January 23, 2026

In the News

USA Today: FCC targets TV talk shows amid Trump's battles with Kimmel, others

By BrieAnna J. Frank

.....The 1934 law was based on the limited number of public airwaves. Such rationales are “obsolete” in 2025 because of the dramatic shifts in the media landscape that have happened in the years since, said Institute for Free Speech President David Keating. 

He said that makes equal opportunity requirements “constitutionally dubious” in the modern context, adding that courts could settle the matter if a lawsuit arises.  

In the meantime, he said talk shows may steer clear of booking political candidates in light of the FCC's notice.  

“The viewers, I think, and the public will be worse off as a result,” he said.  

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Buckley v. Valeo is Not What Ails American Democracy

By Ilya Somin

.....This year marks the fiftieth anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 ruling in which the Supreme Court held that federal laws limiting private parties’ expenditures on campaign-related speech violate the First Amendment. Critics blame Buckley for a host of current problems in our political system, such as the disproportionate political influence of wealthy people and the spread of misinformation. Our current political situation does indeed have serious flaws. But a contrary decision would not have averted these developments and would have made things much worse in many respects.

Had the Court accepted the fashionable argument that “money isn’t speech,” that decision would have gravely imperiled freedom of speech and other constitutional rights. Similar dangers would have arisen if the Court had maintained the rule that campaign-related free speech rights do not apply to corporations, which was eventually rejected in in subsequent case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010). Contrary decisions in these cases would also have exacerbated rather than ameliorated the problems of voter ignorance and misinformation. Nor would they have significantly reduced political inequality. A contrary decision would have exacerbated—rather than alleviated—the problems of voter ignorance and misinformation, while doing little to reduce political inequality.

The Courts

Washington Post: Judge limits government actions against students, scholars in free speech case

By Joanna Slater

.....A federal judge in Boston blocked the Trump administration from retaliating against two groups of scholars and students in a case that he said exposed an “unconstitutional conspiracy” to violate the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge William Young issued the order Thursday in a lawsuit brought by the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association that accused the government of arresting and detaining noncitizens because of their pro-Palestinian activism.

Wall Street Journal: I’m Being Prosecuted for the Opposite of Insider Trading

By Andrew Left

.....The crime of insider trading consists in taking advantage of other investors by buying or selling stock based on material, nonpublic information that could affect its value. I’m being prosecuted for doing the opposite of that. I publicly expressed a sincerely held opinion and later traded on it. Under the Justice Department’s theory, that’s a crime because I made so many people aware of my opinion.

Call it the influencer penalty. Prosecutors are advancing a legal theory that creates two classes of Americans: those who can speak freely and trade freely, and those who have built an audience and therefore can’t…

The First Amendment doesn’t specify a follower count at which its protections expire. We live in an influencer economy. Millions of Americans build audiences and share honest opinions about stocks, crypto, products, politics—while trading their own portfolios. The Justice Department’s position is that a large following strips you of rights everyone else enjoys.

That isn’t the law, and it shouldn’t be. It punishes speech for being effective. It inverts the First Amendment’s core purpose: protecting speech that persuades, speech that matters, speech people actually hear.

National Review: Montana College Student Resorted to Racist Harassment to Justify His Own ‘Anti-Hate’ Campaign

By Abigail Anthony

.....Rex Wu Jr. and Alexandra Lin fiercely campaigned to fight back against the toxic environment of racial hostility they endured as Asian students at Montana State University. They ran for student government, led “anti-hate” events about racial harassment, and spoke before the Montana Board of Regents about the university’s failure to protect minority students. Eventually, the federal government launched an investigation into the university.

But evidence supplied as part of two recent legal cases involving the pair suggests that much of the harassment they cited, which they largely blamed on conservative students and campus groups, was actually perpetrated by Wu himself.

Recent graduates of Montana State University, Daria Danley and Dylan Dean, filed a defamation suit against Wu last year alleging that he and Lin had “weaponized false racism accusations” for political causes and personal gain.

“[Lin] and Defendant Wu orchestrated campus-wide propaganda condemning MSU’s alleged indifference to ‘students of color’ — all built on their manufactured crisis,” reads the complaint.

The lawsuit draws on a separate federal cyberstalking case against Wu that concluded in December 2025. He was found guilty of one count of cyberstalking and sentenced to 18 months in prison, which is to be followed by three years of supervised release.

FCC

Politico: Watch out, Colbert and 'The View': FCC warns TV hosts to air both sides

By John Hendel

.....President Donald Trump’s top television regulator warned late-night and daytime hosts that they need to give political candidates equal time when booking guests — a move that brought renewed objections that the administration is treading on free speech.

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr issued regulatory guidance Wednesday directing broadcasters to provide political candidates with equal time on morning and late-night shows, specifically dinging programs “motivated by partisan purposes.”

Free Expression

The Free Press: The Campaign to Crush Free Speech in Minnesota

By Greg Lukianoff

.....Over the past two weeks, Minneapolis has given the country a crash course in the First Amendment.

The actions of protesters and politicians, during and in response to protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), have become real-world lessons in the law of speech. The clashes have demonstrated which types of speech aren’t protected, along with passionate, angry, and unsettling speech that is protected. We’ve also gotten a chilling reminder of what goes wrong when the government pretends not to know the difference.

Wall Street Journal: The European Threat to Your Free Speech

By Megan K. Jacobson

.....On Dec. 23 Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued an order banning from entering the U.S. five Europeans who the administration alleges “have led organized efforts to coerce American platforms to censor, demonetize, and suppress American viewpoints they oppose.” …

Yet the U.S. should go much further. Stopping a handful of Europeans from vacationing at Disneyland or speaking at Washington panels imposes no real cost on the censorship movement. State’s order is only effective as a message to the Europeans that America has run out of patience. That’s clearly the goal. “The Trump Administration will no longer tolerate these egregious acts of extraterritorial censorship,” Mr. Rubio tweeted about the travel ban. “We stand ready and willing to expand this list if others do not reverse course.”

Online Speech Platforms

Reason: This 1996 Law Protects Free Speech Online. Does It Apply to AI Too?

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown

.....We can thank Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act for much of our freedom to communicate online. It enabled the rise of search engines, social media, and countless platforms that make our modern internet a thriving marketplace of all sorts of speech.

Its first 26 words have been vital, if controversial, for protecting online platforms from liability for users' posts: "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider." If I defame someone on Facebook, I'm responsible—not Meta. If a neo-Nazi group posts threats on its website, it's the Nazis, not the domain registrar or hosting service, who could wind up in court.

How Section 230 should apply to generative AI, however, remains a hotly debated issue.

The States

Atlanta Journal-Constitution: Chris Carr proposes anti-corruption plan aimed at public officials

By Greg Bluestein, Tia Mitchell, Patricia Murphy and Adam Beam

.....[The plan] would also overhaul campaign finance rules. Candidates would be required to swear under oath that their financial disclosures are complete and accurate, with criminal penalties for knowingly filing false information.

If a candidate floods a race with personal money — as Jones has — the proposal would lift contribution limits for opponents to raise matching amounts, a move Carr argues is meant to preserve fairness and public confidence in elections. Campaign loans would face tighter disclosure rules, with criminal penalties for intentionally hiding the source of funds.

“If you are an elected official who truly cares about public service and not enriching yourself, your family or your friends,” Carr said, “you should endorse this right now.”

News Center Maine: Bill would require AI political ads to include a disclaimer

By Christian Harsa

.....A legislative proposal would require political ad creators to include a disclaimer in their advertisements or face a fine. The bill has support from media companies, though they do ask for slight amendments to the writing.

LD 517 would require all political ads, like the one shared last month depicting Gov. Janet Mills, that “create a materially deceptive or fraudulent political communication” using artificial intelligence to have a disclaimer. This warning would read, “This communication contains audio, video, and/or images that have been manipulated or altered.”

Bill sponsor Rep. Amy Kuhn, D-Falmouth, says there is currently no stipulation on exactly how that warning would be included, but she says it is necessary.

Baltimore Sun (via Archive.Today): Maryland lawmakers consider AI, deepfake bills to address evolving technology

By Katharine Wilson and Mennatalla Ibrahim

.....Maryland lawmakers began formal consideration of legislation aimed at curbing the use of political deepfakes, as state Sen. Katie Fry Hester warned that artificial intelligence is increasingly being used to confuse voters and undermine trust in elections ahead of the 2026 cycle.

Deepfakes are artificial representations of people, usually created through AI. These can include audio, video or photos made to mimic a person.

Hester, a Democrat representing Howard and Montgomery counties, presented on Wednesday Senate Bill 141 before the Senate Education, Energy, and the Environment Committee, outlining a more narrow version of legislation that passed both chambers last year but stalled before reaching the governor’s desk last session. Another deepfake bill led by Hester, Senate Bill 8, will be considered on Thursday before the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee. The legislation would criminalize the use of deepfakes to impersonate someone or cause serious harm.

The revised proposal deliberated over on Wednesday is designed to withstand constitutional scrutiny while granting the State Board of Elections new authority to prevent AI-generated election misinformation from spreading. Unlike last year’s version, the proposal focuses on election misinformation rather than classifying deepfakes as a form of voting fraud — a change Hester said would strengthen the bill’s constitutional footing.

Original Baltimore Sun article (paywalled)

Gibson Dunn: Texas Attorney General Declares Public DEI Initiatives Unconstitutional and Warns of Legal Risks from Corporate DEI

By Jason C. Schwartz, Cynthia Chen McTernan, and Cate McCaffrey

.....On January 19, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued Opinion No. KP-0505 entitled “Re: ‘Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion’ in Texas.” In the Opinion, Paxton opines on the legality of two categories of DEI initiatives: public-sector programs operated by the state of Texas, and corporate DEI practices common in the private sector. While this Opinion lacks force of law, in Texas, courts consider opinions of the Attorney General as persuasive authority when interpreting state law.

The 75-page opinion begins with a 25-page recitation of the relevant legal history. The Opinion begins with discussion of founding-era legal principles, then traces development of anti-discrimination law through Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It then discusses the rise of demographic-based preferencing in federal programs, related corporate practices, and the Supreme Court doctrine permitting these practices.