Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech March 28, 2025 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]. Ed. note, the Daily Media Update will return Monday, April 7. In the News Texas Scorecard: Groups Warn Texas Ethics Commission Is Chilling Citizen Speech By Brandon Waltens .....In a sharply worded brief, the Institute for Free Speech warned that Texas’ interpretation of lobbying could have ensnared the Founding Fathers themselves. “In the decades after Harriss, states like Texas have enacted laws that would have treated Alexander Hamilton as an unregistered lobbyist based on insignificant details like whether James Madison reimbursed him for the cost of printing ‘The Federalist Papers,’” the brief states. IFS argues that the Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in United States v. Harriss, which upheld lobbying registration under a rationale of “legislative self-protection,” has been undermined by 70 years of First Amendment precedent. The brief criticizes lower courts for continuing to rely on Harriss, despite the fact that it was decided before landmark rulings such as Buckley v. Valeo, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, and Citizens United. “The government’s convenience never suffices to justify compelled disclosure,” IFS writes, noting that lawmakers don’t have a constitutional right to insulate themselves from political pressure or criticism. New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Victory: Professor Bruce Gilley Secures Settlement in University of Oregon Social Media Censorship Case .....A straightforward expression of support for equality spawned a lengthy legal battle that has now ended with the University of Oregon acknowledging that its employee should not have blocked Professor Bruce Gilley over constitutionally protected speech. After two-and-a-half years of litigation led by the Institute for Free Speech, the parties have now reached a settlement that vindicates Professor Gilley’s rights while establishing new, better safeguards for protected speech by citizens interacting with university social media accounts. The lawsuit stemmed from a June 2022 incident in which the University of Oregon’s Division of Equity and Inclusion blocked Professor Gilley from its official X (formerly Twitter) account after he responded to a “racism interrupter” post by reposting it with the comment “all men are created equal.” The University has now acknowledged that this blocking should not have happened and that Professor Gilley’s comment “is constitutionally protected speech and should not have been blocked.” Institute for Free Speech Urges Washington Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Public File Law .....Washington’s public file law forces newspapers, mailshops, online platforms, and other ad publishers to maintain exhaustive records of political ads available for public inspection. It does so even though candidates and PACs must already publicly report this same information. Faced with the immense burden caused by these rules, platforms opt to ban such ads rather than continue to comply with the onerous regulations, severely hindering political speech. That’s why the Institute for Free Speech filed a memorandum of amicus curiae yesterday in State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, Inc., urging the Washington Supreme Court to review and invalidate the state’s public file law. The Institute argues that Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act violates the First Amendment by imposing redundant public file requirements on platforms or firms that distribute political advertisements, causing “crushing penalties on intermediaries that fail to satisfy its Byzantine obligations.” The Courts Courthouse News: Doctors take First Amendment challenge to implicit bias training to Ninth Circuit By Edvard Pettersson .....The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday took up the challenge by doctors who claim that a California requirement that they discuss implicit bias in their continued medical education courses amounts to compelled speech in violation of their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. A federal judge in Los Angeles last year dismissed their lawsuit against the Medical Board of California, finding that teaching implicit bias as part of the continued education courses licensed physicians are required to take by the board wasn't private speech, which is protected by the First Amendment, but rather government speech, which isn't. Politico: Two more law firms targeted by Trump sue to block punishing executive orders By Kyle Cheney and Daniel Barnes .....Two law firms targeted by President Donald Trump sued Friday to bar enforcement of his executive orders seeking to shut them out of government business and strip key lawyers of their security clearances. In separate suits, Big Law firms Jenner & Block and WilmerHale say Trump’s effort to target them amounts to an unprecedented attack on the legal profession in retaliation for their work for past clients he doesn’t like and for past causes with which he disagrees. If carried out, they say, the orders would devastate their practices and have already begun to cause anxiety among their hundreds clients with government business. Jenner & Block’s lawsuit contends Trump’s order is an unconstitutional threat to the firm and the legal system itself, seeking to “punish citizens and lawyers based on the clients they represent, the positions they advocate, the opinions they voice, and the people with whom they associate.” The lawsuit was filed on the firm’s behalf by California-based law firm Cooley LLP. FEC Forbes: FEC Moves Forward With Rulings—Despite Trump’s Contested Firing Of A Longtime Democratic Commissioner By Zach Everson .....The Federal Election Commission is continuing to issue rulings, functioning with just four remaining members, despite a dispute over President Donald Trump’s unprecedented firing of longtime Democratic member Ellen Weintraub that Democratic senators say is illegal… Post-Weintraub ouster, the FEC now requires unanimous agreement to take any significant action—a tall order for an agency often split along party lines. “The FEC has operated short-handed before, but only with great difficulty,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance attorney. “Unanimity has been difficult to achieve in recent years.” Additionally, Weintraub’s attorneys noted that Trump can now easily skew the FEC’s bipartisan structure by removing another Democratic commissioner and then filling the empty Republican seat, giving the GOP a 3-1 advantage… “My top priority now (and filing this amicus brief is part of it) is to continue to raise my voice about threats to our democratic system and constitutional order,” Weintraub told Forbes. “Turns out one doesn’t need a dot.gov email address to do that.” Related reading. SEC SEC: SEC Votes to End Defense of Climate Disclosure Rules .....The Securities and Exchange Commission today voted to end its defense of the rules requiring disclosure of climate-related risks and greenhouse gas emissions. SEC Acting Chairman Mark T. Uyeda said, “The goal of today’s Commission action and notification to the court is to cease the Commission’s involvement in the defense of the costly and unnecessarily intrusive climate change disclosure rules.” Trump Administration Axios: Exclusive: Trump's "pro-Hamas" purge could block foreign students from colleges By Marc Caputo .....The Trump administration is discussing plans to try to block certain colleges from having any foreign students if it decides too many are "pro-Hamas," senior Justice and State Department officials tell Axios. The effort — which could include grand jury subpoenas —marks another escalation of Trump's aggressive crackdown on immigration and antisemitism that civil libertarians say stifles campus speech and has led to several lawsuits. The idea of prohibiting colleges from enrolling any student visa-holders grew out of Secretary of State Marco Rubio's "Catch and Revoke" program, which now is focusing on students who protested against the war in Gaza. Candidates and Campaigns Election Law Blog: Elon Musk Appears to Be Breaking Wisconsin Law Against Vote Buying in Offering a Chance to Win $1 Million to Anyone Who Voted in Wisconsin Supreme Court Race By Rick Hasen .....During the 2024 elections, there was a question whether Elon Musk was breaking federal law in offering various incentives only to registered voters, including what was essentially a lottery open only to registered voters. He’s up to similar gimmicks in the upcoming, very expensive Wisconsin Supreme Court race, promising, among other things as a prize for Wisconsin voters “who voted in the Supreme Court election” and attend his talk Sunday night “two checks for a million dollars each in appreciation for you taking the time to vote.” The States Reason: Brickbat: Lawn Sign Litigation By Charles Oliver .....Marvin Peavy, a homeowner in Walton County, Florida, won a lawsuit against the county after officials tried to fine him for hanging giant political banners on his house along Scenic Highway 30A. Peavy first put up signs in 2020 to support Donald Trump's first presidential reelection campaign, but the county said they violated property maintenance rules and started charging him $50 a day, totaling over $63,000 in fines. Peavy fought back, saying his right to free speech under the First Amendment allowed it, and after years of legal battles, a judge agreed, ruling that the county was infringing on his free speech. The judge also ordered the county to pay Peavy $42,000 to cover his legal fees. Spectrum News 1: Proposed Texas House bill aims to regulate AI in politics By Erin Davis .....A bill to label some campaigns advertisements as artificial intelligence (AI) has received a favorable committee report, but it could be headed for trouble. On Wednesday, former House Speaker Dade Phelan, R-Beaumont, got a favorable vote on one of his bills for the first time in four years. House Bill 366 would make it a crime to use AI in political ads without a disclaimer. Phelan was the subject of attack memes during his reelection campaign, and the bill number, 366, is the same as his margin of victory in his primary race last year. CBS News: California lawmakers seek tougher penalties for "swatting" calls By Nicole Comstock .....A state senator from Southern California is seeking tougher penalties for hoax 911 reports after two "swatting" calls triggered massive law enforcement responses at a college and hospital this month. "This bill is going to tackle that loophole where you don't need to mention a person and it's still against the law," state Senator Susan Rubio said. Cleveland.com: “This Is flat out illegal in America”: First Amendment under attack in Ohio House bill .....A new proposal in the Ohio Legislature flies in the face of Americans’ sacred right of free speech, and Today in Ohio podcast hosts said the authors should move to Russia if they want to live in a land with the kind of rules they propose. House Bill 20, introduced by two Republicans, would make it a crime to “harass” police officers, potentially sending citizens to jail for nothing more than exercising their constitutionally protected right to criticize public officials. “Yeah, these guys ought to just go to Russia and be part of an authoritarian government,” said Chris Quinn, editor of cleveland.com and The Plain Dealer, in a fiery rebuke of the legislation. “This flat out illegal in America. You get to say what you think. You get to yell at people.” The legislation states that harassment must occur within 14 feet of an officer and after a warning has been issued, but critics argue that the intentionally vague language gives too much discretion to officers who might simply be uncomfortable with being recorded or criticized. 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 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice