Jesus told his followers that whatever “you do for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you do for me.” He didn’t specify anyone who might be outside of the orbit of care, be they Samaritans or Greeks. Nor did he say that one must proselytize while providing food, clothing, or shelter to the needy.

It is on that basis that the Catholic Charities Bureau, the social ministry of the Catholic Diocese in Wisconsin, provides services for the disabled, the elderly, and the impoverished regardless of their faith. This generous, ecumenical care may square with Jesus, but it fell short of the high standards of Wisconsin regulators and the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The state court ruled that because the charity’s care was given to people of all faiths, it is not inherently religious. For that reason, the charity was forced into the state unemployment compensation system instead of being allowed, as other religions are, to pay into its own more efficient network.

The Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court – from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other – did not hold back in forcefully overturning this Wisconsin ruling on Thursday. “It is fundamental to our constitutional order that the government maintain ‘neutrality’ between religion and religion,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Court. “There may be hard calls to make in policing that rule, but this is not one.”

Justice Sotomayor found that the Wisconsin Supreme Court had engaged in “denominational discrimination” for holding that Catholic Charities was not religious in character because it serves people of all faiths. The state, she wrote, had wrongly imposed “a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological choices.”

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion criticizing the state court for ruling that the Catholic charity is a “distinct organization” from the Diocese.

“Both the basic principles of church autonomy and the history of religious corporations establish that religious institutions are more than the corporate entities that they form,” Justice Thomas wrote. “It follows that the government may not use such entities as a means of regulating the internal governance of religious institutions.” He added: “The First Amendment’s guarantee of church autonomy gives religious institutions the right to define their internal governance structures without state interference.”

Justice Sotomayor made a key distinction sure to resonate:
​
“When the government distinguishes among religions based on theological differences in their provision of services, it imposes a denominational preference that must satisfy the highest level of judicial scrutiny. Because Wisconsin has transgressed that principle without the tailoring necessary to survive such scrutiny, the judgment of the Wisconsin Supreme Court is reversed.”

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari in Apache Stronghold v. United States, about which we’ve written at length. But the Court also denied review in another important First Amendment case on the same day: L.M. v. Town of Middleborough, which concerns the limits of student self-expression in schools.
 
The case involves a student at Nichols Middle School in Middleborough, Massachusetts, who was prevented by faculty from attending class when he wore a T-shirt that read, “There Are Only Two Genders.” According to the facts of the case, Nichols Middle School actively encouraged student expression when it came to endorsing the view that there are many genders, but would not tolerate the opposing view. 
 
The student, known as L.M., brought suit, alleging First Amendment violations based in part on viewpoint discrimination. The critical precedent for student expression in schools is Tinker v. Des Moines, a Vietnam-era case that firmly established the principle that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
 
Tinker involved students wearing black armbands as a form of silent protest against the Vietnam war. Whatever your beliefs about the gender identity debate, it is similarly an issue of intense discussion throughout the media and larger public. As such, similar legal reasoning – that prohibited student expression must “materially and substantially interfere” with the functioning of the school to warrant censorship – should apply.
 
Using the Tinker test, however, both the federal district court and the First Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief. The lower courts followed the judgment of school administrators that this passive speech could trigger and cause harm to other, vulnerable students, demonstrating the inherent subjectivity of this area of law. Justice Samuel Alito called this standard “vague” and sure to be “permissive” of censorship.
 
Indeed, in an impassioned dissent from the Supreme Court’s certiorari denial, Justice Alito (joined by Justice Clarence Thomas) took heated issue with the lower courts’ findings, particularly as they relate to the First Circuit’s dismissal of LM’s viewpoint discrimination claims. He wrote:
 
“The court below erred, and badly so: the rule that viewpoint-based restrictions on speech are almost never allowed is not a new principle ... To the contrary, viewpoint neutrality has long been seen as going to ‘the very heart of the First Amendment.’ The First Circuit was wrong to expel this bedrock constitutional safeguard from our schools.
 
“The First Circuit also watered down the test adopted in Tinker for determining whether a school’s restriction of student speech is allowed. Because free speech is the default and censorship the exception, Tinker set forth a ‘demanding standard.’ We held that a school can restrict speech when it has ‘evidence’ that such restrictions are ‘necessary’ to ‘avoid material and substantial interference with schoolwork or discipline.’ Thus, absent a ‘specific showing’ of such a disruption – like ‘threats or acts of violence on school premises’ – this justification for suppressing student speech does not apply. Under this standard, NMS (Nichols Middle School) had no right to censor L.M.” [Citations omitted.]
 
We agree with Justice Alito that the Court should have granted review in this case – if for no other reason than to clarify the Tinker ruling, which has been subject to wildly divergent interpretations over the years.
 
The First Circuit’s rewriting of the Tinker test leaves a lot up to speculative faculty opinions. As Justice Alito writes, it “demands that a federal court abdicate its responsibility to safeguard students’ First Amendment rights and instead defer to school officials’ assessment of the meaning and effect of speech.”
 
In an increasingly censorious world, that seems an insufficient safeguard.

​When a federal judge this week struck down President Trump’s executive order targeting the WilmerHale law firm, ruling the order unconstitutional, it was the third recent slap-down of his efforts to punish individual firms. It also brought into stark relief how rapidly this administration is moving in two radically different directions on the First Amendment.
 
On the positive side, the president issued on day one an executive order reaffirming this administration’s commitment to the First Amendment. That order fairly criticized the Biden administration for “exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.”
 
Following up on that order, Secretary of State Marco Rubio pledged to “close the book” on “the weaponization of America’s own government to silence, censor, and suppress the free speech of ordinary Americans.” He fulfilled this promise by shuttering the agency’s Global Engagement Center, which secretly tried to kill conservative publications and served as a Trojan horse for filtering content moderation requests to social media platforms.
 
On the other hand, Trump has repeatedly used executive orders to go after past political opponents, putting law firms they had been associated with in the crosshairs for their political leanings.
 
This week, Senior Judge Richard Leon of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia essentially said “enough.” He granted summary judgment in favor of WilmerHale, finding the president’s order violated key First Amendment protections and constituted an improper attempt to punish WilmerHale for its legal advocacy.
 
As with other executive orders, this one had barred WilmerHale lawyers from federal buildings, ordered a review of client contracts, and suspended the firm’s security clearances. Any of these measures alone would have been enough to make it impossible for WilmerHale’s 1,100 lawyers to represent many of their clients, hobbling the careers of those lawyers and the cases of their clients.
 
Judge Leon found these measures retaliatory, noting they stemmed from the firm’s representation of clients and causes President Trump dislikes, especially WilmerHale’s long association with former special counsel Robert Mueller.
 
Judge Leon rejected the administration’s effort to defend its order piece by piece, but instead compared it to “gumbo” with the opening section condemning the firm for the hiring of Robert Mueller to justify the later “meaty ingredients – e.g., the Andouille, the okra, the tomatoes, the crab, the oysters.” But, Judge Leon wrote, it is the opening section that vents on Robert Mueller, “the roux” which “holds everything together. A gumbo is served and eaten with the ingredients together, and so too must the sections of the Order be addressed together … this gumbo gives the Court heartburn.” 
 
One doesn’t have to be a fan of the lengthy Mueller “Russian collusion” investigation to share Judge Leon’s heartburn. Leon warned that upholding the order would betray the vision of the Founders. Judge Leon’s opinion finds the executive order to be a grand tour of violated First Amendment rights – from retaliation for speech, to viewpoint discrimination, interference with petition rights, and infringement of free association. The judge wrote: “The Order shouts through a bullhorn: If you take on causes disfavored by President Trump, you will be punished!”
 
The parallels to the administration’s enjoined orders against Perkins Coie and Covington & Burling are equally clear. Judge John Bates, in blocking an action against law firm Jenner & Block, quoted the Supreme Court in a major precedent, National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo (2024), one that ought to make it clear to conservatives what it would feel like if the shoe were on the other foot. Judge Bates wrote:
 
“More subtle but perhaps more pernicious is the message the order sends to the lawyers whose unalloyed advocacy protects against governmental viewpoint becoming government-imposed orthodoxy. This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the Executive Branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers. It thus violates the Constitution, and the Court will enjoin its operation in full.”
 
Especially concerning to these jurists was the orders’ use of federal contracts to coerce firms and clients. As Judge Leon wrote, that is coercion, not policy. The adversarial system depends on lawyers being free to take on controversial cases without fear of retribution. Nine firms settled to avoid similar orders. WilmerHale chose to fight – and won a sweeping ruling for the First Amendment and for the principle that legal advocacy must remain free from political interference.
 
With these precedents in place, we hope it is clear to President Trump that attacks on law firms are going to continue to hit a brick wall, one that likely extends all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.
 
A better way forward is to drop this fruitless campaign of harassment and return to what worked so well for President Trump early on – defending the First Amendment.

​The U.S. Supreme Court today denied the Western Apache’s last appeal to protect their sacred lands from being transformed into a copper mine. The way is now clear to transfer this parcel of the Tonto National Forest, Oak Flat, from the federal government to a multinational mining company, Resolution Copper.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was joined in an impassioned dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas. It is masterfully reasoned, leaving one to wonder not just about the blatant injustice of this land deal for the Apache, but the implications for the religious freedom of other Americans in the future.

The Background

Gorsuch goes into great detail explaining the history of the Apaches’ connection to Oak Flat and its central place in their religion. He quotes the cert petition explaining the importance of Oak Flat:

“Western Apaches believe that the site is the dwelling place of the Ga’an – ‘saints’ or ‘holy spirits’ that lie at ‘the very foundation of [their] religion … ‘They come from the ground,’ and they serve as ‘messengers between Usen, the Creator, and [Apaches] in the physical world.’

“Faithful to these beliefs, tribal members have worshipped at Oak Flat for centuries, conducting there a number of religious ceremonies that cannot take place anywhere else.”

Justice Gorsuch goes into detail about Apache ceremonies, including three-day coming-of-age-rituals for Apache girls, in which they gather plants while covered in white clay. This mirrors the Apache creation story in which a white-painted woman came out of the earth. Gorsuch quotes the plaintiff, the Apache Stronghold, which wrote that the white clay is meant to “imprint” the spirit of Oak Flat in the young women.

Now, Justice Gorsuch writes, tribal members believe the destruction of Oak Flat “will close off the portal to the Creator forever and will completely devastate the Western Apaches’ spiritual lifeblood.”

The Law

Gorsuch details obligations in an 1852 treaty between the Apaches and the government to recognize the sacred status of Oak Flat. Those obligations were overturned when legislators attached an 11th hour rider to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act, hiding it in a bill that was 698 pages long.

Justice Gorsuch proceeds to dissect and expose the illogical Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that will now allow the multinational mining company to destroy Oak Flat. Today’s motion puts at risk the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which was passed by Congress in 1993 to protect the free exercise of religion from “substantial burdens” by the federal government.

The Ninth Circuit got around RFRA by turning to a precedent, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. (1988) that involved a First Amendment challenge to a plan to construct a road on federal land near sacred tribal sites. Gorsuch writes:

“On the Ninth Circuit’s telling, Lyng set forth a special test for analyzing whether the government’s ‘disposition’ of its real property runs afoul of the Free Exercise Clause … That test, the Ninth Circuit said, permits the government to do as it pleases with its property as long as it has no ‘tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs’ and does not ‘discriminate against or among religious adherents.’”

The Result

Justice Gorsuch notes that courts have had no qualms upholding other laws restricting the government’s power to dispose of its real property. The Endangered Species Act, for example, required the halting of a federal dam to protect the “snail darter.” But no such protections can be afforded to the religion of the Apaches.

The way is now clear for Resolution Copper to blast tunnels that will result in a crater 1,000 feet deep and nearly two miles wide. While courts have acknowledged that this will permanently destroy the Apaches’ historical place of worship, preventing them from ever worshipping there, it does not – according the Ninth Circuit opinion now upheld –amount to a “substantial burden” of the First Amendment religious freedom rights of the Apache. Justice Gorsuch writes:

“Just imagine if the government sought to demolish a historic cathedral on so questionable a claim of legal reasoning. I have no doubt we would find the case worth our time. Faced with the government’s plan to destroy an ancient site of tribal worship, we owe the Apaches no less. They may live far from Washington, D.C., and their history and religious practices may be unfamiliar to many. But that should make no difference.”

He ended his dissent with a quote from the Court’s 2018 opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop:

“Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to … religious freedom.”

In his conclusion, Justice Gorsuch writes:
​
“While this Court enjoys the power to choose which cases it will hear, its decision to shuffle this case off our docket without a full airing is a grievous mistake – one with consequences that threaten to reverberate for generations."

​Protect The 1st is disappointed by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 4-4 deadlock that blocks public funding of a religious charter school in Oklahoma.
 
The ruling, composed of only two sentences, leaves in place an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision to deny St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School its prospective status as the nation’s first publicly funded religious charter school.
 
This dispute started in 2023, when Oklahoma’s charter school board okayed an application by the archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the diocese of Tulsa to create St. Isidore. The school’s plan centered around online learning to address the demand for quality instruction across the Sooner State’s charter school network.
 
Soon after, Oklahoma attorney general Gentner Drummond went to the Oklahoma Supreme Court, asking it to invalidate the charter board’s contract with the school. In a 7-1 opinion, the court ruled against allowing public charter funds to support St. Isidore, holding the funding of online religious schools by the state to be unconstitutional.

In her lone dissent, Justice Dana Kuehn made the compelling point that taking the state’s money would make St. Isidore a publicly funded school, but not a “public school.” Judge Kuehn wrote:
 
“St. Isidore would not become a ‘state actor’ merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities. By allowing St. Isidore to operate a virtual charter school, the State would not be establishing, aiding, or favoring any particular religious organization. To the contrary: Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
 
Indeed, as long as a religious school meets the state’s teaching requirements for math, science, English and other core subjects, it should be eligible for any public benefits made available to any other private school. Oklahoma’s rejection of this common sense, guiding principle is based on the antiquated Blaine Amendments – anti-Catholic laws passed largely in the 19th century to prevent Catholic schools from receiving public funding. These laws, which exist in 37 states, remain in force as living relics of anti-Catholic bigotry from a bygone era.
 
Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has effectively ruled in three recent cases that “a State violates the Free Exercise Clause when it excludes religious observers from otherwise available public benefits.”
 
In Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer, the Court ruled that a Missouri policy denying religious organizations access to playground resurfacing grants violated the Free Exercise Clause. In Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue, the Court held that a Montana state constitutional provision barring aid to any school “controlled in whole or in part by any church, sect, or denomination” was similarly unconstitutional. And in Carson v. Makin, the Court found that Maine’s “nonsectarian” requirement for otherwise generally available tuition assistance payments also failed to pass constitutional muster.
 
Attorney General Drummond, the de facto victor in this case, seems to believe that contracting with the state makes a charter school a public school, a position with far-reaching implications for future state contractors of any religious affiliation. We heartily agree with Justice Kuehn – and so apparently does at least half of the Supreme Court (Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself due to a likely conflict emanating from her former position at Notre Dame).
 
As the Alliance Defending Freedom – representing the Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board – said in its certiorari petition:
 
“The Oklahoma Supreme Court’s conclusion that Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, and Carson ‘do not apply to the governmental action in this case’ fails along with the state-action premise on which it rests … St. Isidore is not a state actor, so the lower court’s talismanic invocation of the phrase ‘governmental action’ does not distinguish this Court’s cases.”
 
But there is good news amid the bad news – the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett almost certainly tilted the balance against St. Isidore. This augurs well for future cases on the equal treatment of religious based schools, as the Court has already done in Carson v. Makin.
 
States should take this opportunity to repeal prejudiced Blaine Amendments, and maybe find another, future opportunity for action that doesn’t trigger a recusal. 

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), passed in 1993 with overwhelming bipartisan support, was crafted to provide a strong shield for religious liberty. It requires that any government action that substantially burdens religious exercise must be the least restrictive means of advancing a compelling government interest. This principle was not meant to expire or be casually overridden.
 
In a recent Supreme Court filing, the Biden Administration asserted that RFRA can be silently displaced by later statutes, even if Congress says nothing about overriding religious liberty. In a brief footnote, the government argued that if a later statute mandates action – even if it burdens religious exercise – it must override RFRA by default.
 
Perhaps that was to be expected from the Biden Administration, which did not make the freedom of religious exercise a priority. More troubling is that the current administration’s Solicitor General, Dean John Sauer, echoed this view in a letter to the Supreme Court in Apache Stronghold v. United States. Sauer reaffirmed the notion that the land-exchange statute at the heart of the case supersedes RFRA, simply because it came later and is “more specific.”
 
This theory invites the piecemeal erosion of civil liberties. If accepted, it would allow Congress – or perhaps even regulatory agencies – to nullify fundamental rights like religious freedom without ever saying so explicitly. All it takes is a newer law or rule that conflicts with RFRA, and the protections vanish.
 
That logic assumes Congress fully weighs the consequences for religious liberty every time it enacts a new law. It presumes that federal agencies act with constitutional clarity. In truth, lawmakers are not always so meticulous, and regulators have been known to ride roughshod over constitutional protections.
 
This framework has already emboldened efforts to undercut conscience protections in healthcare. Under this view, statutes that promote access to abortion or gender-transition procedures can override RFRA by mere implication – forcing doctors and hospitals to act against their beliefs, without any serious effort to reconcile those conflicts.
 
It is disappointing, to say the least, that a Trump Administration lawyer would continue this Biden-era legacy. Conservatives, especially those with commitments to religious liberty, should reject any legal doctrine that grants Congress or regulators an easy path to nullify core civil rights.
 
RFRA was designed to stand as a bulwark, not a speed bump. Allowing it to be bypassed by silence or implication is not just bad legal reasoning – it undermines a law that reinforces the First Amendment’s guarantee of the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court declared in 2020 that “RFRA operates as a kind of super-statute, displacing the normal operations of other federal laws.”
 
The Supreme Court should now again affirm that RFRA remains fully in force.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard two hours of oral argument Wednesday in a case that laid bare ideological fault lines in the Court concerning the tension between the First Amendment’s two clauses on religion, one guaranteeing its free exercise, the other forbidding any establishment of religion. While the Court has recently leaned in the direction of religious freedom, the recusal of Justice Amy Coney Barrett added a note of drama, raising the real possibility of a 4-4 split that would leave intact the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision blocking the school.

The case began when the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa created St. Isidore of Seville, a virtual Catholic school intended to serve all families, including those in rural and underserved areas. The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board approved St. Isidore’s application. But state Attorney General Gentner Drummond took the board to court, claiming it had violated both state and federal law by approving a religious school as part of the charter system. The Oklahoma Supreme Court agreed with the attorney general, ruling that charter schools are public entities and thus must be secular.

We’ve made the case that this ruling is “eminently overturnable,” resting on a legal framework polluted by Blaine Amendments – a relic of 19th-century anti-Catholic bigotry. As we explained when the Court first agreed to hear this case, the Oklahoma law’s exclusion of religious institutions from an otherwise open charter school system violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to see it the same way.
 
“Those are some of the most important cases we've had,” he said, referencing two precedents, Espinoza and Carson, “saying you can't treat religious people and religious institutions and religious speech as second class in the United States.” He called Oklahoma’s policy “rank discrimination against religion,” noting that religious schools were not asking for special treatment, just the right to compete on equal footing.

Justice Samuel Alito took that concern a step further. He accused the Oklahoma attorney general’s argument of reflecting “hostility toward particular religions,” particularly Islam. Referring to Drummond’s statements warning that approval of St. Isidore would compel approval of schools run by “reprehensible” sects, Alito said those arguments “reek of hostility” and reflect an “unsavory discriminatory history” in the state’s constitutional framework.

One question that continued to arise in the oral argument centered on whether St. Isidore, as a charter school, is a state actor. If so, then its religious character would trigger establishment clause concerns. But if St. Isidore is a private actor merely contracting with the state, then exclusion based on religion becomes unconstitutional discrimination. “Casting the cloak of state action too broadly risks intruding on individual liberty,” Michael McGinley, attorney for St. Isidore, told the Court.
 
Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to agree, warning that a ruling against the school could incentivize states to exert more control over charter schools, curbing the innovation those schools were meant to foster. Gorsuch also asked a series of questions to probe whether an educational institution such as St. Isidore could be considered a private organization for the purposes of federal law, but a public institution for the purposes of state law. This probing gives a sense of how Justice Gorsuch, and perhaps the Court, might parse the principles of this case.

The more liberal justices pushed back forcefully. Justice Elena Kagan warned of a “floodgate” effect that could compel states to fund every kind of religious school, including those with doctrines “super different” from mainstream religious or secular values. Justice Sonia Sotomayor bluntly declared: “What you’re saying is the Free Exercise Clause trumps the Establishment Clause.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson argued that St. Isidore was asking for a benefit not granted to anyone else – the right to operate a religious public school – although Oklahoma had every right to set up a secular charter system.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts’ few comments suggested that he is weighing the issue with caution. He noted that unlike Trinity Lutheran, Espinoza, or Carson, this case involves “much more comprehensive involvement” by the state in the charter school program. Chief Justice Robert’s terse demeanor may be a clear signal he will be the deciding vote.

Meanwhile, Gregory Garre, representing the state, warned of “uncertainty, confusion, and disruption” if the Court rules in favor of St. Isidore, arguing it would upend the laws of 47 states and the federal charter school program, all of which bar religious charter schools. But that argument overlooks what the First Amendment demands – neutrality, not hostility, toward religion.

General Drummond’s likening of the inclusion of a Catholic school in the state’s charter program to a private takeover of the operations of the Oklahoma Highway Patrol, to create a Catholic Highway Patrol, is as unserious as it is inapt. No student would be forced to attend St. Isidore. Families would choose the school, and the state’s funds would follow the child. That’s no different in substance than school voucher programs the Court has repeatedly upheld. The state didn’t design St. Isidore, doesn’t run it, and shouldn’t be allowed to exclude it for being religious.

Protect The 1st hopes the Court recognizes that this case is not about religious favoritism. It is about ending religious exclusion. Once Oklahoma opens the door to private educational providers, it cannot slam that door shut on faith-based institutions. St. Isidore deserves the same opportunity to serve Oklahoma families as any other charter school.

​It was reading time at the U.S. Supreme Court today, though the oral argument in Mahmoud v. Taylor did not end with milk, cookies, and a nap. It did indicate, however, a likely victory for the plaintiffs.

Much of today’s oral argument centered around the storybooks included in the pre-K to 6th grade curriculum in Montgomery County schools. One such storybook, Prince & Knight, factored into the discussion.

Here’s a summary of that book written for children ages 4 to 8: Once upon a time, there was a prince who was urged by his royal parents to visit neighboring kingdoms to find a suitable bride. But the prince did not find the woman he loved. While on his journey, the prince was informed that a dragon was attacking his kingdom. He joined forces with a dashing knight, who used his shield to blind the monster. This allowed the prince to successfully ensnare the dragon. When the prince tripped, the knight came to his rescue and caught him in his arms. That’s when the prince realized that he was, in fact, in love. And soon prince and knight were warmly received into the kingdom, which joyfully celebrated their royal wedding.

Another such book, Love Violet, tells the story of a girl who harbors a secret crush for another girl in her class.

In the eyes of many, Prince & Knight and Love Violet spin tales that help children to grow up with respect and acceptance. In the eyes of families that are adherents of great world religions – from Roman Catholicism to Christian evangelicalism, to Islam and Orthodox Judaism – these stories indoctrinate children into celebrating relationships that their religions reject as sinful. Forcing this instruction, therefore, is a violation of the First Amendment rights of the parents’ free exercise of religion.

No one in this case is seeking suppression of these books and teachings. Religious parents of Montgomery County school children are merely seeking the right to opt out their children from the books and its related curriculum. The Montgomery County school board at first allowed such opt-outs, then denied them, claiming that allowing them would be impractical to manage. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the school board’s decision, finding that “simply hearing about other views does not necessarily exert pressure to believe or act differently than one’s religious faith requires.”

In today’s oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito pushed back on that notion. Given that these books are read to children as young as age four, he said many will lack the faculties to dispute or disagree with what they are being told.

“I don’t think anybody can read that and say, ‘Well, this is just telling children that there are occasions when men marry other men,” said Justice Alito. “It has a clear moral message, and it may be a good message. It’s just a message that a lot of religious people disagree with.”

Justice Elena Kagan acknowledged that what some Montgomery County principals had flagged – regardless of gender, the storybooks’ focus on romantic relationships was a questionable choice for children as young as four. “I too, was struck by these young kids picture books and, on matters concerning sexuality, I suspect there are a lot of non-religious parents who weren’t all that thrilled about this.”

But Justice Kagan stuck to the notion that if opt-outs are allowed in this instance, they will have to be allowed for a host of other objections, perhaps even to the teaching of evolution in biology class. Justice Kagan said: “Once we articulate a rule like that, it would be like opt-outs for everyone.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s questions centered around the point that an opt-out rule would “constitutionalize” local decisions on curricula best left to the communities. “Maybe in one community, one set of values, these books are fine, but in another community with a different set of values, they’re not,” she said.

Justice Alito returned to the point that the plaintiffs were not asking that the books be removed. “What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out?” he asked. “I am not understanding why it’s not feasible,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Overall, the tone and tenor of today’s oral argument indicates a solid majority will come down on the side of observing the right of religious parents to opt-out their children.

Two minutes into this two-and-a-half hour-long hearing, Eric Baxter of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, which represents the parents, drew on Protect The 1st’s own amicus brief for his presentation. In that brief, Protect The 1st declared: “Properly understood, the First Amendment forbids the government from imposing such coercive choices on parents as a precondition to participating in a public benefit, including public education.”
​
Though we rarely make predictions about how the Court will decide, we believe that will be the likely stance the Court majority will take.

​The U.S. Supreme Court will soon weigh in on Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case that could reshape the boundaries of parental rights in public education. At stake is a basic but powerful question: Can the state force parents to expose their children to teachings that contradict their deepest moral and religious beliefs? A win for the parents wouldn’t just vindicate religious freedom – it could also throw a lifeline to secular and non-Christian families in red states, where public school curricula are starting to blur the line between education and religious endorsement.

In Montgomery County, Maryland, parents were initially allowed to opt out of new “LGBTQ+-inclusive” texts introduced in 2022. These included books such as Pride Puppy, with some curricula introducing drag queens and leather fetish gear to pre-K students. Born Ready presents gender transition as a personal decision that doesn’t need to “make sense.” Then the school board reversed course, eliminating the opt-out and mandating full participation, even for families whose religious teachings directly conflict with these lessons.

Protect The 1st filed an amicus brief urging the Court to recognize this as a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. This case echoes the foundational rulings in Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Wisconsin v. Yoder, in which the Court affirmed that the right to direct a child’s moral and religious upbringing rests with the family – not the state.

What is often missed in media commentary is how a win in Mahmoud would also defend secular families and minority faiths in red states from forced exposure to Christian-centric teachings. Consider Texas. The state’s new Bluebonnet Learning curriculum is approved for adoption in 2025 and incentivized with $60 per student. While it claims to be academically neutral, watchdog groups have documented how some lessons treat the Bible as literal history and ask students to repeat phrases from Genesis​.

Texas Education Agency officials insist these materials are educational, not devotional, and that schools may use or omit parts as they see fit. But once a district accepts this curriculum, parents will be allowed no opt-out for their children. That’s cold comfort to Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, or secular families in districts that decide to lean hard into biblical framing. What’s being described as “contextual” exposure often amounts to uncritical celebration of one religious tradition. At minimum, there is no need to push this curriculum without parental opt-outs for their children.

We ardently agree that you cannot teach American history without appreciating the role of religion, from the Pilgrims to the civil rights era. But you can – and must – do it without crossing the line into indoctrination. The same principle that protects a Muslim family in Maryland from state-imposed gender ideology also protects a secular family in Texas from state-imposed Christianity.
​
A ruling in favor of the Mahmoud plaintiffs won’t just be a win for religious liberty. It’ll be a win for pluralism – ensuring that no matter where you live or what you believe, the public school system doesn’t get to decide what your child’s faith tradition will be.

​It is considered bad form and bad luck to anticipate how the U.S. Supreme Court will decide a given case. But Adam Liptak of The New York Times just went ahead and called it: “The Supreme Court on Monday seemed ready to rule that a Catholic charity in Wisconsin was entitled to a tax exemption that had been denied by a state court on the grounds that its activities were not primarily religious.”

To say that Colin T. Roth, lawyer for the state, had a rough morning would be an understatement. It was Roth’s task to defend the Wisconsin Labor & Industry Review Commission, which found that Catholic charities that serve the poor are not exempted from state unemployment taxes as a religious organization.
 
The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the flawed reasoning that Catholic Charities – which has provided aid to the disabled, the elderly, and the poor for over a century – is not operated primarily for religious purposes because it provides services to people of all faiths.
 
When asked what it would take for Catholic Charities to be considered religious, Roth replied they might say the Lord’s Prayer when spooning soup. We’ll be sure to pass that advice along to the Catholic lay volunteers, nuns, priests, bishops, cardinals, and the Pope. Thanks, Wisconsin!
 
“Isn’t it a fundamental premise of the First Amendment that the state shouldn’t be picking and choosing between religions?” Justice Neil Gorsuch asked. “Doesn’t it entangle the state tremendously when it has to go into a soup kitchen, send an inspector in, to see how much prayer is going on?”
 
“Some religions proselytize, other religions don’t,” said Justice Elena Kagan. “Why are we treating some religions better than others based on that element of religious doctrine?”
 
Justice Amy Comey Barrett followed up by asking if a Jewish charity would be disqualified given her understanding that Judaism is largely a non-proselytizing religion. Roth replied that such a Jewish charity would have to engage in worship or religious education.
 
What the Wisconsin Supreme Court overlooked is that in Judaism and Christianity, as well as in Islam and Eastern religions, charity is a religious obligation. Jesus said we should feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and clothe the naked. He did not add, “unless, of course, they’re not members of your congregation. Then they’re on their own.”
 
An adverse ruling for Catholic Charities would enable government inspectors and bureaucrats to decide which religious practices are religious. Based on the tenor of today’s oral arguments, that does not seem likely. This was a good day for religious liberty.

​The mindfulness movement encourages people to focus on the now, to be in the moment as they work, but also as they walk, trim the shrubs, drive the kids to school, and boil the spaghetti.
 
How about mindfulness at the moment of one’s execution?
 
In Buddhism, the practice of Maranasati is to use mindful breathing to reach the deepest level of contemplation. Many Buddhists engage in meditation and other spiritual practices as they actually are dying.
 
One person who sought to do this was the recently departed Jessie Hoffman, 46, a convert to Buddhism who wished to engage in meditative breathing as he died. He was prevented from doing so, however, because of the manner of his death, which happened Tuesday night. Hoffman had been sentenced to be lawfully executed for first-degree murder and became the first person in Louisiana to have a mask strapped on his face to be asphyxiated by breathing nitrogen gas.
 
Hoffman faced the death penalty because he had, at age 18, kidnapped 28-year-old Molly Elliott, raped her, shot her in the head, and left her naked body by a river.
 
After 27 years of appeals, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a stay of Hoffman’s execution, dismissing the claim that death by nitrogen amounted to a violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment.”
 
Four Supreme Court Justices, including Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have granted Hoffman’s application for a stay. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote a short dissent explaining his reasoning.
 
Justice Gorsuch noted that no one “has questioned the sincerity of Mr. Hoffman’s religious beliefs.” This is relevant to the application of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which forbids the government from violating a prisoner’s sincerely held religious beliefs. Justice Gorsuch took a lower court to task for issuing its own “find[ing] about the kind of breathing that Mr. Hoffman’s faith requires.”
 
Given the failure of the lower court to fully vet Hoffman’s claim – and the “Fifth Circuit’s unexplained omission” in doing so – Justice Gorsuch announced that he would have granted the stay and vacated the judgment. He would also have remanded the case for the Fifth Circuit to address Hoffman’s RLUIPA claim.
 
This is reminiscent of another case, Ramirez v. Collier (2020), in which the Court ruled in favor of John Henry Ramirez, a man on death row in Texas who petitioned to have his minister lay a hand on him as he received a lethal injection. The Court sided with Ramirez, 8-1. The prisoner’s minister was permitted, in fact, to place his right hand on Ramirez as he died.
 
On its face, the idea of being able to engage in meditative breathing while ceasing to breathe altogether sounds a bit absurd. Prosecutors are always alert to prisoners who manufacture religious objections to extend their lives. Hoffman had requested that he be executed by firing squad, which would, to say the least, have also interfered with his meditative breathing.
 
But Justice Gorsuch reminds us that the free practice of religion, at the most solemn moment of a person’s life, should command sufficient respect to fully explore an RLUIPA claim. At the very least, Hoffman’s claim deserved more consideration, even if it was ultimately rejected.

Ramirez’s attorney, Seth Kretzer, said it best: “The First Amendment applies in the most glorified halls of power and also in the hell of the execution chamber.”

In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on Monday night, Protect The 1st represented 66 Members of Congress that showed the U.S. Supreme Court why it should reverse a Fourth Circuit ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor that rejected the First Amendment objections of parents whose children, some as young as three, cannot be opted out of exposure to material on moral issues controversial with many parents. In its brief, the Protect The First Foundation showed that it is unconstitutional to deny parents this choice, and that “federal law has consistently protected parental rights in the educational arena.”
 
Background
In 2022, the Montgomery County school board embraced books that promoted pronoun preferences, pride parades, and gender transitioning for young students. One book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes “intersex flag,” “drag queen,” “underwear,” “leather,” and a celebrated activist/sex worker. 
 
When some Muslim and Christian parents sought to opt out their children from these teachings, one board member told them that claiming these books “offend your religious rights or your family values or your core beliefs is just telling your kid, ‘Here’s another reason to hate another person.’” On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held that because there was no evidence of either coercion or a direct penalty on these parents’ religious faith if their children were required to participate in these one-sided portrayals of questions about morality, this case involved no burden on their First Amendment rights.
 
An Absurd Outcome
The Protect The 1st brief demonstrates that there is nothing in federal law or the Court’s precedent that remotely supports the Fourth Circuit’s decision to deny parents the choice to keep their children out of such indoctrinating instruction.

• The Board argued that Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972 required it to deny notice or the right to opt out. Protect The 1st told the Supreme Court: “Yet the Board failed to quote or even cite a single provision of Title IX for its claim. Nor could it. The statute’s plain language makes clear that a school’s duty is to not itself discriminate.”

 

• The Fourth Circuit shared the Board’s view that the Supreme Court’s decision in Bostock v. Clayton controlled this expansive interpretation of Title IX. In fact, in Bostock, the majority – which ruled on whether an employer who fires someone for simply being homosexual or transgender – addressed employer discrimination, not educational policy. The majority did “not purport to address bathrooms, locker rooms, [dress codes,] or anything else of the kind.”

 

• In Bostock, the Court went out of its way to display concern that this opinion did not trample on religious liberty: “We are also deeply concerned with preserving the promise of the free exercise of religion enshrined in our Constitution; that guarantee lies at the heart of our pluralistic society.”

Neither the statute’s text nor Supreme Court precedent support the Board’s claims or the Fourth Circuit’s opinions.
​

• The current opinion stands directly opposed to carefully crafted laws passed by Congress over the past half-century to protect the religious freedom rights of parents. Courts have also regularly applied the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to protect parental rights.

“It seems clear to us that the excuses given by the board and the court, relying on federal law and Supreme Court precedent, border on the frivolous,” said Erik Jaffe, President of Protect The 1st. “Both Congress and the Supreme Court have routinely supported parental choice in matters involving the education of their children. And an opt-out for parents has long been recognized as a non-disruptive remedy that protects the rights of parents.

“We fully expect the Supreme Court to agree.”

​The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond to determine whether it violates the Free Exercise Clause to deny state funds to an online Catholic school solely because of their religious character. This is the latest in a string of cases in which the Court has had to push back on states’ unequal treatment of religious schools. It is also an opportunity to functionally invalidate the unconstitutional Blaine Amendments that litter many state constitutions. Above all, it is a chance for parents to reaffirm their right to choose schools that align with their values.
 
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the state’s Charter School Board to rescind a contract with the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. According to the court, the Board’s approval of public funding for a sectarian school violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the Establishment Clause. As we wrote at the time, the opinion is “buttoned down, logical, and eminently overturnable,” relying on “that state’s version of a Blaine Amendment, a movement that gathered momentum when American politics was infected with anti-Catholic bigotry.”
 
Blaine Amendments in 37 states prohibit public funding for schools run by religious organizations. They were passed in an era when Catholics faced wanton discrimination in a largely Protestant America. Doubts as to their unconstitutionality were raised by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Espinoza v. Montana (2020), which found that state-based scholarship programs providing public funds for students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The Court, quite specifically, took the Blaine Amendments to the woodshed, writing that they were “born of bigotry.”  
 
Congress should end the revolving door of state defiance of clear judicial precedent by overriding the Blaine Amendments and reiterating that Espinoza and the similarly reasoned Carson v. Makin meant what they said and remain the law. The Court has plenty of reasons to overturn the Oklahoma ruling. Oklahoma Justice Dana Kuehn’s dissenting opinion spells them out:
 
“St. Isidore would not become a ‘state actor’ merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities. By allowing St. Isidore to operate a virtual charter school, the State would not be establishing, aiding, or favoring any particular religious organization. To the contrary: Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
 
Further, Judge Kuehn wrote:
 
“Contracting with a private entity that has religious affiliations, by itself, does not establish a State religion, nor does it favor one religion over another. Allowing St. Isidore to operate a charter school does not give it any preference over any other qualified entity, sectarian or otherwise.”
 
The Constitution’s prohibition of an established religion does not diminish the free exercise of religion. Religious schools must be free to apply for state funding to the extent that they meet mandated standards in English, math, history, science, and other subjects. Such allowances, in turn, will give more parents the opportunity to choose schools that reflect their values, the ultimate expression of the First Amendment.
 
We agree with Gov. Kevin Stitt, who said:
 
“This stands to be one of the most significant religious and education freedom decisions in our lifetime. I believe our nation’s highest court will agree that denying St. Isidore’s charter based solely on its religious affiliation is flat-out unconstitutional.”
 
Stay tuned.

​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.

​This term, the Supreme Court declined to hear at least 16 cases that involved significant First Amendment issues, leaving a number of critical questions unresolved. Among those left on the table were cases touching on free speech, freedom of association, and the extent of religious freedom under the First Amendment. With these denials, the Court missed an opportunity to clarify or expand upon key First Amendment protections in an era where such rights are up against new and unprecedented challenges.
 
Among the First Amendment cases the Court declined, several stand out as especially significant in terms of the broader impact on free expression and association. If a suitable vehicle for the issues in these cases were to come up in future litigation, we highly encourage the Supreme Court to take them.
 
No on E v. Chiu - Donor Disclosure and Free Speech
 
No on E v. Chiu centered on a challenge to a San Francisco law that required groups running election-related advertisements to disclose their donors, raising significant concerns about the balance between transparency in elections and the right to anonymous political speech. The plaintiffs argued that mandatory disclosure infringes on both free speech and association rights, raising fears of retaliation or harassment for individuals supporting controversial political causes. This is especially relevant in today’s hyper-connected digital world, where donor information is easily accessible, making contributors vulnerable to backlash.
 
As seen in Americans for Prosperity v. Bonta, the Supreme Court has already recognized that revealing donors’ identities can expose them to threats and harassment, deterring political participation. While transparency is often cited as a virtue in campaign finance, the risks to individuals' safety and privacy are real and growing. In response to these threats, 20 states have passed the Personal Privacy Protection Act (PPPA) to shield donors from exposure, acknowledging that the right to support causes anonymously is vital for a healthy democracy. The Court’s refusal to hear No on E allows these concerns to persist and leaves donor privacy vulnerable in states without such protections.
 
National Press Photographers Association v. Higgins - Drones and Press Freedom
 
In National Press Photographers Association v. Higgins, the Court declined to hear a case that highlights the growing tension between new technologies and First Amendment rights. The plaintiffs challenged a Texas law that bans drone surveillance without exceptions for journalists, arguing that the law restricts their ability to gather news. Drone technology is a new frontier for free press rights, where the tools used by journalists to report on important public issues — like protests or natural disasters — are being regulated or outright banned. Drone technology is rapidly becoming essential for covering stories from angles that are otherwise inaccessible, but without clear protections for its use, journalists are left vulnerable to restrictions that limit their news gathering capabilities. As technology continues to evolve, the Court's refusal to address this issue and others like it could have serious implications for how the press operates in the digital age.
 
Hile v. Michigan - Blaine Amendments and Religious Discrimination
 
Hile v. Michigan involved a challenge to Michigan’s Blaine Amendment, which prohibits public funding from supporting religious schools. The plaintiffs argued that this restriction discriminates against religious schools and families, violating both Equal Protection and Free Exercise rights under the First Amendment. This case mirrors other recent challenges to state-level Blaine Amendments, including South Carolina’s, which prohibit the use of public funds for religious schools.
 
Blaine Amendments, like Michigan’s, have their origins in 19th-century anti-Catholic bigotry and today block families from choosing educational options that align with their values. In South Carolina, for example, the state’s Supreme Court recently struck down a school voucher program, citing its Blaine Amendment, leaving thousands of students without financial support to attend religious schools. These rulings disproportionately harm low-income families who rely on school choice programs for access to quality education. As our amicus brief in that case argued, school choice promotes First Amendment-protected religious and speech rights by allowing families to select schools that reflect their beliefs and values. By refusing to hear Hile, the Court missed an opportunity to address the discriminatory legacy of Blaine Amendments and expand educational freedom for all families.
 
Saline Parents v. Garland - Chilling Speech in School Board Protests
 
Saline Parents v. Garland raised concerns about government overreach in monitoring political speech. The case challenged Attorney General Garland’s directive to the FBI to investigate threats at school board meetings, which parents argued unfairly targeted their free speech rights. The plaintiffs contended that the policy cast them as potential threats simply for speaking out against school policies, thereby chilling their ability to participate in public debates over education.
 
Garland’s memo suggests that parental dissent might be treated as a threat. While Garland assured Congress that the DOJ’s efforts were aimed at preventing violence, the mere initiation of an FBI investigation has a chilling effect on speech. Even the process of being investigated can suppress dissent, as individuals are subjected to the anxiety of scrutiny, potential legal costs, and damage to their reputations. Though it’s unlikely that parents would be prosecuted merely for voicing objections, the threat of federal surveillance is more than enough to stifle open debate on school policies. By refusing to hear Saline Parents, the Supreme Court left this chilling dynamic unaddressed.
 
Union and Free Speech Cases
 
The Court also passed on several cases involving unions and the First Amendment, where state employees challenged mandatory union dues deductions made after they had resigned their membership. These cases often focused on limited opt-out windows and union agreements with state agencies that enforced dues collection beyond an employee’s resignation. In previous cases, we have argued that this practice violates employees' First Amendment rights by forcing them to support union activities they may disagree with. By refusing to hear these cases, the Court left in place lower court rulings that continue to allow unions to infringe on individual speech rights through these financial extractions.
 
Why These Cases Matter
 
By denying these First Amendment cases, the Supreme Court missed key opportunities to clarify the scope of free speech and association rights in the modern age. Whether it's the rise of new technologies like drones, the balance between transparency and privacy in political advocacy, the exclusion of religious schools from public programs based on antiquated laws, or government surveillance of political speech at local levels, the Court’s passivity this term leaves many critical questions unanswered. We urge the Supreme Court to consider taking up these issues if, and when, they return in future litigation.

​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 recent session of the U.S. Supreme Court will likely be remembered for two major rulings implicating fundamental separation of powers doctrine: Trump v. United States, establishing presumptive immunity from prosecution for official presidential acts; and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, dispensing with the long-established “Chevron Two Step” granting deference to a federal agency’s interpretation of statutes. In both instances, the Court reaffirmed our constitutional system of checks and balances, including protection against encroachment on the powers and privileges of one branch of government by another.
 
Against the backdrop of those headline-dominating developments, the Supreme Court also took on several important First Amendment cases, with results that were constitutionally sound. Below are the highlights – and summaries – of the Court’s First Amendment jurisprudence released in recent weeks.
 
Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
 
In a unanimous ruling, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of the abortion drug mifepristone. Little noticed by the media, the Court’s opinion also firmly nailed down the conscience right of physicians to abstain from participating in abortions and prescribing the drug.
 
Writing for the Court, Justice Kavanaugh said that the Church Amendments, which prohibit the government from imposing requirements that violate the conscience rights of physicians and institutions, “allow doctors and other healthcare personnel to ‘refuse to perform or assist’ an abortion without punishment or discrimination from their employers.”
 
From now on, any effort to restrict or violate the conscience rights of healers will go against the unanimous opinion of all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Vidal v. Elster
 
The Supreme Court, in another unanimous decision, overturned a lower court ruling that found that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s denial of an application to trademark a phrase including the name “Trump” violated the filer’s First Amendment rights.
 
Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas wrote that “[o]ur courts have long recognized that trademarks containing names may be restricted.” But such trademark restrictions, while “content-based” must be “viewpoint neutral.” This opinion prevents commercial considerations to scissor out pieces of the national debate. While the decision rejected a novel First Amendment claim to a speech-restricting trademark, it affirms sound First Amendment principles and protects the speech of all others who would discuss and debate the virtues and vices of prominent public figures.
 
The Court was right to refuse the endorsement of a government-granted monopoly on a phrase about a presidential candidate.
 
NRA v. Vullo
 
NRA v. Vullo – yet another unanimous opinion – cleared the way for the National Rifle Association to pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York insurance regulator who had twisted the arms of insurance companies and banks to blacklist the group.
 
Maria Vullo, former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, met with Lloyd’s of London executives in 2018 to bring to their attention technical infractions that plagued the affinity insurance market in New York, unrelated to NRA business. Vullo told the executives that she would be “less interested” in pursuing these infractions “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups.” She added that she would “focus” her enforcement actions “solely” on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, “and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.”
 
The Court found for the NRA, writing that, “[a]s alleged, Vullo’s communications with Lloyd’s can be reasonably understood as a threat or as an inducement. Either of those can be coercive.”
 
The Supreme Court’s opinion vacates the Second Circuit’s ruling to the contrary and remands the case to allow the lawsuit to continue.
 
As the Court wrote, “the critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.” And we wholeheartedly agree – censorship by proxy is still government censorship.
 
Moody v. NetChoice

In one of two cases involving the nexus of government and social media, the Court seemed to punt on making a final decision on the constitutionality of laws from Florida and Texas restricting the ability of social media companies to regulate access to, and content on, their platforms.
 
Many commentators believed the Court would resolve a split between the Fifth Circuit (upholding a Texas law restricting various forms of content moderation and imposing other obligations on social media platforms) and the Eleventh Circuit (which upheld the injunction against a Florida law regulating content and other activities by social media platforms and by other large internet services and websites).
 
The Court’s ruling was expected to resolve the hot-button issue of whether Facebook and other major social media platforms can depost and deplatform. Instead, the Court found fault with the scope and precision of both the Fifth and the Eleventh Circuit opinions, vacating both of them and telling the lower courts to drill down on the varied details of both laws and be more precise as to the First Amendment issues posed by such different provisions. The opinion did, however, offer constructive guidance with ringing calls for stronger enforcement of First Amendment principles as they relate to the core activities of content moderation.
 
The opinion, written by Justice Elena Kagan, declared that: “On the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.”

Murthy v. Missouri
 
In what looked to be a major case regarding the limits of government “jawboning” to get private actors to restrict speech, the Court instead decided that Missouri, Louisiana, and five individuals whose views were targeted by the government for expressing misinformation could not demonstrate a sufficient connection between the government’s action and their ultimate deplatforming by private actors.
 
Accordingly, the Court’s reasoning in this 6-3 decision is that the two states and five individuals lacked Article III standing to bring this suit. A case that could have defined the limits of government involvement in speech for the central media of our time was thus deflected on procedural grounds.
 
Justice Samuel Alito, in a fiery dissent signed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, criticized the punt, calling Murthy v. Missouri “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” Fortunately, NRA v. Vullo, discussed above, sets a solid baseline against government efforts to pressure private actors to do the government’s dirty work in suppressing speech the government does not like. Later cases will, we hope, expand upon that base.
 
Secret communications from the government to the platforms to take down one post or another is inherently suspect under the Constitution and likely to lead us to a very un-American place. Let us hope that the Court selects a case in which it accepts the standing of the plaintiffs in order to give the government, and our society, a rule to live by.
 
Gonzalez v. Trevino
 
Protect The 1st has reported on the case of Sylvia Gonzalez, a former Castle Hills, Texas, council member who was arrested for allegedly tampering with government records back in 2019. In fact, she merely misplaced them, and was subsequently arrested, handcuffed, and detained in what was likely a retaliatory arrest for criticizing the city manager. In turn, Gonzalez brought suit.
 
Gonzalez’s complaint noted that she was the only person charged in the past 10 years under the state’s government records law for temporarily misplacing government documents. In 2019’s Nieves v. Bartlett, the Supreme Court found that a plaintiff can generally bring a federal civil rights claim alleging retaliation if they can show that police did not have probable cause. The Court also allowed suit by plaintiffs claiming retaliatory arrests if they could show that others who engaged in the same supposedly illegal conduct, but who did not engage in protected but disfavored speech, were not arrested.
 
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit threw out Gonzalez’s case, finding that she would have had to offer examples of those who had mishandled a government petition in the same way that she had but – unlike her – were not arrested. The Supreme Court, by contrast, found that, “[a]lthough the Nieves exception is slim, the demand for virtually identical and identifiable comparators goes too far.” The Court thus made it a bit easier for the victims of First Amendment retaliation to sue government officials who would punish people for disfavored speech.
 
The controversy will now go back to the Fifth Circuit for reconsideration.
 
***

While the Court avoided some potentially landmark decisions on procedural grounds, and offered a mixed bag of decisions concerning plaintiffs’ ability to obtain redress against potential First Amendment violations, the majority consistently showed a strong desire to protect First Amendment principles – shielding people and private organizations from government-compelled speech.

​When the U.S. Supreme Court put challenges to Florida and Texas laws regulating social media content moderation on the docket, it seemed assured that this would be one of the yeastiest cases in recent memory. The Supreme Court’s majority opinion came out Monday morning. At first glance, the yeast did not rise after all. These cases were remanded back to the appellate courts for a more thorough review.
 
But a closer look at the opinion shows the Court offering close guidance to the appellate court, with serious rebukes of the Texas law.
 
Anticipation was high for a more robust decision. The Court was to resolve a split between the Fifth Circuit, which upheld the Texas law prohibiting viewpoint discrimination by large social media platforms, while the Eleventh Circuit upheld the injunction against a Florida law regulating the deplatforming of political candidates. The Court’s ruling was expected to resolve once and for all the hot-button issue of whether Facebook and other major social media platforms can depost and deplatform.
 
Instead, the Court found fault with the scope and precision of both the Fifth and the Eleventh Circuit opinions, vacating both of them. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Elena Kagan, found that the lower courts failed to consider the extent to which their ruling would affect social media services other than Facebook’s News feed, including entirely different digital animals, such as direct messages. The Supreme Court criticized the lower courts for not asking how each permutation of social media would be impacted by the Texas and Florida laws.
 
Overall, the Supreme Court is telling the Fifth and Eleventh to drill down and spell out a more precise doctrine that will be a durable guide for First Amendment jurisprudence in social media content moderation. But today’s opinion also contained ringing calls for stronger enforcement of First Amendment principles.
 
The Court explicitly rebuked the Fifth Circuit for approval of the Texas law, “whose decision rested on a serious misunderstanding of the First Amendment precedent and principle.” It pointed to a precedent, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, in which the Court held that a newspaper could not be forced to run a political candidate’s reply to critical coverage.
 
The opinion is rife with verbal minefields that will likely doom the efforts of Texas and Florida to enforce their content moderation laws. For example:
 
“But this Court has many times held, in many contexts, that it 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.”
 
The Court delved into the reality of content moderation, noting that the “prioritization of content” selected by algorithms from among billions of posts and videos in a customized news feed necessarily involves judgment. An approach without standards would turn any social media site into a spewing firehose of disorganized mush. The Court issued a brutal account of the Texas law, which prohibits blocking posts “based on viewpoint.” The Court wrote:
 
“But if the Texas law is enforced, the platforms could not – as they in fact do now – disfavor posts because they:
 

• support Nazi ideology;
• advocate for terrorism;
• espouse racism, Islamophobia, or anti-Semitism;
• encourage teenage suicide and self-injury;
• discourage the use of vaccines;
• advertise phony treatments for disease;
• advance false claims of election fraud.”

 
So what appeared on the surface to be a punt is really the Court’s call for a more fleshed out doctrine that respects the rights of private entities to manage their content without government interference. For a remand, this opinion is surprisingly strong – and strong in protection of the First Amendment.

​The expected landmark, decision-of-the-century, Supreme Court opinion on government interaction with social media content moderation and possible official censorship of Americans’ speech ended today not with a bang, not even with a whimper, but with a shrug.
 
The Justices ruled 6-3 in Murthy v. Missouri to overturn a lower court’s decision that found that the federal government likely violated the First Amendment rights of Missouri, Louisiana, and five individuals whose views were targeted by the government for expressing “misinformation.”
 
The Court’s reasoning, long story short, is that the two states and five individuals lacked Article III standing to bring this suit. The court denied that the individuals could identify traceable past injuries to their speech rights. In short, a case that could have defined the limits of government involvement in speech for the central media of our time was deflected by the court largely on procedural grounds.
 
Justice Samuel Alito, writing a dissent signed by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, implicitly criticized this punt, calling Murthy v. Surgeon General “one of the most important free speech cases to reach this Court in years.” He compared the Court’s stance in this case to the recent National Rifle Association v. Vullo, an opinion that boldly protected private speech from government coercion.
 
The dissenters disagreed with the Court on one of the plaintiffs’ standing, finding that Jill Hines, a healthcare activist whose opinions on Covid-19 were blotted out at the request of the government, most definitely had standing to sue. Alito wrote:
 
“If a President dislikes a particular newspaper, he (fortunately) lacks the ability to put the paper out of business. But for Facebook and many other social media platforms, the situation is fundamentally different. They are critically dependent on the protections provided by §230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 … For these and other reasons, internet platforms have a powerful incentive to please important federal officials …”
 
We have long argued that when the government wants to weigh in on “misinformation” (and “disinformation” from malicious governments), it must do so publicly. Secret communications from the government to the platforms to take down one post or another is inherently offensive to the Constitution and likely to lead us to a very un-American place.
 
Let us hope that the Court selects a case in which it accepts the standing of the plaintiffs in order to give the government, and our society, a rule to live by.

​Trademarks support brand integrity in the marketplace, including through certain restrictions on commercial speech. But what about the use of a living person’s name, specifically “Trump Too Small”? (If you don’t know what this means, we’ll let you Google it.) Merchant Steve Elster wanted to register that phrase as a trademark to sell T-shirts. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied his application. A lower court, however, held that the government violated Elster’s First Amendment rights.
 
The Supreme Court today, in a unanimous decision, overturned that ruling and held that the phrase with the former president’s name cannot be trademarked. “Our courts have long recognized that trademarks containing names may be restricted,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote for the majority. But such trademark restrictions, while “content-based” must be “viewpoint neutral.”
 
Justice Barrett wrote that the “government can reasonably determine that, on the whole, protecting marks that include another living person’s name without consent risks undermining the goals of trademark.” This is in keeping with a 1946 trademark law that bans the registration of any trademark that uses a living person’s name without their written consent.
 
Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a concurrence wrote that First Amendment considerations should be applied. She emphasized that First Amendment constraints can be respected without undermining traditional trademark rules.
 
Both sides have a point in law and in principle. Not only did the Court protect the name of a living person, it also refused to enforce a government monopoly on a phrase about a presidential candidate. To take a more generic example, suppose someone trademarked a phrase about Trump or Biden being too old, or too extreme, or too apt to take vacations. Imagine the complexities of a marketplace with thousands of products engaging in a national discussion about presidential candidates with select phrases off limits to anyone who didn’t want to pay or seek written permission to use them.
 
The Court was right to prevent commercial considerations from scissoring out pieces of the national debate. As a result of the Court’s decision, the public remains free to debate – in print, on T-shirts, on mugs, or on TV – the Goldilocks question of whether Trump is too small, too large, or just right. Now that is free speech.  

​The media is abuzz today about the unanimous ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that rejected a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation for the use of the abortion drug mifepristone. What’s overlooked, however, is that the Court’s opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, firmly nails down the conscience right of physicians and healers to abstain from participating in abortions and prescribing mifepristone.
 
This opinion firms up national policy on conscience rights. At a time when some in the federal bureaucracy and the states seem determined to chip away at conscience rights, the Court’s opinion will act as a concrete bollard to block further efforts at encroachment.
 
Justice Kavanaugh wrote that the Church Amendments, which prohibit the government from imposing requirements that violate the conscience rights of physicians and institutions, “allow doctors and other healthcare personnel to ‘refuse to perform or assist’ an abortion without punishment or discrimination from their employers.” The Court’s opinion also repeatedly quotes the Biden Administration in affirming that “federal conscience protections encompass ‘the doctor’s beliefs rather than particular procedures’ … As the Government points out, that strong protection for conscience remains true even in a so-called healthcare desert, where other doctors are not readily available.”
 
The opinion notes as a matter of law and fact that federal conscience laws have protected pro-life doctors ever since the FDA approved mifepristone in 2000. The pro-life plaintiffs in this case argued that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) might be interpreted to require individual emergency room doctors to participate in emergency abortions. But the administration rejected that reading of EMTALA, and the Court declared today “we agree with the Government’s view of EMTALA on that point.”
 
These declarations are not as sensational as upholding a drug that is used for the majority of pregnancy terminations. From now on, however, any effort to restrict or violate the conscience rights of healers will go against the declared intent of the Biden Administration and the unanimous opinion of all nine Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.

“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.”
 
This declaration comes from a unanimous opinion, authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, that clears the way for the National Rifle Association to pursue a First Amendment claim against a New York insurance regulator who had twisted the arms of insurance companies and banks to blacklist the Second Amendment advocacy group. The NRA was represented by Protect The 1st Senior Legal Advisor Eugene Volokh, as well as the American Civil Liberties Union.
 
Maria T. Vullo, superintendent of New York’s Department of Financial Services, had earlier found that NRA’s affinity insurance benefits for members were constructed and sold in a way that violated New York law. Vullo then pushed beyond her regulatory purview into an attempt to punish speech.
 
Vullo met with Lloyd’s of London executives in 2018 to bring to their attention technical infractions that plagued the affinity insurance market in New York, unrelated to NRA business. Vullo told the executives that she would be “less interested” in pursuing these infractions “so long as Lloyd’s ceased providing insurance to gun groups.” She added that she would “focus” her enforcement actions “solely” on the syndicates with ties to the NRA, “and ignore other syndicates writing similar policies.” Vullo followed up with guidance letters to insurance companies and financial services firms extolling the severance of ties with the NRA as a way for companies to fulfill their “corporate social responsibility.”
 
“As alleged, Vullo’s communications with Lloyd’s can be reasonably understood as a threat or as an inducement,” the Court found. “Either of those can be coercive.” The Court quoted a Seventh Circuit opinion regarding a sheriff who interfered with a website by coercing its payment-services providers: “The analogy is to killing a person by cutting off his oxygen rather than by shooting him.”
 
The core of the Court’s opinion rested on Bantam Books v. Sullivan, which involved a Rhode Island state commission that sought to censor books by prohibiting distributors from moving targeted books to stores. Compliance was assured by police offers dispatched to the distribution companies to check their records. The Supreme Court held that the commission’s actions amounted to censorship. In this case, the Court found:
 
“Ultimately, Bantam Books stands for the principle that a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”
 
The Supreme Court’s opinion vacates the Second Circuit’s reversal of a lower court opinion, and remands it for adjudication under this ruling. When that case is heard again, the judges of the Second Circuit will have these words of this unanimous opinion ringing in their ears:
 
“[T]he critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”

​Can a protest organizer be held civilly liable for the unlawful actions of another at a demonstration? That’s the question at issue in McKesson v. Doe, one with significant implications for protected speech.
 
The case’s circuitous journey through the courts started in 2016, when an anonymous Louisiana law enforcement officer was struck with a “rock-like” object hurled by an unknown person at a Black Lives Matter protest. This was a despicable act of violence that was in no sense expressive speech. Those who commit such acts of violence must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But what is the liability of those who organize a peaceful protest that is infiltrated by the violent?
 
Plaintiff John Doe brought suit against activist DeRay McKesson, who organized the event, on the theory that McKesson’s role as the event organizer encompassed a duty to protect everyone present. In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s decision against McKesson, which upheld a novel theory from Doe of “negligent protest.” The Court remanded the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court, instructing it to analyze whether state law actually provides for negligence liability in such situations. This decision seems to ignore precedent in NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware, which held that “[c]ivil liability may not be imposed merely because an individual belonged to a group, some members of which committed acts of violence.”
 
The Louisiana Supreme Court ultimately reached the conclusion that state tort law does, in fact, provide Doe with a cause of action. As a result, the Fifth Circuit reinstated its ruling and the case returned again to the highest court in the land.
 
Notably, the Supreme Court ruled in the intervening years in Counterman v. Colorado that a subjective, mens rea standard (meaning specific intent, not just negligence) is required for a finding of liability in lawsuits that seek to punish speech. Justice Kagan wrote that the “First Amendment precludes punishment, whether civil or criminal, unless the speaker’s words were ‘intended’ (not just likely) to produce imminent disorder.”
 
Accordingly, in an order rejecting certiorari in the McKesson case earlier this month, Justice Sotomayor strongly implied that the Court has already settled this question of law. She wrote, “Although the Fifth Circuit did not have the benefit of this Court’s recent decision in Counterman when it issued its opinion, the lower courts now do. I expect them to give full and fair consideration to arguments regarding Counterman’s impact in any future proceedings in this case.”
 
The Supreme Court clearly wants to allow some deference to state law. However, it seems entirely reasonable to require a showing of intent in situations involving the random outbreak of violence at protests. Failure to do so could have a significant, chilling effect on political speech. If civil liability can be assigned for merely organizing an event, then we’re likely to see a lot less civil discourse in the future.
 
Journalists have similar concerns. As the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press explains, protecting against liability for the “uncoordinated,” lawless actions of others “is a critical safeguard for reporters who attend tumultuous events where violence may break out — political rallies, say, or mass demonstrations — in order to bring the public the news.” 
 
It remains possible the Fifth Circuit may reevaluate its ruing in light of Counterman, but it’s disappointing that the Supreme Court declined to weigh-in in a meaningful way. When states start imposing low liability thresholds on protestors, it jeopardizes First Amendment protections for all of us.

​The U.S. Supreme Court is set to address several critical free-speech cases this session related to speech rights in the context of social media. One of those questions was recently settled, with the Court ruling on whether an official who blocks a member of the public from their social media account is engaging in a state action or acting as a private citizen. Answer: It depends on the context.
 
Writing for a unanimous Court in the case of Lindke v. Freed, Justice Amy Coney Barrett reaffirmed that members of the public can sue a public official where their actions are “attributable to the State” (consistent with U.S.C. §1983). In order to make that determination, the Court issued a new test, holding that:
 
“A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action under §1983 only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.”
 
This is a holistic analysis, consistent with the Protect The 1st amicus brief filed in O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier. We argued that “no single factor is required to establish state action; rather, all relevant factors must be considered together to determine whether an account was operated under color of law.”
 
That case, along with the Court’s banner case, Lindke v. Freed, is now vacated and remanded for new proceedings consistent with the Court’s novel test. When, as the Court acknowledges, “a government official posts about job-related topics on social media, it can be difficult to tell whether the speech is official or private.” So the Court set down rules. A state actor must have the actual authority – traced back to “statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage” – to speak on behalf of the state. However, should an account be clearly designated as “personal,” an official “would be entitled to a heavy (though not irrebuttable) presumption that all of the posts on [their] page were personal.”
 
In Lindke v. Freed, the public official’s Facebook account was neither designated as “personal” nor “official.” Therefore, a fact-specific analysis must be undertaken “in which posts’ content and function are the most important considerations.” As the Court explains:
 
“A post that expressly invokes state authority to make an announcement not available elsewhere is official, while a post that merely repeats or shares otherwise available information is more likely personal. Lest any official lose the right to speak about public affairs in his personal capacity, the plaintiff must show that the official purports to exercise state authority in specific posts.”
 
When a public official blocks a citizen from commenting on any of his posts on a “mixed-use” social media account, he risks liability for those that are professional in nature. Justice Barrett writes that a “public official who fails to keep personal posts in a clearly designated personal account therefore exposes himself to greater potential liability.”
 
It's always been good policy to keep official and private accounts separate. The public must be able to have access to government-issued information, whether through a social media account or a public notice posted on the door of a government building. Moreover, citizens should be able to speak on issues of public concern, whether through Facebook or in a public square. Officials – presidents and former presidents included – should take note.