June 26, 2024

In the News

Sunflower State Journal: Fresh Vision OP challenges state PAC definition in federal court

By Brad Cooper

.....An Overland Park nonprofit group that came under campaign finance scrutiny two years ago has filed a lawsuit challenging how the state defines political action committee.

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Free Speech Arguments – The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen

.....The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen, argued before Judges Johnnie B. Rawlinson, Danielle J. Forrest, and Jennifer Sung in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024. Argued by Michael Russell (on behalf of Knudsen, et al.) and Constance Van Klay (on behalf of the Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana, et al.).

Supreme Court

Washington Post: Supreme Court allows White House contacts with social media firms

By Ann E. Marimow

.....The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a Republican-led effort to sharply limit White House officials and other federal employees from pressuring social media companies to remove posts from their platforms that the U.S. government deems problematic.

State leaders in Missouri and Louisiana, in addition to individual social media users, filed a lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of violating the First Amendment by operating a sprawling federal “censorship enterprise” to improperly influence platforms to modify or take down posts related to public health and elections.

In a 6-3 ruling, the court said the challengers did not have legal grounds — or standing — to bring the case against the Biden administration because the states and individuals could not show they were directly harmed by the communication between federal officials and social media platforms.

The Courts

Courthouse News: Project Veritas tells Ninth Circuit Oregon privacy law violates First Amendment, undermines investigative journalism

By Michael Gennaro

.....Project Veritas, a conservative media organization known for its undercover-style work, argued before an en banc panel at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Tuesday that an Oregon privacy law, which requires the consent of all parties to record conversations, tramples on the First Amendment rights of journalists and ordinary citizens.

The law is more strict than comparable laws in other states, most of which only require the consent of the person recording.

A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit struck down the recording ban on First Amendment grounds in June 2023. The panel ruled that the law's exceptions, such as allowing secret video recordings or written recollections, undermined the state's claimed interest in protecting conversational privacy. 

The Ninth Circuit vacated the panel's opinion and decided to rehear the case en banc.

Washington Post: Judge partly lifts gag order in Donald Trump’s hush money case

By Patrick Svitek

.....The judge who presided over Donald Trump’s hush money trial has ended parts of a gag order on the former president, letting him speak about witnesses and jurors but shielding others involved in the case until his sentencing next month.

The decision from the judge, Juan Merchan, comes less than a month after jurors found Trump guilty on all 34 counts of falsifying business records to cover up a hush money scheme involving an adult-film actress before the 2016 presidential election.

In a five-page ruling Tuesday, Merchan acknowledged that “circumstances have now changed,” with the trial over and jury dismissed. He said he reluctantly lifted the part of the gag order applying to jurors and kept in place a March order that requires their identities to remain private.

Congress

Reason: The Stop Comstock Act Doesn't Go Far Enough

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown

.....New legislation would repeal parts of the Comstock Act, a Victorian-era law that's being revived to attack abortion pills.

Passed in 1873, the Comstock Act was a big deal in earlier eras, sending people to prison for publishing information about birth control, critiques of marriage, and more.

The law is vague and broad, banning the mailing of any "article, matter, thing, device, or substance" that the government deems "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile," along with anything "designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use." Essentially, the Comstock Act weaponizes the U.S. Postal Service to give the federal government an in against things that otherwise wouldn't be its business.

"Anthony Comstock, the law's namesake and an anti-smut crusader, lobbied for and personally enforced the law as a special agent of the U.S. Postal Service," noted the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) lawyer Robert Corn-Revere in a recent piece for Reason about efforts to posthumously pardon publisher D.M. Bennett.

Daily Signal: Bans on Foreign Funding for Ballot Measures Gain Momentum in Congress, States

By Fred Lucas

.....Opponents of foreign funding of U.S. ballot measures expect momentum at both the federal level and in states. 

In May, the House Administration Committee advanced a bill to amend federal election law to prevent foreign nationals from contributing to ballot initiatives by closing a loophole, since federal law and most state laws prohibit foreign contributions to candidates. The bill, with bipartisan support, is headed to the House floor for a vote. 

Earlier this month, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, signed the first bill in the nation barring foreign nationals from making direct and indirect contributions to ballot initiatives. 

Most state legislatures have adjourned, but likely will support similar legislation when they reconvene in 2025, said Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project. 

Free Expression

New York Times: Assange’s Plea Deal Sets a Chilling Precedent, but It Could Have Been Worse

By Charlie Savage

.....The agreement means that for the first time in American history, gathering and publishing information the government considers secret has been successfully treated as a crime. This new precedent will send a threatening message to national security journalists, who may be chilled in how aggressively they do their jobs because they will see a greater risk of prosecution.

But its reach is also limited, dodging a bigger threat. Because Mr. Assange agreed to a deal, he will not challenge the legitimacy of applying the Espionage Act to his actions. The outcome, then, averts the risk that the case might lead to a definitive Supreme Court ruling blessing prosecutors’ narrow interpretation of First Amendment press freedoms.

“He’s basically pleading guilty to things that journalists do all the time and need to do,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It will cast a shadow over press freedom — but not the same kind of a shadow that would have been cast by a judicial opinion holding that this activity is criminal and unprotected by the First Amendment.”

Candidates and Campaigns

Wall Street Journal: ‘Squad’ Member Jamaal Bowman Loses Democratic Primary in New York

By Owen Tucker-Smith

.....Rep. Jamaal Bowman was defeated by George Latimer in the Democratic Party primary, hurt by a series of missteps and a multimillion-dollar effort from pro-Israel groups to unseat him…

Allies tried to paint him as the victim of unfair attacks and heavy spending from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac.

“Our opponents—not opponent—they have won this round, at this time, in this place,” Bowman told supporters Tuesday night. “But this will be a battle for our humanity and justice for the rest of our lives.”

That echoed themes from last weekend’s rally in the Bronx, N.Y., where Bowman, joined by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.), said that Aipac was undercutting the democratic process by putting so much money in the race…

Ahead of the result, allies of Bowman said a Latimer win would set a dangerous precedent.

“If you’re a member of Congress, and you’re looking at this race, as they are, and the billionaire class defeats you, do you think that tomorrow you’re going to stand up and take on powerful special interests?” Sanders said. “The word is clear—they got the power.”