Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech July 23, 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]. In the News The College Fix: Calif. college to permit criticism of men in women’s sports, illegal immigration to settle free speech suit By Jennifer Kabbany .....The settlement agreement states the Coast Community College District, which oversees Golden West, will formally repeal its prohibition of “hateful behavior” in its student code of conduct. The district also agreed to modify its prohibition of “infliction of mental harm” by removing a clause that states “any act which purposefully demeans, degrades, or disgraces any person,” and inserting the new sentence: “Speech or other expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, including the expression of social, ideological, or political viewpoints, does not violate this provision.” … As part of the settlement, Institute for Free Speech attorneys were awarded $25,750. “Students shouldn’t have to try to guess what speech is allowed by college administrators or fear punishment for taking a political stance,” said Institute for Free Speech Vice President for Litigation Alan Gura in a news release. “Public college officials can’t silence students simply because the students’ constitutionally protected opinions might offend others—that’s exactly the kind of viewpoint discrimination the Constitution forbids. This settlement ensures that students can now engage in robust political debate without administrative censorship or threats.” Union Leader: Nashua's lawyers fire back on couple's appeal of flag- raising decision By Paul Feely .....In an appeal of that ruling filed with the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston, Institute for Free Speech attorneys Ristuccia and Endel Kolde wrote that the city used the Citizen Flag Pole "as a forum for favored constituents, while using its written policies to create a superficial appearance of compliance with controlling precedent. “But the city discriminates against minority and dissenting views — exactly those views that need First Amendment protection.” In the city's response filed Monday, attorneys Bolton and Barnes argued Judge McCafferty correctly ruled that the city did not violate the Scaers' Constitutional rights "because the City’s flag-raising policy, and the decisions made regarding what flags could be raised constitutes government speech.” The Courts New York Times: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling Restricting Associated Press Access to Trump By Katie Robertson .....A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld an earlier ruling allowing the Trump administration to block The Associated Press from covering the president in certain spaces. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit said in an order that it would keep in place a June 6 decision that found that it was legal for the president to restrict access to a news organization in invite-only places like the Oval Office or Air Force One... “We are disappointed by today’s procedural decision but remain focused on the strong district court opinion in support of free speech as we have our case heard,” Patrick Maks, an A.P. spokesman, said in a statement. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Denying Funding to Planned Parenthood Groups Because Their "Affiliates" Perform Abortions Violates First Amendment By Eugene Volokh .....Yesterday's decision by Judge Indira Talwani (D. Mass.) in Planned Parenthood Fed. of Am., Inc. v. Kennedy (appeal pending) considered Section 71113(a) of the Reconciliation Act, which bars federal funding to any "entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics," that provides abortions and satisfies certain other criteria (to oversimplify somewhat). The court acknowledged that "Congress has long prohibited the use of any federal funds to reimburse the cost of abortions under the Medicaid program except in limited circumstances," and that "The Government can, without violating the Constitution, selectively fund a program to encourage certain activities it believes to be in the public interest, without at the same time funding an alternative program which seeks to deal with the problem in another way." But it concluded that the restriction on funding groups because of the actions of their affiliates violated the freedom of expressive association protected by the First Amendment. Here's a short excerpt from the long opinion: Daily Wire: Loudoun County Teachers Don’t Have To Use Trans Pronouns, Court Rules By Mairead Elordi .....The Loudoun County school board will no longer force staff to use students’ preferred pronouns after teachers sued over the Northern Virginia school district’s transgender policy, a court ruled on Thursday. In a free speech victory for several teachers who sued, the Loudoun County Circuit Court officially recognized that Loudoun County Public Schools no longer requires teachers to use pronouns inconsistent with students’ biological sex. The court noted that “on its face, [the transgender policy] does not require teachers or other staff to use a pronoun to refer to a person that a teacher believes is inconsistent with the person’s sex. Instead, [the policy] permits staff to refrain from using any pronouns.” Congress Sens. Budd, Justice, Hawley, Ricketts Introduce Bill to Increase Transparency of Foreign Funds Fueling Left-Wing Agitators .....U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) led his colleagues in introducing the Foreign Registration Obligations for Nonprofit Transparency (FRONT) Act today, which would require nonprofits in the United States that receive funding from foreign principals in countries of concern, such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, and Cuba, to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). The bill would also require nonprofits to disclose the activities they use foreign funds to engage in to mitigate future unrest… Read the full bill text HERE. Politico: Jim Jordan subpoenas DOJ prosecutor who helped investigate Donald Trump By Hailey Fuchs .....House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan is calling a member of the team that prosecuted President Donald Trump to testify before his committee. The Ohio Republican sent the subpoena to Thomas Windom, former senior assistant special counsel who worked under then-special counsel Jack Smith. Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland had appointed Smith to lead the Justice Department’s cases around Trump’s retention of classified documents and his role in efforts to subvert the results of the 2020 election. Election Law Blog: Congressional Freethought Caucus Asks IRS to Reconsider Decision to Allow Church Endorsements of Candidates By Dan Tokaji .....Here’s the letter opposing the proposed consent decree in National Religious Broadcasters Association et al v. Long, arguing that it adopts a “stunningly inaccurate reinterpretation of the Johnson Amendment.” Trump Administration Washington Post (Tech Brief): Trump’s ‘Artificial Intelligence Action Plan’ is already stirring debate By Will Oremus and Cat Zakrzewski .....Trump is expected to unveil the action plan on Wednesday at an event hosted by the All-In Podcast and the Hill and Valley Forum. He’s also expected to sign three artificial intelligence executive orders, according to two people familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the private plans. One executive order would target “woke” AI models, a reference to the administration’s allegation that some Silicon Valley companies have built tools and chatbots that show a liberal political bias. Politico: White House removes Wall Street Journal from Scotland press pool over Epstein bombshell By Eli Stokols and Irie Sentner .....The White House is removing the Wall Street Journal from the pool of reporters covering the president’s weekend trip to Scotland, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told POLITICO. The Media Reason: 'Alligator Alcatraz' Contracts Disappeared From a Florida State Database By C.J. Ciaramella .....State contracts for Florida's controversial "Alligator Alcatraz" detention camp were removed from a public database and replaced with far less detailed documents after media outlets began writing about them last week. The Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM), which is overseeing the state's new immigrant detention camp in the Everglades, says the contracts contained "proprietary information." However, open government advocates and state Democratic lawmakers say that removing details of the contracts flies in the face of Florida's promises to provide transparency in public spending, especially given the massive expenditures of taxpayer money involved. The most recent reporting on the ballooning costs of the Everglades detention camp puts it at $250 million and growing. NOTUS: ‘Do Not Respond’: Federal Officials Instituted a Media Blackout Over ‘Gulf of America’ Name Change By Dave Levinthal .....As for the USGS, “It’s unacceptable for public officials, particularly those in communications roles funded by taxpayers, to adopt a deliberate strategy of ignoring journalists’ requests,” Hendrie said. “It sends a message across government that transparency is optional, and that’s corrosive for press freedom and the public’s right to know,” she added. “Agencies need to put public interest over political convenience. The public has a right to know about government decision-making that affects shared resources and shared identity, like place names.” Donor Privacy People United for Privacy: Americans Want Privacy When Giving to Nonprofits, Survey Confirms By Alex Baiocco .....A recently released report from the BBB Wise Giving Alliance examines, among other topics related to privacy and nonprofits, Americans’ “preferences and concerns regarding donor privacy and security in the giving process.” Survey results featured in the 2025 Give.org Donor Trust Special Report: Privacy and Security point to a clear conclusion: Americans want their personal information to remain private when giving to nonprofit organizations. Here are some key findings from the report: The States AP News: 5 years after Ohio’s $60M bribery scandal, critics say more could be done to prevent a repeat By Julie Carr Smyth .....Any hope that the convictions would have clarified federal law around 501(c)4 nonprofit “dark money” groups or prompted new restrictions on those hasn’t materialized, said former U.S. Attorney David DeVillers, who led the initial investigation. “I think it’s actually worse than it was before,” he said. “Nationally, you have both Democrats and Republicans using these, so there’s no political will to do anything about it.” … DeVillers said one positive result of the scandal is that Ohio lawmakers appear genuinely concerned about avoiding quid pro quos, real or perceived, between them and their political contributors. Anti-corruption legislation perennially introduced by Ohio Democrats since the scandal broke has gone nowhere in the GOP-dominated Legislature. Republican legislative leaders have said it is outside their authority to amend federal campaign finance law. 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