Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech November 10, 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 Just the News: 'All they did was wear wristbands!' Judges question school district's ban on 'XX' at girls' games By Greg Piper .....Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island risk becoming hotbeds of censorship by school districts if the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals construes perceived offense as harassment. School districts risk massive liability for harassment if it does not. Lawyers for censored parents and New Hampshire's Bow School District laid out alternate visions of legal calamity to a three-judge panel of the Boston-based court at a hearing Wednesday on the constitutionality of Bow banning "XX" wristbands, a silent form of advocacy for female-only sports, from school athletic events. Parents and a grandparent sued the district more than a year ago, after it threatened to arrest them at a Sept. 17, 2024, girls' soccer game featuring a male player for not removing their wristbands, which refer to the female chromosome pair, and issued no-trespass orders. Bow set up a "protest zone" for critics of male inclusion soon after the suit was filed. Their passive protest shortly followed a federal judge blocking The Free State's law that "prohibits biological males from participating in female athletics," an injunction that applied only to the male athletes who sued, not every male who identifies as a girl. A district judge nominated by President George H.W. Bush rejected a preliminary injunction against Bow this spring, claiming the wristbands send a "demeaning and harassing" message to males who identify as girls and participate in girls' sports. Wednesday's oral argument suggested the panel might buck the 1st Circuit's reputation as a rubber stamp for schools on gender identity, frequently leaving Bow School District lawyer Jonathan Shirley seeming to stumble for answers that would satisfy their questions. New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Arguments – Can Schools Ban Parents from Silent Protest on School Grounds? (Fellers v. Kelley) .....Fellers, et al. v. Kelley, et al., argued before Circuit Judge Julie Rikelman and Senior Circuit Judges Sandra L. Lynch and Jeffrey R. Howard in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on November 5, 2025. Argued by Del Kolde (on behalf of Kyle Fellers, et al.) and Jonathan Shirley (on behalf of Marcy Kelley, et al.). Background of the case, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: The Courts Jonathan Turley: Sixth Circuit Issues Major Ruling Striking Down District’s Pronoun Policy .....There is a major ruling out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on both free speech and student rights. The court, sitting en banc, ruled 10-7 that “the mere use of biological pronouns does not entail ‘aggressive, disruptive action.'” In the lengthy opinion, the court split along political lines with every Republican appointee voting with the student challengers and every Democratic appointee voting with the school district. The case originated in the Olentangy Local School District Board of Education, located in the northern suburbs of Columbus. A parent objected to the district’s anti-harassment policy that included sanctions for any student who refused to use the preferred pronouns of transgender classmates. Such violations were deemed “contrary to the other student’s identity.” The Olentangy district argued that the use of unwanted pronouns was analogous to “Hispanic students being told by classmates to ‘go back to Mexico!’” An earlier panel on the Sixth Circuit upheld the ruling of District Court Judge Algenon Marbley, a Clinton appointee, in denying relief. North Dakota Monitor: Former Republican lawmaker challenges North Dakota law on false political ads By Mary Steurer .....A former North Dakota lawmaker is seeking to overturn a state law that makes it a crime to lie or make intentionally misleading statements in political ads. Brandon Prichard, who represented Bismarck in the Legislature in 2023 and 2024, on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s corrupt practices law, claiming that it violates the First Amendment. The Republican is a controversial figure in North Dakota politics in part for his attacks on incumbent Republican lawmakers. Prichard says he’s been subjected to multiple investigations under the law, which makes it a class A misdemeanor to knowingly or with “reckless disregard for its truth or falsity” publish something false or misleading about a candidate or ballot measure. He claims the investigations are baseless, but that they’ve caused him to self-censor for fear of further legal repercussions. “I’m not opposed to there being some regulations on egregious political speech that defames people,” Prichard said in an interview Thursday with the North Dakota Monitor. “But what we have here is something that’s overly broad.” Prichard’s political action committee, Citizens Alliance of North Dakota, is also listed as a plaintiff in the case. Iowa Capital Dispatch: Iowa board sued over decision on corporate backing of candidates By Clark Kauffman .....A Polk County company is suing members of the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, alleging they unlawfully directed the company to remove campaign signs from its property in advance of this week’s school board elections. Politico: Appeals court lets Texas enforce law aimed at drag shows By Josh Gerstein and Kyle Cheney .....A divided federal appeals court panel has given Texas the go-ahead to enforce a state law seeking to criminalize “sexually oriented” shows on public property, a ban that drag performers say targets them in violation of their free speech rights. The decision Thursday from the New Orleans-based 5th Circuit Court of Appeals appears premised on the notion that the 2023 law known as S.B. 12 won’t be enforced against drag acts unless they include overtly sexual components. The two judges in the majority lifted an order from a lower-court judge who blocked Texas from enforcing the law altogether, concluding it was clearly aimed at drag shows in violation of the First Amendment. New York Times: Trump Pressure Risks Free Speech at University of California, Judge Warns By Alan Blinder .....A federal judge on Thursday excoriated the Trump administration’s blitz of hardball tactics against elite universities, warning that the government’s threats and investigations were undermining academic freedom at the University of California. Judge Rita F. Lin, of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, did not immediately order the government to curb its pressure campaign against the university system. But it was only minutes into a hearing on Thursday before Judge Lin, her voice crackling with anger, began depicting the Trump administration’s methods as potentially lawless and deeply detrimental. People have “changed what they are going to teach, they have changed what they are going to research because they are afraid it is too left or too woke and they don’t want to trigger more grant denials or other types of funding cuts,” Judge Lin said, citing court filings by faculty members. What was emerging, she said, is “a classic, predictable First Amendment injury, and it’s exactly what the administration has said that it intends.” NetChoice: Colorado Online Censorship Label Law Halted in NetChoice Lawsuit By Krista Chavez .....Today, a U.S. District Court granted NetChoice’s request to temporarily halt Colorado’s censorship law that would have compelled online businesses to display government-mandated “warning” messages to their users while our case moves through the legal system. “Today’s decision is a victory for free speech. The government cannot force private businesses to act as mouthpieces for its preferred view. Colorado is free to shout its own views from the rooftops, and it can even post its view on social media through Colorado’s accounts. But forcing websites to adopt Colorado’s view is blatantly unconstitutional,” said Paul Taske, Co-Director of the NetChoice Litigation Center. “The Constitution prevents the government from imposing its views on private actors. The Court’s decision today reaffirms this bedrock principle and ensures that just as the government cannot muzzle your speech, it cannot interfere with the message you want to deliver.” The law, HB 24-1136, is nothing more than government censorship online disguised as a ‘warning label.’ The First Amendment is clear: politicians cannot compel private businesses to parrot the state’s preferred message. Free Expression Reason: You Can Thank This Ohio Klansman for Expanding Your Freedom of Speech By Jacob Sullum .....On a Sunday evening in June 1964, about 20 men gathered at a farm in Ohio for a Ku Klux Klan rally. The event featured a cross burning, some stray racist and antisemitic remarks, and a short, desultory speech by a TV repairman named Clarence Brandenburg. The meeting was so small and inconspicuous that no one aside from the participants would have noticed it if Brandenburg had not invited a local television station to document his publicity stunt. But thanks to footage shot by a cameraman at Cincinnati's NBC affiliate, the rally triggered a police investigation that resulted in criminal charges against Brandenburg. Five years later, that case produced a Supreme Court ruling that still reverberates in debates about the limits of free speech. The Court's 1969 decision in Brandenburg v. Ohio established a new, stricter constitutional test for government restrictions on provocative rhetoric. It was a boon to controversial speakers across the political spectrum. But Brandenburg's beneficiaries often ignore its strictures when confronted by opinions they abhor. The States First Alert 6: Nebraska suing Swiss national over ‘dark money’ contributions to state ballot initiatives By Gina Dvorak and Ron Johnson .....The state Attorney General is suing a Swiss national, alleging he has been funding six Nebraska ballot initiatives — and circumventing state law to do so. In a news conference Wednesday morning, Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers said the state had filed a lawsuit against Hansjorg Wyss and six “Wyss-backed entities” in relation to “dark money” contributions made to five state campaigns and one local campaign out of Lincoln: Helena Independent Record (via Eastern Progress): 'Anti-dark money' ballot initiative group sues Montana Attorney General over recent ruling By Victoria Eavis .....A new ballot issue group aiming to rid Montana’s elections of “dark money” filed a petition with the state supreme court earlier this week after Republican Montana Attorney General Knudsen’s office ruled that their proposed constitutional initiative did not meet legal standards. To get a constitutional question before voters, the initiative must be deemed legally sufficient and pass a language review with the attorney general’s office. The Deputy Solicitor General Brent Mead rejected the initiative, writing that the proposal contains too many changes to state law to be put forth to voters as a singular initiative. Transparent Election Initiative (TEI), supported by Montana political figures such as former Democratic Sen. Jon Tester and former Republican Gov. Marc Racicot, is the new group trying to put a constitutional initiative on Montanans’ 2026 ballots that aims to keep corporate and undisclosed donor money out of the state's political campaigns. Montana’s former Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan is leading the effort. Anchorage Daily News: Alaska Supreme Court considers arguments in case that could shield the ID of some political donors By James Brooks, Alaska Beacon .....The Alaska Supreme Court will decide whether state regulators acted correctly to fine backers of a failed election reform ballot measure more than $94,000 for a variety of alleged campaign finance violations. In the process, it may determine whether the backers of ballot measures are required to disclose the true source of money donated to ballot measure campaigns. On Wednesday, the court’s five justices heard oral arguments in an appeal brought by Alaskans for Honest Elections, the Ranked Choice Education Association, Arthur Mathias and Wellspring Ministries. Bloomberg Law: Texas Candidate Gets Speech Claims Revived Over ‘Doctor’ Status By Ryan Autullo .....A onetime Republican congressional candidate saw two legal claims revived in his fight to call himself a doctor on the campaign trail, with a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court on Friday. Rey Gonzalez Jr. gets to argue to a trial court that because he’s not a licensed physician the Texas Medical Board had no right to restrict his political speech during the 2020 election cycle, the justices said. “If the Texas Medical Board thinks it has the power to police campaign speech, it will have to defend that position on the merits,” Justice James Sullivan wrote for the unanimous ... 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