decision. He received multiple answers. At one point the bank asked Brownback to disclose all of his committee’s donors.
 
“You don’t require that of other people,” he replied to a bank official. “We’re not going to do that.”
 
A few months later, Sam Brownback was told that something about this organization had crossed the bank’s tripwires indicating a possible domestic threat of terrorism. Brownback himself was, he was told, defined as “a politically exposed person,” a legal term in international finance that could involve a government official connected to corruption, money-laundering, and terrorism financing.
 
Brownback’s experience is one of the most prominent cases in a disturbing trend in financial services: “debanking” law-abiding organizations that strike some people as too ideological, too controversial, or in someone’s eyes “hateful.” These actions seem to emerge from an overwrought emphasis on the “reputational risk” of serving groups ideologically disfavored by Fortune 500 C-Suites. The list of debanked organizations runs the gamut from conservative activist groups to traditional Christians to companies that extract oil and gas, make guns and ammunition, and run private prisons.
 
Why is this happening? Banks, large and small, and other financial institutions are being jawboned by NGOs about the reputational and other risks of serving controversial groups and businesses. Some of the jawboning comes from the government.
 
Sen. Tim Scott, (R-SC) in a letter earlier this year to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, wrote about Treasury sending guidance to financial institutions “instructing them to search and filter Americans’ transaction-level financial data using specific keywords, search terms, and particular merchant category codes.” These keywords include common political slogans, the legal purchase of firearms (making “Dick’s Sporting Goods” one such term), as well as “the purchase of books (including religious texts) and subscriptions to other media containing extremist views.”
 
“Bank executives hear a lot of noise in their left ear,” Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND), who sits on the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, told a recent Federalist Society discussion. “Conservatives are not good at making noise.”
 
Regardless of your personal views about conservative ideas or traditional morality, demonizing and isolating the traditional beliefs of virtually every major world religion seems more like a First Amendment violation than a smart way to filter out people who are truly dangerous. Little wonder that Brownback says these decisions feel like they are being made “to suffocate people of faith.”
 
What can be done in response? Sen. Cramer is gathering a large number of cosponsors for his Fair Access to Banking Act, which forbids discrimination on the basis of “subjective political reasons, bias, or prejudices.” Cramer also suggests that an effective response is to make noise in the other ear of bank executives.
 
Brownback is doing just that. He says he is working overtime to persuade smaller organizations, often embarrassed and frightened at being debanked, to find comfort in numbers by joining other debanking victims in public. The more groups that come forward, the more banks and other financial institutions will have to give up on using access to the financial system as a way to bully ideologically disfavored groups.
 
Consider the group of debanked organizations that sued to force Chase to allow a vote on a shareholder proposition in 2023 against ideological debanking. That move did the trick. Soon after, WePay, which processes payments for Chase, removed its “social risk” policy which applied “hate” and “intolerance” standards against Christian and conservative organizations. J.P. Morgan pledged to provide “financial services for individuals and industries across geographies – regardless of political, social, or religious viewpoints.”
 
The threat against disfavored groups mirrors a recent case of direct government bullying, National Rifle Association v. Vullo, that was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court. In that case, a government regulator in New York strongarmed financial and insurance companies to debank the Second Amendment advocacy organization. The Supreme Court ruled against the government regulator. Perhaps the justices will get the chance to declare that it is no more acceptable for big financial institutions to band together to exclude, and thereby financially harm, groups whose viewpoints they dislike.
 
You don’t have to be a conservative or an evangelical Christian to be offended by this institutional effort to bully nonprofits over speech. As liberal Justice Sonya Sotomayor wrote in the Vullo decision:
 
“At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.”
 
That principle logically applies as much to private banking decisions as to governmental discrimination.

​We begin this piece with a trigger warning. You might want to shut the door and draw the blinds. Steel yourself to read something distressing: Bruce Gilley, a Portland State University professor, was blocked from a Twitter account owned by his employer because he – we warned you – posted: “All men are created equal.”
 
This was his response to an “interrupt racism” thread of the university’s Division of Equity and Inclusion in 2022. Gilley sued over the university’s decision to remove him from its twitter thread. The university lost a motion to dismiss. On Tuesday, federal Judge Marco Hernandez slapped the university with a temporary injunction from “hiding, muting, or deleting posts by @Bruce Gilley on the @UOEquity X account.” The judge’s action is based on a substantial likelihood that Gilley would prevail on the merits.
 
Gilley was deposted because the account’s university administrators found his messages, somehow, constituted racism. Gilley is, to be fair, provocative in his lashing critiques of post-colonial ideology and DEI imperatives. (By the way, universities once delighted in academics who provoked debate, and “provocative” was considered a compliment.)
 
The university clearly violated its own social media guidelines for employees, the first of which is:
 
“As a public university that values freedom of speech and a robust exchange of ideas, you should err on the side of letting people have their say when commenting on social media properties. When appropriate, engage with commenters and repliers, even if it’s just to like or reply to their comments or to acknowledge their criticism. Don’t delete comments or block users because they are critical or because you disagree with their sentiment or viewpoint.”
 
The university’s social media guidelines do allow the removal of comments if they are “violent, obscene, profane, hateful, or racist or otherwise use offensive or inappropriate language.”
 
Gilley successfully argued that the First Amendment would protect even actual hateful and racist speech. Judge Hernandez issued the temporary injunction holding that the university cannot depost Gilley’s messages because they are found to be “hateful,” “racist,” “otherwise offensive,” or “out of context.” The judge’s use of quotes is clearly aimed at the slippery standards the university’s DEI office applied to Gilley’s views – and this injunction only applies to Gilley. It would be a mistake to extrapolate from this that even a public university, which must show maximal respect for the First Amendment, is prevented from issuing a viewpoint neutral policy of excluding racial slurs.
 
The root issue here is not just about the law. It is an intellectual one, the inability of so many today to use common sense to distinguish between messages that are clearly racist and those that can only be construed as racist by inference or mind-reading. There’s no judicial fix for that one, only better education.

​Diaba Konaté, the defensive player of the year for the Big West conference as a point guard for the University of California, Irvine, was born in Paris. She won two silver medals and one gold medal for her home country’s under-18 national team. But she was forbidden from trying out for the Olympic team in her native France because she wears a hijab – a sign of piety and modesty – while she plays.
 
“I can’t fully express my faith and pursue my athletic aspiration,” Konaté said.
 
On the surface, the decision by the French Federation of Basketball to forbid its Muslim female athletes from wearing the hijab in their competition and official ceremonies is a strictly French affair. It is based on the somewhat strained theory that French athletes are public servants, and therefore are subject to the nation’s spirit of laïcité, or strict secularism, that shuns any visible or vocal expression of religious belief in the public sphere. This doctrine is taken to an extreme in France, where any politician who so much as evokes a religious perspective on a public issue is held to have committed a serious faux pas.
 
This French doctrine, first enshrined in law in the early 20th century, seems to be a distant echo of the radical and violent anticlericalism of the French Revolution, as well as an expression of the rationalism of the Third Republic. The result today is official hostility in France to students who wear crucifixes, kippahs, turbans, and hijabs.
 
Before we congratulate ourselves for being broader minded, keep in mind that in many official quarters of the United States religion remains a suspect characteristic best quarantined from larger society. From Colorado to Maine, religious schools have had to fight in court to defend their right to have the same access to public funds as other private schools. In Arizona, an elementary school district attempted to ban student-teachers from Arizona Christian University based solely on religious affiliation. In Minnesota, the state legislature blocked fully accredited religious schools from offering college credit courses to high schoolers. In Mississippi, an elementary school student was disciplined for wearing a mask during the Covid era that said “Jesus Loves Me.”
 
The good news is that administrators backpedaled in these cases. There are also affirmative wins as well. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Josh Shapiro last year signed a repeal of a Blaine Amendment-era law forbidding public school teachers from wearing “religious garb,” such as a hijab or kippah. And the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 famously upheld the right of a football coach to pray on his own time after a game.
 
While the American experience is a far cry from attitudes in France, many in U.S. officialdom still seem to believe, as the French do, in a “wall of separation between church and state” – a wall not to be found in the U.S. Constitution but in an 1802 letter President Thomas Jefferson to a group of Connecticut Baptists. Our Constitution mandates no establishment of religion or religious tests for office. This wise policy has kept America free of the religious wars and turmoil that once engulfed Europe. But it is not a “wall” that treats any semblance of religious expression in what one wears, or prayers for over lunch, as an infection to be isolated.
 
American public schools and other secular institutions are enhanced by this pluralism, including the right to wear or not to wear items that are central to one’s beliefs. Let’s hope that in time the French come to recognize the wisdom of American pluralism, rather than Americans embracing the anti-liberal, strict secularism of Paris elites.

​For the second time, Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro had a chance to stand up for school vouchers to help children from low-income families escape failing public schools to find a quality education in a private school. For the second time, Gov. Shapiro chose what seems to be – superficially at least – the politically expedient path.
 
From The Wall Street Journal:
 
“The Governor has national ambitions, and the teachers unions that oppose vouchers could stand in the way of his chances for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028. But he’d also have allies, such as the Black Pastors United for Education, who last month wrote him a letter calling for vouchers. On Friday they wrote him again, saying they never got a response to the first letter, and inviting him to discuss vouchers at a town hall. 
 
“For our lawmakers to disregard this issue of freedom,” says Joshua Robertson, a pastor in Harrisburg, “is unacceptable.” Citing the “dire” education situation in public schools, he adds: “We need a courageous Governor.”

​Sunday is National Parents’ Day, a day to recognize the sacrifices made by the 63 million parents in the United States. Signed into law by President Clinton in 1994, National Parents’ Day could be treated lightly – like so many other legislative honorifics, such as National Wine and Cheese Day (July 25) or National Bagelfest Day (July 26).
 
But Sunday’s observance calls for deeper reflection.
 
The courts, the media, and the culture focus on the responsibilities of parents, which are intense and last for years. In no other relationship is a person so bound by law and custom to see to the nutrition, clothing, education, and care of another person. Fortunately, for most of us, these things and so much more are given freely, even enthusiastically.
 
Many educators and politicians, however, seem to have a growing hostility to the flip side of responsibility – the rights of parents. Parents have many rights, including the right to see that the values they hold dear are the ones their children grow up with. Indeed, the First Amendment guarantees the right of every American – including parents – to expressive activity. And that includes not only what we say, write, post, and support, but also our efforts to perpetuate our values across generations.
 
Thus, for example, public-school parents have the right to support their children in joining the after-school club of their choice, whether it is about science, a film club, art club, or faith. And yet, regarding the latter, parents have twice had to go to federal court to obtain reversals of educators’ efforts, from Washington, D.C., to San Jose, California, to block the students of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes from holding after-school meetings. In the latter case, Judge Kenneth K. Lee of the Ninth Circuit found evidence that educators were emitting a “stench of animus” toward religious belief.
 
This animus is also seen in Montgomery County, Maryland, where Muslim and Christian parents tried and failed in court to be allowed to keep their preschool and elementary students from being taught unnecessarily explicit lessons about sexuality – the mere exposure to which violates their families’ religious beliefs.
 
Of course, parents with purely secular values also have the right to perpetuate their values across generations. Yet they generally face no such discrimination. The stench of animus that Judge Lee found leads instead to the apparent determination of some to run roughshod over parental rights mostly when it comes to religion. There seems a desire by some in the educational establishment to stamp everyone with uniform values, instead of embracing the pluralistic nature of American society.
 
With so many leaders of public education determined to shape children with a cookie cutter of uniformity, parents are increasingly exercising their rights by leaving the system altogether. This rebellion against the cookie cutter has led to a movement in a dozen states to embrace universal school choice. To be sure, private schools in these voucher systems must still adhere to state standards in the teaching of science, math, history, English, and social studies. But school choice leaves room for pluralism, whether the school imparts religious values or not.
 
The rights of parents, and how they intersect with their First Amendment rights, is something to reflect on – and celebrate – this Sunday.