 Challenges to the First Amendment kept coming throughout 2025 – whether to freedom of speech, to the free exercise of religion, or to the freedom of the press. At every turn, Protect The 1st was there to advocate for First Amendment rights, before Congress, the courts, and the court of public opinion. The Little Sisters of the Poor In December, we told the states of Pennsylvania and New Jersey to get a life and stop harassing nuns. In our amicus brief supporting the Little Sisters of the Poor, we asked the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to remind the states that the Supreme Court has twice upheld the Catholic charity’s right to receive a religious exemption from an onerous Affordable Care Act mandate requiring employers to provide contraception in their insurance programs. The Little Sisters have been fighting this battle for a long time. We will remain as persistent in standing up for their right of religious expression as we have for Sikhs, Muslims, Jews, and other believers and non-believers. And we will also continue to call on the Supreme Court to clarify how the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) – which prohibits the government from substantially burdening religious exercise – protects the rights of all religious groups. Standing Up for Free Speech Online In July, Protect The 1st policy director Erik Jaffe delivered a robust “old school textualist” defense of the First Amendment at the Federalist Society’s Freedom of Thought conference. While others called for more government control of algorithms, Jaffe warned against expanding government influence over anything speech-adjacent. He reminded us that algorithms, like other software code, are effectively “speech” tools that execute human editorial choices. The constitutional rules limiting them should be the same whether digital or analog. Defending Unpopular Speech Protect The 1st is committed to the principle that the First Amendment applies even when it’s inconvenient, protecting expression that many reasonable citizens might wish it didn’t. Such was the case with anti-Israeli activist Mahmoud Khalil. We also stood up to protect Jewish students who were targeted by anti-Israel activists, including those who tried to enforce “Jew-free zones” on campus. Likewise, we urged our followers to denounce the new wave of anti-Semitism arising on both the left and the right. Mahmoud v. Taylor In our amicus brief before the Supreme Court, we told the Court that public schools cannot compel young children to endure instruction that violates their family’s religious convictions without providing notice or the ability to opt out. “Such manipulation of a captive and vulnerable audience” is as morally wrong as it is unconstitutional. Parents must be able to trust that their deeply held convictions will not be undermined without recourse. On June 27, 2025, in a 6-3 decision that cited Protect the 1st’s brief, the Court sided with the parents, holding that the government burdens parents' religious exercise when it requires their children to participate in instruction that violates the families' religious beliefs. Advancing School Choice in Congress Protect The 1st sees school choice as a First Amendment issue. Why? It advances the right of parents to preserve and express their values and beliefs across generations. For that reason, we advocated on Capitol Hill in support of both the House and Senate’s passage of landmark school choice legislation. “For the first time in American history,” our senior policy advisor Bob Goodlatte said, “the right of parents to choose the best school for their children will be supported by a federal tax credit.” Conservative Censorship Is Also Censorship Throughout the Biden years, Protect The 1st consistently criticized that administration for secret jawboning of social media companies to deplatform conservative voices. We even reported on expenditures within the State Department to persuade advertisers to defund conservative publications. When Brendan Carr, President Trump’s Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, pressured ABC to fire a late-night talk show host, we were no less outspoken. We saluted Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who denounced this heavy-handed attempt at government management of speech – likening the temptation to use official power to silence one’s critics to the almost unbearable temptation of the magical ring of power in J.R.R. Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings. The PRESS Act We look forward to the passage of the Protect Reporters from Exploitive State Spying (PRESS) Act, which would protect the notes and sources of journalists from government prying. We criticized Attorney General Pam Bondi’s reversal of a Department of Justice memo that offered limited protections to journalists in leak investigations. We will continue to work with a bipartisan coalition on Capitol Hill to fill the gap in journalist protections at the Justice Department by urging Congress to pass the PRESS Act. The PRESS Act would prohibit federal authorities from spying on journalists through the collection of their phone and email records, with reasonable exceptions for emergencies. The PRESS Act has passed the House twice. With support from Republican Sens. Mike Lee (R-UT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as well as Democrats like Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), we are hopeful that 2026 will be the year the PRESS Act becomes law. We will continue to stand up for free expression – whether political, journalistic, or religious. Wherever some have been silenced, we will be loud in their defense. We will continue to advocate for the First Amendment because it gives you the right to have your voice heard in America’ diverse, democratic marketplace of ideas. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
January 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed