November 14, 2025

In the News

Daily Texan: Court decides McCombs professor’s First Amendment rights were not violated by the University

By Kendall Meachum

.....A federal court of appeals ruled on Oct. 31. that the University did not suppress a McCombs professor’s conservative speech.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit determined the University did not violate business professor Richard Lowery’s First Amendment Rights by threatening his job and pay over his speech. The Oct. 31. opinion affirmed the lower court’s decision that Lowery did not suffer from “adverse action,” such as being fired or having his pay docked and thus it was not a First Amendment violation.

Lowery’s lawyer, Del Kolde, wrote in an email the standard the Court used to determine Lowery’s First Amendment claim was insufficient, and public employees are more at risk of needing to vindicate their rights in the occasion of free speech violations if they live in the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana.

“The panel’s decision allows public employers like UT to threaten employees with adverse employment actions when they say things online or in public that university leaders don’t like,” Kolde wrote in an email. “Most employees will get the message and self-censor, just like Richard Lowery did.” 

Sacramento Bee: Most Americans see unlimited election spending as a threat to democracy: Poll

By Dave Levinthal for OpenSecrets

.....But some election law scholars and First Amendment advocates are skeptical about the Montana Plan's legality. "The state cannot condition a benefit (in this case, the right to incorporate) on citizens giving up their constitutional rights," said Institute for Free Speech President Brad Smith, a former Federal Election Commission chairman.

DOJ

New York Times: Justice Department to Investigate Protests at Turning Point Event at Berkeley

By Tim Arango

.....The Department of Justice said on Tuesday that it will investigate the University of California, Berkeley, after protesters confronted attendees of a campus event hosted by Turning Point USA, the conservative group founded by Charlie Kirk, who was assassinated in September.

Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the department’s civil rights division, wrote on X that the division would “investigate what happened here.” Ms. Dhillon, a conservative lawyer from California, described the protesters as members of Antifa, a label that the Trump administration has applied to broad groups of people protesting against the government.

FCC

Washington Examiner: Former FCC leaders petition agency to eliminate long-standing ‘news distortion’ policy

By Pedro Rodriguez

.....Former heads of the Federal Communications Commission on Thursday called on the agency to repeal the “news distortion” policy invoked by the Trump administration this year.

The policy, which had not been invoked for decades prior to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr mentioning it in discussions surrounding an allegedly deceptively edited 60 Minutes video and an incident where late-night show host Jimmy Kimmel made controversial statements about the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Donor Privacy

ADF: The First Amendment Protects Donor Privacy

By Lincoln Wilson

.....The First Amendment also protects our freedom of association. If you want to band together and quietly support a cause you believe in—without the government breathing down your neck about it—the First Amendment gives you that right.

Another implication of that right is the freedom to associate anonymously. That includes both the organizations you decide to be a member of and the organizations you choose to support. And outside of specific contexts like elections or support for terrorism, the government has no right to inquire into what you choose to financially support. And it especially has no right to target charities or their donors just because it dislikes their views.

That’s why it’s so disturbing that politicians have gone on the offensive to do exactly that. And few cases crystallize that risk better than what’s happening in New Jersey under attorney general Matthew Platkin. Overtly pro-abortion, he worked with Planned Parenthood to target pro-life pregnancy centers and now is asserting the most baseless of claims to demand that one such center turn over the names of its donors.

Free Expression

National Law Review:Sullivan's Reckoning - Why It's Time to Overturn America's Defamation Shield

By Elizabeth Price Foley, Mark I. Pinkert (Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky & Josefiak PLLC)

.....Civil discourse is rapidly declining. The U.S. is mired in escalating, violent political rhetoric, acts of political violence, and dismal polls showing that twenty percent of young adults think violence is justified to achieve political goals. While there are many cultural factors at play, one obvious legal factor is the Supreme Court’s decision in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). 

Sullivan made it almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit if it involves a public figure or a matter of public concern because the plaintiff must prove “actual malice.” This means the defendant either knew his statement was false or acted with “reckless disregard” because he had “serious doubts” about its truth.

Congress

Politico: House Republicans push vote to reverse provision allowing senators to sue over phone records

By Meredith Lee Hill, Hailey Fuchs and Mia McCarthy

.....Several House GOP hard-liners are pushing to kill a provision contained in the shutdown-ending funding package that would allow senators to sue the government if their electronic records are obtained without their knowledge, according to two people granted anonymity to share private conversations.

That legislative language was inserted in the Senate at the instruction of Senate Majority Leader John Thune, responding to the several Republican senators who are enraged their phone records were subpoenaed as part of Biden-era special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 election results.

Online Speech Platforms

Center for Democracy & Technology: Architects of Online Influence: How Creators, Platforms, and Policymakers Shape Political Speech

By Isabel Linzer and Becca Branum

.....This report explores the growing role of political influencers in our democracy and how they fit — or fail to fit — within existing conceptual, legal, and policy models. Political influencers, like the billions of people worldwide for whom the internet is inextricable from political participation and civic engagement, rely on social media platforms that offer new ways to understand and engage with the political process, lower the barrier for political organizing, and give greater voice to private individuals. 

The States

Georgia Recorder: GOP lawmaker says tougher campaign finance penalties needed in response to New Georgia Project case

By Ross Williams

.....A GOP-led panel Thursday floated ideas for legislation that members said would discourage organizations from illegally funding political candidates in the 2026 midterms and beyond.

State Sen. Bill Cowsert, an Athens Republican who chairs the Senate Special Committee on Investigations, expressed frustration at what he characterized as legal delay tactics that the New Georgia Project used in court and suggested stiffening penalties for campaign finance violations when committed by an organization...

Cowsert also mentioned the idea of capping donations to super PACs but indicated that might run afoul of Supreme Court decisions like Citizens United.