The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech March 21, 2024 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. In the News American University Washington College of Law: Murthy v Missouri .....Ed. note: Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles "Chip" Miller spoke on a panel about Murthy v. Missouri. Read Miller's Bloomberg Law op-ed with Senior Attorney Brett Nolan about the case here, our amicus brief in the case here, and our podcast of the Supreme Court oral arguments in the case here. New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Arguments – Episode 4: Gonzalez v. Trevino .....Sylvia Gonzalez v. Edward Trevino, II, et al., argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 20, 2024… Questions Presented: 1. Whether the Nieves probable cause exception can be satisfied by objective evidence other than specific examples of arrests that never happened. 2. Whether the Nieves probable cause rule is limited to individual claims against arresting officers for split-second arrests. Supreme Court SCOTUSblog: Court hears Texas city council member’s retaliatory arrest claim By Amy Howe .....The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in the case of a Texas city council member who contends that she was arrested in retaliation for her criticism of the city’s manager. During just under 90 minutes of oral argument, the justices struggled to determine what kind of evidence plaintiffs in such cases need to show for their cases to go forward. The former city council member, Sylvia Gonzalez, was the first Hispanic woman elected to the city council in Castle Hills, Tex. In 2019, after a long meeting, Gonzalez placed a petition that she had been initiated, criticizing the city’s manager, in her binder at the end of a long meeting. Gonzalez claims that she picked up the petition accidentally. But two months later she was charged with violating a state law that prohibits tampering with government records. Gonzalez, then 72 years old, was arrested and spent a day in jail, although prosecutors declined to pursue the charges against her. Washington Post (Technology 202): The Supreme Court looks unlikely to overhaul online speech after all By Will Oremus .....In the past year, the Supreme Court has tackled four sets of cases that raised pivotal questions about online speech. Together, the cases once appeared to have the potential to dramatically reshape the legal landscape around social media and reinterpret the First Amendment for the digital age. With Monday’s oral arguments in Murthy v. Missouri, the court has now heard all four. Given that the court has yet to rule in two of them, it would be premature to draw firm conclusions. Still, close observers are starting to sense how the justices are thinking about social media in relation to the First Amendment. The Tech 202 talked with three legal experts who’ve been following the cases to get their takeaways. Reason: The Supreme Court Should Reject Clandestine Government Censorship of Online Speech By Jacob Sullum .....When federal officials persistently pressured social media platforms to delete or downgrade posts those officials did not like, a government lawyer told the Supreme Court on Monday, they were merely offering "information" and "advice" to their "partners" in fighting "misinformation." If the justices accept that characterization, they will be blessing clandestine government censorship of online speech. The Hill: The Supreme Court can dismantle the censorship-industrial complex By Harmeet Dhillon .....O’Handley v. Weber and Murthy v. Missouri are the culmination of a disturbing and increasingly systematic trend of government actors forcing social media companies to censor constitutionally protected speech in the name of combatting “misinformation.” The government knows it cannot act on its own to silence political opponents, since that would clearly violate the First Amendment. But by forcing private actors — such as Meta, X or other massive digital platforms — to do the government’s dirty work, bureaucrats have attempted to create a loophole in the Constitution’s guarantee of the freedom of speech. This coordinated censorship apparatus is embedded in both federal and state government agencies, as evidenced by the parallel journeys of these two landmark cases. The Courts Courthouse News: Ninth Circuit denies injunction to block disclosure rules for Alaska elections By Alanna Mayham .....A voter-backed measure to enforce election campaign-finance disclosures in Alaska prevailed Friday after a ruling from the Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal judge’s denial in 2022 of a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the law. “We hold that the district court acted within its discretion to conclude that plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims,” Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia, an Obama appointee, wrote in her opinion. “Accordingly, the district court’s order denying plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is affirmed.” The appeal — brought before the Ninth Circuit on Feb. 9, 2024, in Portland, Oregon — stemmed from a 2022 lawsuit filed by political donors. Those donors claimed that a 2020 voter initiative enforced burdensome disclosure rules that could lead to retaliation for their open support. Bloomberg Law: CUNY Union Sheds Free Speech Suit Over Alleged Anti-Semitism By Beth Wang .....The City University of New York’s faculty union can negotiate on behalf of six professors who resigned from it after it adopted a “Resolution in Support of the Palestinian People,” a federal appeals court said Monday. The First Amendment doesn’t “guarantee public employees the right to engage in collective bargaining with their employer,” a panel of judges said in their opinion for the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The judges said that in reaching the conclusion, they joined each of its sister circuits that have addressed the issue of exclusive union representation since the US Supreme Court’s ... Congress Washington Post (Technology 202): Senators look to ‘make the case’ to the public on TikTok By Cristiano Lima-Strong .....Senate lawmakers on Wednesday took their first major step toward considering the legislation passed by the House to force TikTok to be sold or banned, convening a classified briefing with law enforcement and national security officials from the Biden administration. While several lawmakers said they emerged with an increased sense of urgency, key committee leaders suggested Congress still needs to do more to sell the American people on their plans. Here are our takeaways: IRS Election Law Blog: “Group Takes on Charitable Political Speech Prohibition” By Rick Hasen .....Tax Notes: A nonprofit is seeking declaratory judgment from the Tax Court that charitable organizations shouldn’t be restricted from political speech. The group filed a March 18 petition with the Tax Court, which was served March 19, seeking a declaratory judgment for approval of its application as a section 501(c)(3) organization in Students and Academics for Free Expression, Speech, and Political Action in Campus Education Inc. v. Commissioner. The organization, which uses its acronym, SAFE SPACE, filed its petition 270 days after submitting a Form 1023, “Application for Recognition of Exemption Under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,” making it eligible to do so... SAFE SPACE was formed in 2023 by Ilya Shapiro, who serves as its president. Its mission is to educate students and the general public on the importance of freedom of thought and intellectual diversity on college campuses. The States People United for Privacy: California Continues to Push the Envelope on Violating Privacy and Free Speech Rights By Alex Baiocco .....On the heels of last week’s observance of Sunshine Week, lawmakers in California could use a reminder that violating residents’ privacy and First Amendment rights is not an exercise in government transparency. California already has some of the most repressive, speech-stifling, and privacy-invasive laws in the nation regulating civic engagement and association. And, unfortunately, California lawmakers’ bad ideas, at least on First Amendment issues, tend to spread to other states. While disclosure and reporting requirements for campaigns and political committees generally serve legitimate interests, some lawmakers won’t be satisfied until such laws are stretched to apply to any advocacy whatsoever on government action or policy issues. Proponents of these efforts often characterize invasions of citizen privacy as necessary to increase “transparency.” Center Square Pennsylvania: Lawmakers want to ban public agencies from hiring lobbyists By Anthony Hennen .....The Pennsylvania Game Commission garnered condemnations statewide for hiring a lobbyist — something no state agency had done for the better part of two decades. Now, though the commission announced it will no longer use a lobbyist, legislators want to ban the practice statewide. On Monday, Sen. Kristin Phillips-Hill, R-Jacobus, introduced a bill to ban all state agencies from hiring lobbyists or consultants “to influence the decision-making process of another Commonwealth entity or agency.” Joining Phillips-Hill in sponsoring Senate Bill 1098 are Republican Sens. Jarrett Coleman (Allentown) and Judy Ward (Hollidaysburg) and Democratic Sen. Lindsey Williams (Pittsburgh). “The money that goes toward paying these lobbying organizations is hard-working taxpayer dollars, or in this case, fees paid by our sportsmen to hunt,” Phillips-Hill said in a legislative memo. “That money should be spent on public services to help all of our residents, not on continuing to pad (the) pockets of lobbyists.” Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 801, Washington, DC 20036 Unsubscribe [email protected] Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by [email protected]