Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 16, 2026 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]. The Courts New York Times: Calling Trump ‘Authoritarian,’ Judge Seeks to Restrict Student Deportations By Zach Montague .....A federal judge said on Thursday that he would restrict the Trump administration’s ability to deport noncitizen members of two major academic organizations, sharing his vision for how to proceed in a case testing the First Amendment rights of student activists. During a hearing in Federal District Court in Boston, Judge William G. Young, a Reagan appointee, called Mr. Trump an “authoritarian” ruler who was failing to live up to his responsibility to uphold the First Amendment. The Lantern: Ohio State likely violated free speech after expelling a student over charged political videos, a federal judge rules By Davis Beatty .....A federal judge ruled Ohio State must remove any mention of a former student’s expulsion from his transcript as part of a First Amendment lawsuit challenging the university’s decision to unenroll him after posting political content posted in May. U.S District Court Judge Edmund Sargus, Jr. of the Southern District of Ohio, found that Guy Christensen’s expulsion likely violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and ruled for a preliminary injunction on Wednesday, according to court documents. David Carey, managing legal director for the ACLU of Ohio and representing Christensen in the case, said in a press release universities should not silence dissenting ideas. “Today’s ruling underscores one of the most foundational concepts of our Constitution: political opinions may not be silenced or punished merely because they may give offense,” Carey said. “We applaud the court’s ruling not only for its vindication of a student’s right to free expression, but also as a critical reminder to our institutions of higher education.” National Review: First Amendment Protects Prof Against Intolerant University Officials By George Leef .....One of the favorite leftist tactics for undermining the legitimacy of America is the “land acknowledgement,” whereby officials wring their hands over the alleged fact that they are operating on land stolen from native peoples. Several years ago, the University of Washington suggested that faculty members ought to include such a statement on their syllabi. Of course, that statement had nothing to do with the subject matter of the course, but no matter. When computer science professor Stuart Reges had the temerity to write a “land acknowledgement” that disagreed with the university’s wokeness, officials retaliated against him. Instead of meekly agreeing to go along with school policy, Reges sued. In today’s Martin Center article, I examine this important case. Judicial Watch: Judicial Watch Asks Supreme Court to Take Up Case of Teacher Fired for Off-Duty Political Speech .....Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a petition for a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit that permits public school officials to fire a tenured teacher for political speech made privately, off duty, and far removed from the classroom. WKRN: Jury finds Tullahoma student’s suspension over Instagram memes unconstitutional By Erin McCullough .....A Tullahoma High School student’s three-day suspension for posting memes of his principal on Instagram in 2022 has been ruled unconstitutional by a jury. Candidates and Campaigns Fox News: Socialist mayor pays ethics fine after failing to disclose $10K contribution from parents By Alec Schemmel .....Newly elected Seattle Mayor Katie Wilson was forced to pay a $250 fine by a citywide ethics commission after she failed to adequately disclose more than $10,000 in contributions that Wilson's parents made to her campaign. Following her election victory in November, Wilson defended taking her parents' money to help assist her mayoral run, claiming in an interview to CNN that it made her more "relatable" to voters. The money, Wilson said, went to help her pay for childcare. The City of Seattle's Ethics and Elections Commission found last month that the money Wilson got from her parents constituted "campaign contributions" and indicated corrective action was warranted in order to avoid creating an avenue for future candidates to circumvent campaign finance laws. In the letter, Jessica Pisane, indicated that the fine was only $250 because what occurred was "a novel issue" not seen before the commission. Democracy Project NYU Law: The Case for Stronger Parties in a Polarized Age By Brandice Canes-Wrone .....We live in an era of weak formal party organizations alongside high polarization. Over the past decades, formal party organizations have become less central to the funding of campaigns, candidate recruitment, and mobilizing voters. Meanwhile, partisan polarization among policymakers has increased; the national parties have become more ideologically distant from each other and less willing to compromise. A good deal of scholarship links this heightened polarization to a less effective and functional legislative branch, which in turn has encouraged presidents to enact policy via unilateral action. The proposal to strengthen formal party organizations may seem counterintuitive if polarization is a problem. Yet it is not surprising that polarization has blossomed at the same time party organizations have weakened. Party organizations have an incentive to nominate and support candidates who are likely to win the general election. And even in recent years, more moderate candidates have had the electoral edge in general elections. Strengthening party organizations would therefore increase the likelihood that ideological moderates are nominated and ultimately elected. The States FIRE: Another year, another session of AI overregulation By John Coleman .....As lawmakers kick off the 2026 legislative session, a new and consequential phase in the conversation about free speech and artificial intelligence is already taking shape in statehouses across the country. Yet another crop of AI bills is set to dictate how people use machines to speak and communicate, raising fundamental constitutional questions about freedom of expression in this country. The First Amendment applies to artificial intelligence in much the same way it applies to earlier expressive technologies. Like the printing press, the camera, the internet, and social media, AI is a tool people use to communicate ideas, access information, and generate knowledge. Regardless of the medium involved, our Constitution protects these forms of expression. Chattanooga Times Free Press: Bill would help regulate ‘deepfake’ political advertisements By Clint Cooper .....The bill, sponsored in the state House by Rep. Jason Zachary, R-Knoxville, and the state Senate by Sen. Becky Massey, R-Knoxville, would require ads with "deepfake" elements to include specific wording on a disclaimer about the elements on the ads. The wording of the bill defines "deepfake" elements as those "impersonating or depicting a candidate engaging in activity or speech in which the impersonated or depicted candidate did not in fact engage." In other words, the bill is not saying the ads in which a false impression is given should not, cannot and shall not be used, but that they must have a disclaimer. Free Speech Free People: New York State Senate Advances Democracy Preservation Act, Rejecting Multinational Corporate Influence in State Elections .....The New York State Senate today passed, with bipartisan support, the Democracy Preservation Act (S324), landmark legislation designed to block multinational corporations with significant foreign ownership from spending money to influence New York’s state and local elections. If enacted, New York would close a long-standing loophole that allows foreign interests to influence American elections through U.S.-based corporations. The legislation, introduced by Senate Deputy Leader Michael Gianaris, would bar corporations with significant foreign ownership from contributing to candidates, parties, or committees (including super PACs) or from engaging in their own direct election spending. A companion bill (A-1258) has been introduced in the State Assembly by Assemblywoman Latrice Walker. JD Supra: Contributor Beware: State-Level Contribution Bans May Apply During Legislative Sessions By D. Mark Renaud, Patrick Wohl, Wiley Rein LLP .....With a new year comes new legislative sessions. Between back-to-back meetings in state capitols and a steady stream of fundraisers to attend as primary season grows closer, government affairs professionals have a lot on their minds. Even so, organizations must be extra careful not to run afoul of so-called “blackout” periods where political contributions are prohibited during legislative sessions. These bans vary widely. Some laws apply only to lobbyists, while others encompass all contributors. Some prohibit only contributions to incumbents, while others include candidates. And some cover only the regular legislative session, while others apply during special sessions as well. Louisiana Illuminator: Louisiana ethics board might seek exemption for elected officials to new privacy law By Julie O'Donoghue .....The Louisiana Board of Ethics might seek an exemption from a new privacy law that allows current and retired judges — and soon hundreds of other public officials — to remove their personal information from its online records and website. The board’s staff recommended it ask state legislators to write an exception into the statute for documents the board oversees. Lawmakers would have to approve a change to the law, and their legislative session begins March 9. As the law stands, judges can demand a large swath of personal information for themselves and their immediate families be taken down from any government or privately operated websites. Those who don’t comply with requests face the possibility of criminal charges and lawsuits. Starting next month, this privilege will extend to statewide elected officials, legislators, public service commissioners as well as current and retired district attorneys, assistant prosecutors and their investigators. For the ethics board, this means hundreds of people will be able to ask for the removal of their home address and their spouse’s workplace that are regularly included on public officials’ personal financial disclosure documents and government travel disclosure forms posted online. 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