January 15, 2026

In the News

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Lawsuit could bypass Georgia campaign contribution limits

By David Wickert and Caleb Groves

.....A lawsuit that will get a hearing Wednesday has the potential to remake Georgia’s campaign finance system, allowing candidates for state office to bypass contribution limits and other rules.

Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger has challenged state laws limiting his ability to raise money while allowing Lt. Gov. Burt Jones to rake in unlimited cash through a leadership committee as they both seek the Republican nomination for governor.

Iowa Politics with Laura Belin: Below-the-radar news from Congress, Iowa legislature's opening day

By Laura Belin

.....Monday morning, I was excited to be back on the Iowa House press bench for the opening day of the legislative session. I’ll never take it for granted, because I had to fight for years to be seated in the press gallery.

Background for newer subscribers: I first applied for credentials in 2019 and was rejected five times until the Institute for Free Speech filed a federal lawsuit on my behalf in 2024. Within days, I was offered a place with the other journalists.

The Courts

Washington Post: Sen. Mark Kelly sues Hegseth over censure, potential demotion

By Noah Robertson and Tara Copp

.....Sen. Mark Kelly filed a lawsuit Monday seeking to reverse Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s letter of censure and effort to potentially demote the retired Navy officer — sharply escalating a confrontation between the Arizona Democrat and President Donald Trump’s Pentagon chief over a video reminding U.S. service members they can refuse illegal orders.

In the lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court, Kelly’s lawyers argued that the Pentagon’s inquiry and formal reprimand, unlawfully punished the senator for his speech and violated his due process.

“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit states.

NOTUS: DOJ Argues Protesters Don’t Have Constitutional Right to Observe Immigration Agents

By Jackie Llanos

.....A Department of Justice attorney said in a Minnesota federal court Tuesday that there is no First Amendment protection for observing police.

The assertion came during a hearing in the lawsuit Minnesota protesters brought against the Trump administration claiming immigration agents arrested, pepper sprayed and intimidated them without cause. While the lawsuit preceded the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good, protesters cited the incident in asking the federal judge to temporarily stop federal agents from retaliating against them.

Iowa Capital Dispatch: State board sued for soliciting complaints about teachers’ anti-Kirk posts

By Clark Kauffman

.....The Iowa Board of Educational Examiners is now being sued for soliciting complaints about teachers who made negative public comments about Charlie Kirk in the wake of the conservative activist’s death last fall.

Teachers Katherine Mejia of Manchester and Jennifer Smith of Johnston are suing the Iowa Board of Educational Examiners and its executive director, Michael Cavin, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.

The lawsuit challenges Cavin’s written solicitation of professional licensing complaints related to the shooting death of Kirk in September 2025. That solicitation, the teachers argue, resulted in complaints of unethical conduct filed against them by their employers. The lawsuit alleges the actions of Cavin and the board have violated the teachers’ First Amendment right to comment on matters of public concern.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Students for a Democratic Society Chapter, Expelled from Univ. of South Florida for Rule Violations, Loses First Amendment Challenge to USF Policies

By Eugene Volokh

.....In Tampa Bay Students for a Democratic Society v. Univ. of South Florida, decided Friday by Judge Steven Merryday (M.D. Fla.), the SDS challenged its expulsion from USF, as well as various USF policies:

MediaDailyNews: California To Court: Reinstate 'Deep Fake' Political Ad Ban

By Wendy Davis

.....California Attorney General Rob Bonta is asking a federal appellate court to reinstate a law aimed at combatting online “deep fakes” in political ads.

The Defending Democracy from Deepfake Deception Act (AB 2655), which was struck down last year by U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez in Sacramento, would have required large online platforms to allow users to report political deep fakes, and to remove such material upon users' reports.

The measure would have covered “materially deceptive” election-related posts, with exceptions for satire and parody. The statute defined "materially deceptive" as anything portraying political candidates saying something they didn't actually say, and that's “reasonably likely” to harm candidates' reputations or their chances of winning.

Trump Administration

New York Times Magazine: The MAGA Plan to Take Over TV Is Just Beginning

By Jim Rutenberg

.....Republicans had long been united in the view that a leftist censorship-industrial complex was victimizing conservatives. “Free speech” was a great rallying cry of President Donald J. Trump’s comeback, and Cruz had presented himself as a First Amendment champion as far back as 2014, when as a freshman senator he moved to block proposed restrictions on the flow of dark money to political ads. Cruz had followed Trump’s 2025 Inauguration Day vow to “immediately stop all government censorship” with his own pledge to go after any big tech companies that suppressed speech.

By the fall, though, it was hard to ignore the fact that Trump’s entire second term seemed to be a grand exercise in coercive government, and in particular that the government effort to suppress free speech drew largely on the power of the government itself to speak freely. By way of interviews or proclamations or letters, or even just posts on social media, the president and his agencies compelled universities to eliminate diversity initiatives and restrict campus protest and forced several major law firms to pledge political neutrality.

Free Expression

The Eternally Radical Idea: The situation for free speech in Europe is even worse than I thought

By Greg Lukianoff

.....In also neighboring Norway, the target is not a conservative Christian but a gender-critical lesbian feminist.

In 2020, the Norwegian parliament expanded Penal Code §185 — the hate-speech law — to explicitly cover gender identity and expression. Shortly afterward, lesbian filmmaker and artist Tonje Gjevjon posted on Facebook that men cannot be lesbians, and criticized male-born people presenting themselves as “lesbian mothers.” In late 2022, she received notice that she was under police investigation for possible hate-speech crimes, with a maximum penalty of three years in prison.

She was never convicted, but the process is the punishment. When stating “men can’t be lesbians” can plausibly lead to a hate-speech probe with multi-year prison time on the table, it’s rational to keep your head down.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Free Speech Unmuted: 2025: The Year in Free Speech

By Eugene Volokh

.....What kind of year was 2025 for free speech? In this special year-in-review episode of Free Speech Unmuted, my cohost Jane Bambauer and I break down the biggest legal and political fights shaping speech in America right now. From the Supreme Court's unanimous decision upholding the TikTok divestment law to a pending case that could redefine how much protection professional "talk therapy" gets under the First Amendment, we explain what has happened—and why it matters. The conversation also covers the Court's ruling allowing age-verification requirements for online pornography, which dealt with tough questions about protecting kids, adult privacy, and free expression on the internet.

National Coalition Against Censorship: Free Expression Advocates Call on Trump Administration to Respect Public’s First Amendment Right to Record

.....The strength of American democracy lies in one simple principle: the right to hold power accountable. Yet that principle is now under attack. The Trump Administration’s claim that recording Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents is “illegal” is both unconstitutional and profoundly dangerous to our democracy. The freedom to document government actions is not a crime—it is a cornerstone of the First Amendment and of public trust in government.

Today, the National Coalition Against Censorship has led in the creation of a sign-on letter uniting the nation’s foremost civil rights and free expression organizations. Together, we stand against the Trump Administration’s false and dangerous claim that filming Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents is “illegal.”

As advocates for free expression and civil rights, we join our partners in affirming this truth: documenting public officials, including ICE agents, is not only legal—it is essential. The First Amendment protects those who record and speak out. We demand that this administration honor that oath, respect the Constitution, and recognize that transparency is not defiance—it is democracy in action.

Read the full letter here:

Candidates and Campaigns

The Mountaineer: Sniffing out the sign maker: Opposing candidate offers cash reward

By Sarah White

.....More than a week has passed since polarizing political signs attacking Haywood County Commissioner Terry Ramey’s re-election bid appeared around Waynesville — and most seem to have flown the coop — but the person behind them remains a mystery.

Using an anonymous pseudonym, whoever put out the signs is in violation of campaign finance laws for failing to disclose campaign expenditures. Now, another candidate for commissioner is taking on the challenge of unmasking “Johnny Hopeful” by offering $1,000 for relevant information.

Expenses over $100 in political campaigns — like the cost of yard signs — must be reported. But whoever posted these “Don’t vote for Terry Ramey” signs around Hazelwood, has yet to own up. Johnny Hopeful is credited on the signs, but no such name has filed a finance report with the board of elections.

Ramey filed a complaint with the state when he found out about the signs, which dub him “the village idiot.” One of his opponents in the race, Howard Knepper, has gone a step farther.

The States

New York Times: New York Seeks Ban on A.I.-Generated Images of Candidates

By Benjamin Oreskes

.....As the use of images created by artificial intelligence explodes, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York announced on Sunday that she would seek limits on how political campaigns can employ the technology before elections.

Ms. Hochul specifically wants to prohibit campaigns from spreading A.I.-generated images of people, including opposing candidates, without their consent in the 90 days before an election.

The new measures, which Ms. Hochul will mention in her State of the State address on Tuesday, would also outlaw the deliberate dissemination of false information about elections, including their date and time.

Forbes: Constitutionality Of Pennsylvania's Anti-SLAPP Law Questioned In Hernandez

By Jay Adkisson

.....If you go to the movies, you have to sit through a preview of coming attractions before you get to watch the main flick. Our courts on occasion give previews of coming attractions too. A court opinion may highlight an issue that isn’t before the court just yet, but it’s only a matter of time before the court will address it. Exactly such a preview was given about the constitutionality of the Pennsylvania Uniform Public Expression Protection Act ("UPEPA"), which is the Keystone state's Anti-SLAPP law, in a recent opinion, Hernandez v. Zook, 2026 WL 32563 (Pa.Super., Jan. 6, 2026), which you can read for yourself here.

South Dakota Searchlight: Campaign funds can pay for child care and security in some cases, SD attorney general says

By John Hult

.....South Dakota’s attorney general issued an opinion Tuesday saying that candidates for office and elected officials can use campaign funds to pay child care and security costs under some circumstances.

Marty Jackley’s official opinion came in response to a question on the issue from Democratic Senate Minority Leader Liz Larson of Sioux Falls.

State law doesn’t “forbid or permit” the use of campaign funds for security or child care, Jackley’s opinion says, but there are broad outlines on what constitutes acceptable uses.

Campaign money can be spent on things directly related to a campaign, “incident to being a public official” or former public official, or donated to other campaigns or campaign committees, the opinion says.

State laws offer “broad descriptions” on what constitutes campaign activity, which Jackley says was intentional and meant to avoid excluding some activities those laws’ authors may not have considered.

The Federal Election Commission, he notes in the opinion, “explicitly permits candidates for federal office to use campaign contributions for childcare expenses incurred during the candidate’s political campaign.”

“As of the date of this letter, fifteen states have enacted similar laws,” the opinion says.