Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech January 27, 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]. New from the Institute for Free Speech Institute for Free Speech Urges D.C. Circuit to Preserve Protections against Partisan Speech Enforcement .....The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to prevent improper partisan enforcement of federal campaign finance law. Under federal law, private groups can only sue their political opponents if the Federal Election Commission (FEC) refuses to consider their complaints or dismisses them “contrary to law.” But recently, some Commissioners have refused to vote for closing the file on complaints that the FEC has considered, but declined to pursue, thereby misleading courts into authorizing private lawsuits. American Democracy and the Actuality of Corruption By Jeff Milyo .....Concerns about money in politics bring into conflict the democratic ideals of liberty, equality, and justice enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. A free society will always exhibit inequalities of wealth and hence access to power and influence, thus imperiling the ideal of equal protection of the law. But efforts to regulate political activities, even setting aside potential hidden and nefarious motives, also violate the fundamental principles of free speech, association, and petitioning for redress of grievances (i.e., lobbying). Any democratic society must resolve this unfortunate tradeoff; American democracy does so in favor of liberty. Life without Buckley v. Valeo By John Samples .....In the late 1960s, the U.S. Congress began enacting campaign finance regulations. The reasons for those regulations are not hard to discern. In 1968, Eugene McCarthy, an anti-war challenger supported by a small number of large donors, effectively drove Lyndon Johnson from the presidency; a populist from the right did well, though short of securing the Democratic nomination. Richard Nixon narrowly defeated Hubert Humphrey by raising and spending what seemed to be, at the time, huge sums of money. By limiting spending on campaigns, Congress sought to restrict competition and protect the political status quo. Spending limits would make it difficult to spend enough money to effectively challenge congressional incumbents. The equality of spending implicit in the presidential public financing scheme headed off a growing Republican advantage in presidential fundraising. And contribution limits further complicated challenging the status quo by making it harder to raise money. The Courts AEI: Free Speech, Jawboning, and Aaron v. Bondi: Did Government Coercion Stifle ICEBlock’s Availability? By Clay Calvert .....In December, a jawboning case—Aaron v. Bondi—landed in federal court in the District of Columbia that’s garnering significant media attention. It targets high-level Trump administration officials and their public remarks about the ICEBlock application, its founder and developer (Joshua Aaron), and its iPhone distributor (Apple). The case will likely hinge, however, on the non-public, behind-the-scenes statements US Attorney General Pam Bondi made to Apple officials to persuade—pressure? coerce?—them to jettison ICEBlock from the App Store on October 2, 2025. At that time, ICEBlock had “over 1.14 million users,” thanks partly to a June 2025 CNN feature about the app that drew the “immediate” wrath of Bondi and other government officials. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) acting director Todd Lyons—a defendant in Aaron—called CNN’s reporting “reckless and irresponsible.” Bloomberg Law: FTC Extends Ad Boycott Probe a Judge Said Violates Free Speech By Leah Nylen .....The US Federal Trade Commission is continuing to investigate alleged ad boycotts against conservative websites as part of a probe that a federal court judge ruled last year was retaliation against an advocacy group for exercising its constitutional right to free speech. NewsGuard Technologies Inc., which provides ratings software used by consumers and advertisers to make decisions about the accuracy and reliability of websites, said the FTC is continuing to seek information about its activities as part of the probe. NewsGuard filed a petition on Jan. 16 to overturn an agency information request seeking the identities of all its ... Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): First Circuit Judge on Title VI Hostile Environment Harassment Claims and the First Amendment By Eugene Volokh .....An excerpt from Judge Joshua Dunlap's opinion concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc yesterday in StandWithUs Center for Legal Justice v. MIT (from my research, just the third opinion he has written since joining the court in November): Free Expression Wall Street Journal (gift link): Fallout From Minnesota: Citizen-Watchdog Claims of ICE Retaliation By Jared Mitovich and Kris Maher .....The Trump administration has interpreted a wide range of ICE-related protest activity as obstructive or illegal. At the same time, federal agents and officers have often escalated, rather than de-escalated, peaceful protests and less-frequent actual occurrences of obstruction under the law, some legal experts and historians say. In Minneapolis, the encounters have been fluid and often adrenaline-fueled. Residents with whistles and phone cameras have swarmed officers at gas stations, schools and street corners. They have trailed agents’ vehicles, tracked their license plates, honked their horns and yelled at agents to leave. Agents, meanwhile, have deployed pepper spray into the vents of observers’ cars or in their faces, slammed into their vehicles and sometimes wrestled them down, cuffed them and detained them at the federal Whipple Building just outside Minneapolis, according to court declarations, interviews and videos. Local officials have begun taking an accounting of how citizens say the deployment has affected them. FIRE: The Alex Pretti shooting and the growing strain on the First Amendment By Aaron Terr .....On Saturday, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse named Alex Pretti was shot and killed by United States Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis. The tragic loss of life, and the Trump administration’s response, deepen FIRE’s concerns about threats to the First Amendment rights to protest and to record law enforcement. Nonprofits Wall Street Journal (gift link): Democrats’ Nonprofit Problem By Barton Swaim .....The Democrats’ nonprofit problem began more or less in 2010, when a cap-and-trade bill died in the Senate. Wealthy foundations and donor-class ideologues, animated by fears of global catastrophe, decided they couldn’t achieve their goals by democratic persuasion and had to create an army of nonprofit groups to wage legal and political war on the imagined enablers of climate change. The money soon flowed to other areas, as money does. Particularly since the pandemic and the George Floyd riots in 2020, the progressive donor class has spread its largess to advocacy and activist organizations pushing social justice, immigrant rights, Palestinian statehood, LGBTQ rights, indigenous people’s rights and—as ever—climate sustainability. MacKenzie Scott, ex-wife of Jeff Bezos, has given $26 billion since 2019. Other billionaires with left-leaning proclivities—Michael Bloomberg, Pierre Omidyar, George Soros, Tom Steyer—have pumped enormous sums into progressive nonprofits. Jonesing For Nonprofits: Donor Funding and Nonprofit Protest as Threats to Democracy .....I welcome the opportunity to be persuaded from my own biases and so I like reading right side commentary. Last week there was an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal arguing that the Democrats have a “nonprofit problem.” Actually, I think the mention of Democrats scarcely in the whole essay was just a hook to catch readers. The essay is more about the surprising non-sequitur that nonprofits threaten democracy by their advocacy. I demonstrate my bias below, by the way, but I am not a Democrat. My voter registration card says “no party affiliation.” Anyway, the writer identifies big donors — the bogeymen Bloomberg and Soros, among others — to progressive nonprofits. And he points out that those nonprofits train people in the art of protest. Some of those trained protestors are in Minneapolis, apparently. Nothing suggests that the protestors are the proverbial “outside agitators” bussed in from afar and the writer doesn’t make that assertion. The implication, if not the explicit assertion, is that the protestors are not really sincere and are themselves the cause of the things they are protesting. The protestors are just paid actors and the poor misguided gullible Democrats are being misled once again. By nefarious nonprofits bent destroying democracy. The States Iowa Capital Dispatch: Senators introduce state constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United By Robin Opsahl .....Iowa Sens. Zach Wahls, D-Coralville and David Sires, R-Cedar Falls, told reporters Wednesday there is bipartisan interest in taking action to stop anonymous, corporate influence in Iowa elections. The two senators introduced Senate Joint Resolution 2004, a proposed amendment to the state constitution saying “the people do not intend, and have never intended the powers and privileges of corporations to include participation in election activity, ballot-issue activity, or financial donations to political candidates or political committees.” It would ban corporations from financially contributing or otherwise participating in election and ballot issue activities, with language specifying this does not stop businesses from being able to manufacture, operate or sell election equipment. Center Square New Hampshire: New Hampshire lawmakers weigh limits on politically motivated doxing By Chris Wade .....Citing a growing lack of civility in U.S. politics, New Hampshire lawmakers are considering proposals seeking to limit online harassment and intimidation based on a persons' political affiliation or views. One proposal, HB 1464, would criminalize so-called "doxing" and prevent employers from firing or discriminating against a person because of their political affiliation or opinion. It would also expand a state law that outlaws abusive phone threats and other behavior to include online harassment. Under the bill, perpetrators could be charged with a Class B felony if the harassment resulted in the victim losing their jobs or suffering economic harm, and if the doxing causes a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress or fear for their safety, employment, or economic well-being." Another bill, HB 1367, would define doxing as the "intentional" posting of someone's personal information "without their consent” with the intent to "threaten, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress or physical harm." It would become a Class A misdemeanor, with violators facing up to a year in jail and up to a $2,000 fine. Courthouse News: Judge suspended over partisan posts .....The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the judicial discipline court’s suspension of a Philadelphia Common Pleas judge over partisan political posts on social media, rejecting the judge’s claim that the posts were protected by the First Amendment. The court's interest in preserving the judiciary’s independence and appearance of impartiality outweighs the judge’s interest in publicly advocating for Democratic candidates and policies. Read the ruling here. Statehouse File: Senate bill would bolster security for Indiana appellate judges after shooting By Marilyn Odendahl, The Indiana Citizen .....Senate Bill 291, authored by Sen. Scott Baldwin, R-Noblesville, would establish a specialized court security unit for the Indiana Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals of Indiana and the Indiana Tax Court. These court marshals would attend court proceedings, provide security at events, such as judicial conferences and community outreach programs, and maintain a security system at the Statehouse, in judicial staff offices, and at the homes of the justices and judges. 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