March 21, 2025

The Courts

New. York Times: Judges Fear for Their Safety Amid a Wave of Threats

By Mattathias Schwartz and Abbie VanSickle

.....President Trump’s angry call on Tuesday for the impeachment of a federal judge who ruled against his administration on deportation flights has set off a string of near-instant social media taunts and threats, including images of judges being marched off in handcuffs...

Nine days earlier, police officers in Charleston, S.C., had been dispatched to the home of one of Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s sisters because of a threat that there was a pipe bomb in her mailbox. “The device’s detonation will be triggered as soon as the mailbox is next opened,” the emailed threat read.

The pipe bomb proved to be a hoax, but the threats and intimidation faced by judges and their families in recent weeks are real, judges say. At a moment when the judiciary is weighing pivotal decisions on the legality of Trump administration policies, the potential for violence against judges seems to be rising.

“I feel like people are playing Russian roulette with our lives,” said Judge Esther Salas of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, whose 20-year-old son was shot and killed at her home in 2020 by a self-described “anti-feminist” lawyer.

“This is not hyperbole,” she added. “I am begging our leaders to realize that there are lives at stake.”

Jonesing on Nonprofits: Religious Groups and Churches File New Johnson Amendment Challenge

By Darryll K. Jones

.....It looks like the National Religious Broadcasters might finally have their ducks in a row regarding their Johnson Amendment challenge. I told you last year that a coalition of religious groups and churches filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the Johnson Amendment is unconstitutional as applied to religious groups. The Johnson Amendment is what prohibits (c)(3)s from opposing or endorsing political candidates. The group’s original complaint was a complete mess filled with “whataboutisms” and thoroughly lacking in allegations sufficient to prove standing. The government filed a motion to dismiss which would likely have been granted had the parties not agreed to a do-over.

Congress

Wall Street Journal: Trump’s EPA vs. Biden’s Dark Climate Money

By The Editorial Board

.....Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who likes to denounce conservative dark money, is now denouncing Mr. Zeldin for trying to shine a light on liberal dark money. 

Free Expression

The New York Review: A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia

By Eugene Volokh, Michael C. Dorf, David Cole, and 15 other scholars

.....We write as constitutional scholars—some liberal and some conservative—who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.

The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled “harassment.” Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected. 

Daily Caller: Jimmy Kimmel Attempts To Backtrack After Appearing To Give Wink And Nod To Anti-Tesla Terrorists

By Leena Nasir

.....Jimmy Kimmel trolled Elon Musk in his March 19 monologue by appearing to suggest anti-Tesla terrorists were justified, then slowly tried to walk back his comments…

He told viewers “please don’t vandalize Tesla,” but as he uttered the words, he followed up with a long pause and sarcastic facial expression that suggested to some that he may be supportive of the idea...

Kimmel didn’t address the allegations head-on, but he did backtrack some of his comments in Wednesday’s monologue.

“Here’s the thing, I get that people are upset,” Kimmel said.

“Burning a car might not be great for the environment. I don’t think that’s what they had in mind when they invented the electric car,” he quipped.

“In Las Vegas yesterday, someone threw a Molotov cocktail at a Tesla service center,” Kimmel said…

Kimmel went on to say, “No one should be setting fires. You could kill somebody, you could hurt somebody. Elon Musk might not care about other people, but decent Americans should.”

FCC

Fox News: FCC plans major DEI crackdown with help of conservative firebrand

By David Spector

.....Federal Communications Commission Chairman Brendan Carr is vowing to use every tool at his disposal to eliminate Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs from the companies his agency regulates, and has enlisted the help of a high-profile conservative activist in the effort.

Carr met with activist Robby Starbuck on Wednesday to discuss ways the agency can use its enforcement powers to stamp out DEI in the telecommunications sector. The two discussed ways the agency can enforce existing civil rights laws along with President Donald Trump’s recent executive orders targeting DEI in the public and private sectors.

"It’s my hope that this meeting is a wake-up call for businesses within the FCC’s purview that the days of violating the law with DEI are over," Starbuck told Fox News Digital.

The States

Boston Globe: Maine Democrats should stop making Laurel Libby a free speech martyr

By The Editorial Board

.....Maine Representative Laurel Libby was hardly a household name before this month. But the avowedly conservative Republican has become something of a national cause celebre, after the Democratic-run Maine House of Representatives took the drastic step of stripping her of her vote and forbidding her from speaking on the House floor — all because of an ill-advised but First Amendment-protected social media post.

There is no need to continue making a free speech martyr of Libby. A basic respect for democracy argues for letting the voters in her district, not the House leadership, be the ones to decide whether her actions disqualify her…

If it’s left to the courts to decide Libby’s fate, Supreme Court precedent would seem to be on her side. In Bond v. Floyd, the Supreme Court ruled that even though a state can “impose all oath requirements on legislators, it cannot limit their capacity to express views on local or national policy.” The court also found that the state can’t apply a First Amendment standard “stricter than that applicable to a private citizen” — and nothing Libby did in her post is remotely close to a crime that would get a private citizen in trouble.

New York Times: Hochul Softens Stance on Ban Against Wearing Face Masks in Public

By Benjamin Oreskes

.....Gov. Kathy Hochul has told legislative leaders she wants New York to adopt some kind of statewide ban on wearing masks in public, involving herself in a hot-button issue that pits civil-rights and health concerns against unease over anti-Israel protests and crime…

The bill, which would amend existing law to create a new offense called “masked harassment,” would ideally be passed as part of the state budget, Mr. Hogrebe said.

1819 News: House passes bill banning foreign nationals from spending money on state elections

By Craig Monger

.....The Alabama House of Representatives passed legislation on Thursday barring foreign nationals from donating political funds to candidates or towards constitutional amendments and referendums in state elections.

House Bill 363 (HB363) by State Rep. James Lomax (R-Huntsville) would prohibit foreign nationals from contributing to campaigns, ballot measures, political parties or political action committees (PACs).

"Currently, under federal law, foreign nationals are not able to contribute to any elections," Lomax said, presenting his bill before the House. "This would simply mirror this within the state of Alabama."

The bill didn't face any real opposition from House members. However, the standard Democratic lawmakers who frequently use time for seemingly no reason did eat up some debate time.

Michigan Advance: Michigan House Democrats take second run at ethics and transparency legislation

By Jon King

.....Michigan House Democrats used Sunshine Week, which acknowledges the importance of transparency in government, to re-introduce a package of bills they say will provide needed accountability to the finances of elected officials. 

The bills, called the Bringing Reforms in Integrity, Transparency and Ethics – or BRITE – Act, failed to get through the House last year during the lame duck session. Regardless, several of the bills’ sponsors laid out their renewed effort at a news conference Tuesday in Lansing, saying the package would improve accountability by stopping election and campaign finance law violations in real-time, while also curtailing the influence of lobbying and financial interests on the legislative process…

It would also require organizations with connections to a candidate, elected official or family member of an elected official, to register with the Secretary of State’s office if they wish to claim tax-exempt status.  

Other elements of the legislation would require the disclosure of donors during political campaigns, require legislative staffto report gifts and expenditures made by lobbyists, and “prohibit the governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, secretary of state, or a state senator or representative from engaging in certain lobbying activities for one year after the last date of their term of office.” 

Ed. note: Related reading about groups who co-opt "Sunshine Week" to champion anti-speech legislation unrelated to government transparency available here.

Missouri Independent: Missouri bill seeks to crack down on meritless lawsuits targeting free speech

By Jason Hancock 

.....Lawmakers are once again pushing for Missouri to join more than 30 other states that have enacted protections against frivolous litigation aimed at silencing free speech.

The proposal targets strategic lawsuits against public participation, or “SLAPPs,” which are often filed without any expectation of winning in court and are instead simply an attempt to intimidate a person or organization by threatening a lengthy, expensive legal battle…

A coalition of groups testified in support of the bill, including Missouri Right to Life and the Missouri Press Association. There was no opposition during the Senate hearing.

Daily Montanan: Former legislators could immediately become lobbyists under Senate bill

By Jordan Hansen 

.....Former legislators could immediately become lobbyists under legislation from Sen. Greg Hertz, R-Polson.

Under Montana law, state legislators, elected state officials, department directors, appointed state officials, and members of elected official’s personal staff are not allowed to be licensed as lobbyists if they’ve served in any of those positions over the previous two years.

Senate Bill 222 would remove the statute entirely. Speaker of the House Rep. Brandon Ler, R-Savage, and Sen. Wylie Galt, R-Martinsdale, are co-sponsoring the bill.

Hertz argued Wednesday that the ban was unconstitutional, and an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision had already ruled on the topic.   

The court ruled in Miller v. Ziegler, a Missouri case, a two-year ban on former elected officials becoming lobbyists was unconstitutional, essentially saying it burdened political speech and that such a ban must be narrowly tailored.