April 5, 2024

In the News

Courthouse News: Conservative groups sue Colorado lawmakers for banning ‘deadnaming’ in debates on transgender rights bills

By Amanda Pampuro

.....Can one person’s concept of civility stifle another’s free speech rights? In a federal lawsuit filed against Democratic Colorado lawmakers on Thursday, members of two conservative groups claim they were unable to freely oppose bills regarding transgender rights because they were required to use preferred pronouns while giving public testimony.

“[Lawmaker defendants] have prescribed how critics of transgenderism must present their views during the public-testimony portion of committee hearings before the Colorado Legislature by prohibiting ‘misgendering’ or ‘deadnaming’ and otherwise requiring citizens to express fealty to transgender ideology under the guise of ‘civility’ or ‘decorum,’” the plaintiffs claim in a 30-page federal lawsuit.

Little Village: State will pay $49,000 settlement to journalist Laura Belin after six-year denial of media credentials

By Paul Brennan

.....The state of Iowa will pay journalist Laura Belin $49,000 for legal expenses in the lawsuit Belin filed after repeatedly being denied media credentials by the Iowa House of Representatives. Less than a week after Belin filed her lawsuit in federal court in January, the chief clerk of the House reversed her decision and Belin was credentialed. 

On Tuesday, the State Appeal Board approved the payout to Belin to cover her attorney fees and related expenses as part of the settlement of the lawsuit. 

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Gays Against Groomers and Rocky Mountain Women’s Network Sue to Protect Right to Speak on Trans Bills

.....Colorado House and Senate members’ recent actions to suppress and chill speech during public comment time on HB24-1071, dubbed “Tiara’s Law,” represent an alarming assault on First Amendment rights.  

 That’s why Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed a federal lawsuit today on behalf of the group Gays Against Groomers, the Rocky Mountain Women’s Network, and individuals from those groups affected by this attempt to shut down debate over transgender legislation. 

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, names Colorado State Representatives Lorena Garcia, Mike Weissman, Leslie Herod, and State Senators Julie Gonzales and Dafna Michaelson Jenet as having unlawfully restricted or chilled speech related to trans issues, particularly as it pertains to debate over what its sponsors called “Tiara’s Law.” 

The Courts

Politico: Judge rejects Trump’s effort to dismiss Georgia charges on First Amendment grounds

By Kyle Cheney

.....The judge presiding over Donald Trump’s criminal case in Georgia denied his bid to throw out the case on First Amendment grounds, rejecting the former president’s longshot argument that the entire case is an attempt to criminalize his political speech.

“The State has alleged more than mere expressions of a political nature,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in a 14-page ruling on Thursday.

Washington Examiner: Alabama law cracking down on ballot harvesting challenged as violation of First Amendment

By Elaine Mallon

.....A group of civil rights organizations has filed a lawsuit against a new Alabama law that criminalizes some forms of absentee voter assistance.

The lawsuit — filed by the Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, Greater Birmingham Ministries, the League of Women Voters of Alabama, and the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program — claims that the law criminalizing people who receive payment or pay someone to distribute or collect absentee ballot applications is in violation of the First and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and the Help America Vote Act of 2002…

“Nonprofit organizations … regularly provide volunteers with items that include the organizations’ message or logo, and/or enable volunteers to provide assistance with absentee ballot applications by providing items like pens, postage, envelopes, and gas cards,” the lawsuit says. “The vagueness of the term ‘gift’ is substantial, not only because it imposes steep criminal penalties based on an undefined term but also because it can be read as sweeping in expressive conduct and associational activity that implicates Plaintiffs’ core political speech.”

SEC

Liberty Justice Center: Statement: Securities and Exchange Commission Halts Enforcement of Climate “Disclosure Rule” During Litigation

.....The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced that it will halt enforcement of its highly contested climate “disclosure rule” until a federal court decides whether the rule is lawful.

The new rule, which requires companies registered with the SEC to provide a broad swath of information related to climate change in their annual reports, was issued on March 6. The Liberty Justice Center and Pelican Institute for Public Policy jointly filed a lawsuit to challenge the rule on March 21.

Their lawsuit argues that the rule should be set aside because the federal laws creating and empowering the SEC do not authorize it to require such detailed disclosures on environmental matters, which will burden companies and alter their behavior far more than ordinary financial disclosures. The lawsuit also argues that the rule unconstitutionally compels speech in violation of the First Amendment—requiring companies by law to implicitly endorse viewpoints on climate change that are the subject of intense public debate.

Free Expression

New York Times: Is This the End of Academic Freedom?

By Paula Chakravartty and Vasuki Nesiah

.....We have both taught at N.Y.U. for over a decade, and believe we are in a moment of unparalleled repression...

At universities across the country, any critiques of Israel’s policies, expressions of solidarity with Palestinians, organized calls for a cease-fire, or even pedagogy on the recent history of the land have all emerged as perilous speech. In a letter to university presidents back in November, the A.C.L.U. expressed concern about “impermissible chilling of free speech and association on campus” in relation to pro-Palestinian student groups and views; since then, the atmosphere at colleges has become downright McCarthyite.

The donors, trustees, administrators and third parties who oppose pro-Palestinian speech seem to equate any criticism of the State of Israel — an occupying power under international law, and one accused of committing war crimes — with antisemitism. To them, the norms of free speech are inherently problematic, and a broad definition of antisemitism is a tool for censorship. Outside funding has poured into horrifying doxxing and harassment campaigns. Pro-Israel surveillance groups like Canary Mission and CAMERA relentlessly target individuals and groups deemed antisemitic or critical to Israel. Ominous threats follow faculty and students for just expressing their opinions or living out their values.

Election Law Blog: Search for: “How Did Corporations Get Stuck in Politics and Can They Escape?”

By Rich Hasen

.....Jill Fisch and Jeff Schwartz have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming, University of Chicago Business Law Review). Here is the abstract;

The States

People United for Privacy: James Madison – or Should I Say Publius – Understood the Value of Anonymous Speech

By Luke Wachob

.....A bipartisan group of Virginia legislators recently defeated a slew of bills that would have imposed new restrictions and reporting requirements on political advocacy in the state. This win for free speech harkens back to the early days of the Republic, when Americans zealously guarded their newfound civil liberties. Yet a letter to the Alexandria Times argues that James Madison himself would be disappointed by the outcome.

The letter, which fails to disclose the author’s position as Coordinator for BigMoneyOutVA, a group that supported the failed bills, makes no historical argument to support its claim. I will make one to undermine it.

Yellow Hammer: It’s time for Alabama to take the next step toward protecting personal privacy

By Heather Lauer

.....A job well begun is half done, an old proverb goes. The Alabama Legislature has well begun its effort to protect personal privacy and free speech.

Now, it’s time to finish the task.

Last year, Alabama lawmakers unanimously adopted the Personal Privacy Protection Act. That law protects Alabamians from having their personal information abused or improperly disclosed when supporting nonprofit causes. Specifically, the law prohibits state agencies from demanding or disclosing the personal information of nonprofit members, supporters, and volunteers, except where required by current law. Supporters and opponents of the Second Amendment, abortion, and gambling alike are equally protected under the law.

The Frontier: Oklahoma election task force recommends fighting dark money by lifting contribution limits

By Clifton Adcock

.....Gov. Kevin Stitt’s Task Force on Campaign Finance and Election Threats recommends allowing politicians to accept unlimited contributions from individual and political parties in order to weaken the influence of dark money in state races. The task force also recommends Oklahoma triple campaign contribution limits from political action committees to candidates from $5,000 per election to $15,000.

Though it was not listed as a recommendation, the task force also said in a report issued Monday it “would not oppose lifting” the current restrictions against politicians receiving direct monetary contributions from corporations and unions.