2026-09-22T15:02:37-05:00 2025-12-31 541498950 RENNER AND COMPANY CPA PC 700 NORTH FAIRFAX STREET SUITE 400 ALEXANDRIA VA 22314 990 2025-01-01 203676886 INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH INST 2023013300 1150 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW 801 WASHINGTON DC 20036 DAVID KEATING PRESIDENT 7038946800 2026-09-22 1 ANDREW E YOUNG CPA P01203950 7035351200 2026-09-22 2025 DAVID KEATING 1150 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW 801 WASHINGTON DC 20036 32483316 0 X WWW.IFS.ORG X 2005 VA PRESERVATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION. 7 6 17 7 0 0 3015831 3126167 66223 1122710 460361 288637 184687 151473 3727102 4688987 0 0 0 0 2736452 2901212 0 0 283518 872487 817489 3608939 3718701 118163 970286 8986533 9668802 1831740 1589362 7154793 8079440 THROUGH STRATEGIC LITIGATION, COMMUNICATION, ACTIVISM, TRAINING, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION, THE INSTITUTE WORKS TO PROMOTE AND DEFEND THE POLITICAL RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY, AND PETITION GUARANTEED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT. 0 0 2005897 1122710 THE LITIGATION PROGRAM OF THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH PURSUES STRATEGIC LITIGATION AND FILES AMICUS BRIEFS TO DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION. 701891 THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH EDUCATES ITS SUPPORTERS AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE OF THE BENEFITS OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THESE RIGHTS TO OUR SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT. IT COMMUNICATES THIS INFORMATION THROUGH PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN NEWSPAPERS, WEBSITES AND MAGAZINES, BRIEFINGS OF AND INTERVIEWS WITH JOURNALISTS, APPEARANCES ON TELEVISION AND RADIO, NEWSLETTERS, AND SOCIAL MEDIA, AND AN EXTENSIVE WEBSITE AND BLOG. 652249 THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH PUBLISHES RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE POLITICAL SPEECH, PRESS, ASSEMBLY AND PETITION. THE INSTITUTE ALSO TRACKS AND ANALYZES PROPOSED LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS AT THE FEDERAL AND STATE LEVEL THAT COULD AFFECT THESE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. 3360037 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 17 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 X 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 AL AK AR CA CT FL KY MA MI MN NH NM NC OK OR SC VA GA IL KS MD MS NJ NY PA RI TN WV WI UT X X X THE ORGANIZATION 2023013300 1150 CONNECTICUT AVENUE NW 801 WASHINGTON DC 20036 BRADLEY A SMITH CHAIRMAN 10.00 X X 96000 0 0 JOHN SNIDER SECRETARY AND TREASURER 1.00 X X 0 0 0 EDWARD H CRANE DIRECTOR 0.10 X 0 0 0 JENNY KIM DIRECTOR 0.25 X 0 0 0 STEPHEN MODZELEWSKI DIRECTOR 1.00 X 0 0 0 ERIC O'KEEFE DIRECTOR 0.50 X 0 0 0 DANIEL SHUCHMAN DIRECTOR 0.75 X 0 0 0 DAVID KEATING PRESIDENT 40.00 X 194416 0 36979 ALAN GURA VICE PRESIDENT FOR LITIGATION 40.00 X 255317 0 9164 THOMAS GARRETT VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF COMMUNICATION OFFICER 40.00 X 152186 0 12822 ENDEL KOLDE SENIOR ATTORNEY 40.00 X 220419 0 40857 CHARLES MILLER SENIOR ATTORNEY 40.00 X 216361 0 32487 BRETT NOLAN SENIOR ATTORNEY 40.00 X 180911 0 34783 DOUG GRANGER DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT 40.00 X 127507 0 31485 PETER RUSSO DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 40.00 X 118125 0 35435 1561242 0 234012 8 0 1 0 0 3126167 3126167 LITIGATION AWARD FEES 541100 1122710 1122710 1122710 272578 272578 144783 0 144783 144783 144783 27810388 27794329 16059 16059 16059 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 900099 6690 6690 6690 4688987 1129400 0 433420 756884 695939 10719 50226 1722396 1563506 27991 130899 50523 45865 818 3840 207880 188713 3368 15799 163529 148446 2655 12428 132945 123532 9413 20081 20081 21302 21302 27125 17153 490 9482 8242 7491 141 610 5710 3546 64 2100 15242 13854 261 1127 201607 181238 6118 14251 96294 94788 46 1460 45112 40314 938 3860 200 182 3 15 39371 35772 687 2912 3992 3992 DUES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS 99884 96735 115 3034 PRINTING 75321 55323 222 19776 RETREAT EXPENSES 13944 12673 240 1031 TELEPHONE 3261 2964 56 241 7856 6709 133 1014 3718701 3360037 75146 283518 287140 772087 3024015 529463 143 4353 0 4240 0 490106 320684 207265 169422 4334934 7247484 1128796 945993 8986533 9668802 258201 248673 1573539 1340689 1831740 1589362 X 7154793 8079440 7154793 8079440 8986533 9668802 970286 -45639 0 X X 0 1 X 1 0 X 3231497 3157682 3110649 3015831 3126167 15641826 3231497 3157682 3110649 3015831 3126167 15641826 3736825 11905001 57212 137669 161162 530626 417361 1304030 13064 14680 17788 33689 6690 85911 17031767 2156707 0.69900 0.70840 X RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED RESTRICTED 28124 28124 3718701 3746825 337341 84335 0 0 301840 307385 332855 337341 1279421 1919132 24833 37916 48155 28124 139028 75460 76846 83214 84335 319855 479783 380653 218149 162504 109453 102535 6918 169422 SECURITY DEPOSIT 17024 RIGHT OF USE ASSET 928969 945993 OPERATING LEASE LIABILITIES 1340689 1340689 X 4829842 -45639 186494 140855 4688987 0 4688987 3905195 186494 186494 3718701 0 3718701 PART X, LINE 2: IN ACCOUNTING FOR UNCERTAINTY IN INCOME TAXES, ACCOUNTING STANDARDS REQUIRE AN ENTITY TO RECOGNIZE THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT IMPACT OF A TAX POSITION WHEN IT IS MORE-LIKELY-THAN-NOT THAT THE POSITION WILL NOT BE SUSTAINED UPON EXAMINATION. MANAGEMENT EVALUATED THE INSTITUTE'S TAX POSITIONS AND CONCLUDED THERE ARE NO UNCERTAIN TAX POSITIONS THAT REQUIRE ADJUSTMENT TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS GUIDANCE. X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ALAN GURA VICE PRESIDENT FOR LITIGATION 255317 0 0 0 0 0 7753 0 1411 0 264481 0 0 0 ENDEL KOLDE SENIOR ATTORNEY 220419 0 0 0 0 0 6810 0 34047 0 261276 0 0 0 CHARLES MILLER SENIOR ATTORNEY 216361 0 0 0 0 0 6538 0 25949 0 248848 0 0 0 DAVID KEATING PRESIDENT 194416 0 0 0 0 0 6112 0 30867 0 231395 0 0 0 BRETT NOLAN SENIOR ATTORNEY 180911 0 0 0 0 0 5650 0 29133 0 215694 0 0 0 THOMAS GARRETT VICE PRESIDENT & CHIEF COMMUNICATION 152186 0 0 0 0 0 4653 0 8169 0 165008 0 0 0 DOUG GRANGER DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT 127507 0 0 0 0 0 3963 0 27522 0 158992 0 0 0 PETER RUSSO DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS 118125 0 0 0 0 0 3600 0 31835 0 153560 0 0 0 BRADLEY SMITH BOARD CHAIRMAN 96000 CONSULTING 0 FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION A, LINE 8B NO SUCH COMMITTEES EXISTED. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 11B THE INSTITUTE'S AUDIT COMMITTEE REVIEWS A DRAFT OF THE 990 PRIOR TO FILING. A COPY OF THE FORM 990 IS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE INSTITUTE'S GOVERNING BODY BEFORE IT IS FILED. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 12C EVERY YEAR BOTH THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND EVERY OFFICER REVIEWS THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AND MUST DISCLOSE ANY CONFLICTS. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEWS THE POLICY AT OR AROUND ITS FINAL MEETING OF THE YEAR AND EACH MEMBER PROVIDES WRITTEN ACKNOWLEDGMENT. EVERY EMPLOYEE ALSO RECEIVES AN ELECTRONIC COPY OF THE POLICY. ANY CONFLICTS OR POTENTIAL CONFLICTS ARE RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDENT OR OTHERWISE REPORTED BY THE PRESIDENT AND REVIEWED AND RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS. IN REVIEWING ANY CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT, ANY MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS WHO MAY HAVE A CONFLICT IS RECUSED FROM RESOLVING THE CONFLICT OR POTENTIAL CONFLICT. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION B, LINE 15 THE BOARD RETAINS AN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION CONSULTANT TO PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE BOARD ON THE RANGE OF COMPENSATION AT COMPARABLE ORGANIZATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT AND THE CHAIRMAN. THE BOARD SETS THE COMPENSATION OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE CHAIRMAN. BETWEEN INDEPENDENT COMPENSATION REVIEWS, THE CHAIRMAN MAY ADJUST THE PRESIDENT'S COMPENSATION TO REFLECT CHANGES IN THE CONSUMER PRICE INDEX. DURING DISCUSSIONS OF THE CHAIRMAN'S COMPENSATION, THE CHAIRMAN DEPARTS THE MEETING AND DOES NOT VOTE ON THE MATTER. COMPENSATION FOR EMPLOYEES IS APPROVED BY THE PRESIDENT. FORM 990, PART VI, SECTION C, LINE 19 THE INSTITUTE'S FORM 990 IS AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE AND IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC UPON REQUEST. THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON ITS WEBSITE. THE INSTITUTE DOES NOT MAKE ITS GOVERNING DOCUMENTS AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST POLICY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 2C THE AUDIT COMMITTEE, COMPOSED OF MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SELECTION OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS AND OVERSIGHT OF THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT. CASES IN LITIGATION PART I ALASKA POLICY FORUM V. ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION (DISCLOSURE MANDATES) THIS CASE IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF OUT-OF-CONTROL DONOR DISCLOSURE MANDATES. THE ALASKA POLICY FORUM (APF) SPENT LESS THAN $1,000 ON FIVE MINOR COMMUNICATIONS ON ITS WEBSITE THAT DISCUSSED RANKED-CHOICE VOTING (RCV). EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THE COMMUNICATIONS MENTIONED A 2020 BALLOT MEASURE ON RCV, AND SEVERAL DIDN'T EVEN MENTION ALASKA OR THAT NOVEMBER'S ELECTION, THE ALASKA PUBLIC OFFICES COMMISSION (APOC) RULED THE COMMUNICATIONS WERE EXPRESS ADVOCACY AGAINST THE BALLOT QUESTION. APF WOULD HAVE TO DISCLOSE DONORS OR PAY AN $8,000 FINE. WE ARE REPRESENTING THE GROUP IN AN APPEAL, FILED ON AUGUST 11, 2021, TO THE STATE COURT REGARDING THIS OUTRAGEOUS DECISION. THE INSTITUTE CONTINUES TO REPRESENT APF, WITH THE MOST RECENT ACTION BEING AN APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA ON JANUARY 5, 2023, AND ORAL ARGUMENTS BEFORE THAT COURT ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2023. AT THE END OF 2025, A DECISION WAS STILL PENDING. ON FEBRUARY 13, 2026, THE ALASKA SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE LOWER COURT RULING. A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON JULY 13, 2026. A VICTORY WOULD SECURE A KEY PRECEDENT TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF ONE OF THE NATION'S WORST CAMPAIGN FINANCE DONOR DISCLOSURE LAWS AND HELP PRESERVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO ASSEMBLY AND ASSOCIATION. CASES IN LITIGATION PART II ALEXANDER, ET AL. V. SUTTON, ET AL. (SCHOOL BOARD CENSORSHIP) THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOES NOT ALLOW NEW YORK CITY'S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION TO FUNCTION AS A DEPARTMENT OF CONFORMITY. BUT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S BEEN HAPPENING IN COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL (CEC) 14. THERE, CEC 14 LEADERS HAVE PUNISHED AND CHILLED THE SPEECH OF INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT CONFORM TO THE PERSONAL POLITICAL VIEWS OF THE BOARD'S LEADERS. AIDING THEM IN THIS EFFORT IS THE NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION'S (DOE) REGULATION D-210, WHICH GOVERNS THE SPEECH OF CEC MEMBERS AND MEMBERS OF SIMILAR CITYWIDE ADVISORY BOARDS. THE REGULATION PERMITS ANYONE TO FILE A COMPLAINT THAT THEN TRIGGERS AN INVESTIGATION AND POTENTIAL REMOVAL OF CEC MEMBERS FOR SPEECH THAT OTHERS FIND OFFENSIVE OR DISRESPECTFUL--EVEN SPEECH THAT MAY OCCUR OUTSIDE OF CEC MEETINGS. IN MARCH 2024, WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ON BEHALF OF THREE ELECTED PARENT LEADERS, CHALLENGING THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDUCT OF CEC 14 OFFICIALS, AS WELL AS THE DOE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES. THE LAWSUIT CONTENDS THAT CEC 14 OFFICIALS HAVE UNLAWFULLY EXCLUDED INDIVIDUALS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS AND BLOCKED CRITICS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, WEAPONIZING THE OFFICIALS' DISDAIN FOR ANYONE WHO MIGHT PUSH BACK AGAINST THEIR IDEOLOGICAL WORLDVIEW. CEC 14'S ACTIONS AND THE D-210 REGULATION HAVE CHILLED AND PUNISHED THE SPEECH OF PARENTS DEBORAH ALEXANDER, NOAH HARLAN, AND MAUD MARON, WHO SERVE AS ELECTED MEMBERS OF OTHER NEW YORK CITY EDUCATIONAL COMMITTEES. ON SEPTEMBER 3, 2024, A FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF THE THREE PARENT LEADERS. THE INJUNCTION BARS ENFORCEMENT OF UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH POLICIES AND PROTECTS THE PARENTS' RIGHT TO SPEAK FREELY AT COUNCIL MEETINGS AND ON SOCIAL MEDIA. THE COURT'S DECISION PREVENTS NEW YORK CITY EDUCATION OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING UNCONSTITUTIONAL SPEECH RESTRICTIONS AND ORDERS MAUD MARON'S IMMEDIATE REINSTATEMENT TO COMMUNITY EDUCATION COUNCIL 2 (CEC 2), FROM WHICH SHE WAS REMOVED IN JUNE 2024. ON JUNE 17, 2025, PURSUANT TO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT REACHED BETWEEN OUR CLIENTS AND DEFENDANTS TAJH SUTTON AND MARISSA MANZANARES, ALL PARTIES STIPULATED TO THE DISMISSAL OF THESE DEFENDANTS FROM THE CASE. THE LAWSUIT AGAINST THE CITY DEFENDANTS REMAINS ONGOING. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT. CASES IN LITIGATION PART III THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE V. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (FORCED DONOR DISCLOSURE) THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH REPRESENTS THE BUCKEYE INSTITUTE, AN OHIO-BASED THINK TANK, IN A LAWSUIT CHALLENGING A DECADES-OLD TAX LAW THAT FORCES THE IRS TO DEMAND THAT NONPROFIT CHARITIES HAND OVER THE PRIVATE INFORMATION OF THEIR LARGEST DONORS EVERY YEAR. THE LAWSUIT SAYS THE LAW VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT, AND THE REQUIREMENT CHILLS FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. THE IRS ADMITS THAT IT DOES NOT NEED THESE DONOR RECORDS AND ISSUED A RULE IN 2020 TO STOP COLLECTING THE SAME FROM TAX-EXEMPT GROUPS THAT ARE NOT CLASSIFIED AS SECTION 501(C)(3) NONPROFIT CHARITIES. THE AGENCY ALSO NOTED IN THE RULEMAKING THAT COLLECTING THIS SENSITIVE PERSONAL DATA ON FORM 990 SCHEDULE B "POSES A RISK OF INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE" OF PRIVATE, NON-PUBLIC INFORMATION. EVEN THOUGH THE IRS HAS STATED IN RELATED CONTEXTS THAT IT WOULD PREFER NOT TO COLLECT THIS INFORMATION FROM CHARITIES, FEDERAL LAW STILL REQUIRES IT. THE LAWSUIT NOTES THAT BUCKEYE'S WORK "WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY DAMAGED" IF IT CAN'T MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF ITS DONOR RELATIONSHIPS, AS BUCKEYE'S SUPPORTERS "RISK RETRIBUTION FROM SOME WHO OPPOSE ITS MISSION." THE RECENT LEAK TO PROPUBLICA OF "A VAST TROVE OF IRS DATA ON THE TAX RETURNS OF THOUSANDS" OF INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS, ALONG WITH OTHER IRS LEAKS, UNDERSTANDABLY GIVES FINANCIAL SUPPORTERS OF CERTAIN CHARITIES, INCLUDING BUCKEYE, JUSTIFIED PAUSE. THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS ALREADY STRUCK DOWN A SIMILAR DISCLOSURE MANDATE IN THE LANDMARK 2021 CASE AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY FOUNDATION V. BONTA (AFPF) BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT MUST CONSIDER "THE POTENTIAL FOR FIRST AMENDMENT HARMS BEFORE REQUIRING THAT ORGANIZATIONS REVEAL SENSITIVE INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR MEMBERS AND SUPPORTERS." IN NOVEMBER 2023, THE JUDGE DENIED THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL. THE JUDGE AGREED WITH OUR ARGUMENTS THAT THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD IS EXACTING SCRUTINY UNDER AFPF AND ORDERED A TRIAL TO RESOLVE DISPUTED FACTS IN THE CASE. THE JUDGE'S RULING THAT THE EXACTING SCRUTINY STANDARD APPLIES IN THE CASE SIGNIFICANTLY BOOSTS OUR CLIENT'S CHANCES OF WINNING. THE GOVERNMENT REQUESTED PERMISSION FROM THE JUDGE TO FILE AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL ON THE EXACTING SCRUTINY STANDARD WITH THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. ON FEBRUARY 26, 2024, THE JUDGE GAVE PERMISSION FOR THE APPEAL, AND THE GOVERNMENT'S PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS FILED WITH THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ON MARCH 7, 2024. ON MARCH 14, 2025, THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ACCEPTED THE APPEAL. BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED IN NOVEMBER 2025 AND ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE HEARD ON APRIL 29, 2026. SIXTEEN DIFFERENT AMICUS BRIEFS WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF OUR CLIENT. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD HELP PROTECT THE PRIVACY OF NONPROFIT DONORS AND THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. CASES IN LITIGATION PART IV DINNER TABLE ACTION, ET AL. V. SCHNEIDER, ET AL. (INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE LIMITS) A FEDERAL LAWSUIT SEEKS TO STOP A 2024 BALLOT INITIATIVE FROM PLACING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON MAINERS' FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. THE DECEMBER 2024 SUIT CHALLENGES MAINE'S NEWLY ENACTED RESTRICTIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURE GROUPS, SOMETIMES CALLED "SUPER PACS." THE LAWSUIT ALSO CHALLENGES AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT FORCE THE DISCLOSURE OF ALL DONORS WHO CONTRIBUTE TOWARD INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES, REGARDLESS OF THE AMOUNT. QUESTION 1, PASSED BY VOTERS IN 2024, IMPOSES A $5,000 LIMIT ON CONTRIBUTIONS TO SUCH GROUPS. THE MEASURE--ALSO KNOWN AS THE "ACT TO LIMIT CONTRIBUTIONS TO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES THAT MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES"--DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS ESTABLISHED U.S. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT, AS WELL AS NUMEROUS SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS BY MULTIPLE FEDERAL COURTS OF APPEAL. IN 2025, A FEDERAL JUDGE STRUCK DOWN THE ACT, PREVENTING ITS ENFORCEMENT. THE STATE APPEALED THE DECISION TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. A VICTORY WOULD PROTECT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. CASES IN LITIGATION PART V FELLERS, ET AL. V. KELLEY, ET AL. (RIGHT TO PROTEST) A SILENT PROTEST IN SUPPORT OF GIRLS' SPORTS LED BOW (NH) HIGH SCHOOL OFFICIALS TO THREATEN ARRESTS AND BAN DISSENTERS FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS. NOW, THREE PARENTS AND A GRANDFATHER ARE FIGHTING BACK AGAINST THE OFFICIALS WHO TRAMPLED ON THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS--AND THE POLICIES THOSE OFFICIALS WEAPONIZED TO DO IT. THE LAWSUIT, FILED IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE IN SEPTEMBER 2024, ALLEGES THAT THE DEFENDANTS VIOLATED THE PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS BY BANNING THEM FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS AND EVENTS FOR WEARING PINK "XX" WRISTBANDS AS A FORM OF SILENT PROTEST DURING THE BOW HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS' SOCCER GAME. THE PLAINTIFFS WORE THE WRISTBANDS TO PROTEST THE POLICY THAT ALLOWED A BIOLOGICAL MALE TO PLAY ON THE OPPOSING GIRLS' SOCCER TEAM. SCHOOL OFFICIALS, ALONG WITH A POLICE OFFICER, CONFRONTED THE PARENTS DURING THE GAME, DEMANDING THAT THEY REMOVE THE WRISTBANDS OR LEAVE. WHEN THE PLAINTIFFS REFUSED, CITING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS, THEY WERE THREATENED WITH ARREST FOR TRESPASSING. THE REFEREE THEN STOPPED THE GAME AND SAID THAT BOW HIGH SCHOOL WOULD FORFEIT IF THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT REMOVE THEIR WRISTBANDS. FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT, PLAINTIFFS RECEIVED "NO TRESPASS ORDERS" BANNING THEM FROM SCHOOL GROUNDS AND EVENTS. THESE ORDERS PREVENTED THE PARENTS FROM ATTENDING THEIR CHILDREN'S GAMES AND SCHOOL EVENTS, AS WELL AS FROM PERFORMING ROUTINE ACTIVITIES LIKE PICKING UP THEIR CHILDREN FROM AFTER-SCHOOL PRACTICES, SIGNIFICANTLY DISRUPTING FAMILY LIFE. THE PLAINTIFFS ASKED THE COURT TO ENJOIN THE SCHOOL FROM UNCONSTITUTIONALLY USING SCHOOL POLICIES AS A PRETENSE TO RESTRICT NON-DISRUPTIVE EXPRESSION OF POLITICAL OR SOCIAL VIEWS AT EXTRACURRICULAR EVENTS, SUCH AS SILENTLY WEARING WRISTBANDS OR DISPLAYING SIGNS IN THE PARKING LOT IN SUPPORT OF PROTECTING WOMEN'S SPORTS FOR BIOLOGICALLY FEMALE ATHLETES. THE SUIT ALSO SEEKS TO ALLOW THE PLAINTIFFS TO ATTEND THEIR CHILDREN'S SCHOOL EVENTS, INCLUDING THE ONGOING SOCCER SEASON, AND SILENTLY EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS ON POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES, INCLUDING PROTECTING WOMEN'S SPORTS. THE DISTRICT COURT DENIED THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. THE CASE IS CURRENTLY PENDING AT THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT. A VICTORY IN THIS SUIT WOULD HELP PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO PROTEST AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ASSEMBLE. CASES IN LITIGATION PART VI GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS, ET AL. V. GARCIA, ET AL. (VIEWPOINT-BASED DISCRIMINATION) COLORADO LEGISLATORS' RECENT ACTIONS TO SUPPRESS AND CHILL SPEECH DURING PUBLIC COMMENT TIME ON HB24-1071, DUBBED "TIARA'S LAW," REPRESENT AN ALARMING ASSAULT ON FREE SPEECH. TRANS IDEOLOGY REQUIRES ADHERENTS TO USE A TRANS-IDENTIFYING PERSON'S PREFERRED PRONOUNS AND ADOPTED TRANS NAME. DOING OTHERWISE IS CALLED "MISGENDERING OR "DEADNAMING." DURING 2024 HEARINGS ON WHAT ITS SPONSORS CALL "TIARA'S LAW," CERTAIN LEGISLATORS REQUIRED THAT ALL SPEAKERS REFRAIN FROM MISGENDERING OR DEADNAMING AND ENGAGE ONLY IN "RESPECTFUL DISCOURSE." SPEAKERS WHO FAILED TO COMPLY WERE INTERRUPTED, CUT OFF, AND PREVENTED FROM EXPRESSING THEIR OPINIONS. IN APRIL 2024, WE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO ON BEHALF OF THE GROUP GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS, THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOMEN'S NETWORK, AND INDIVIDUALS FROM THOSE GROUPS AFFECTED BY THIS ATTEMPT TO SHUT DOWN DEBATE OVER TRANSGENDER LEGISLATION. THE BILL WAS INFORMALLY NAMED FOR DUANE POWELL (A.K.A. DUANE KELLEY), WHO GOES BY THE TRANS NAME OF "TIARA LATRICE KELLEY." THE PLAINTIFFS SAY THAT POWELL IS A CONVICTED FELON WITH A LENGTHY CRIMINAL RECORD AND OPPOSED HB24-1071 BECAUSE IT WILL FACILITATE NAME CHANGES FOR TRANSGENDER FELONS LIKE POWELL. THE BILL SPARKED SIGNIFICANT PUBLIC DEBATE, AS NAME CHANGES CAN MAKE IT EASIER FOR FELONS TO HIDE THEIR CRIMINAL PAST AND MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO VICTIMIZE CHILDREN OR OTHER VULNERABLE POPULATIONS. DURING LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE HEARINGS ON THE PROPOSED LAW, SOME SPONSORS OF THE BILL AND THEIR LEGISLATIVE ALLIES USED VIEWPOINT-BASED SPEECH RESTRICTIONS TO CENSOR THE SPEECH OF PLAINTIFFS DR. RICH GUGGENHEIM OF THE ORGANIZATION GAYS AGAINST GROOMERS AND CHRISTINA GOEKE OF THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN WOMEN'S NETWORK. ON NOVEMBER 27, 2024, THE JUDGE GRANTED THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND THE INSTITUTE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT. BRIEFING AND ORAL ARGUMENTS WERE COMPLETED IN 2025. THE APPEALS COURT AFFIRMED THE DISMISSAL, RULING THAT LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY "FORECLOSES OUR INQUIRY INTO THE MERITS OF THE LEGISLATORS' ACTIONS." A PETITION FOR CERTIORARI WAS FILED WITH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT ON JULY 21, 2026. A VICTORY WOULD PRESERVE THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. CASES IN LITIGATION PART VII INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH V. J.R. JOHNSON, ET AL. (BAN ON PRO BONO LITIGATION) THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HAS LONG RECOGNIZED THAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT ALLOWS PRO BONO LAWYERS TO ASSOCIATE WITH CLIENTS TO LITIGATE CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT. IT SHOULDN'T MATTER WHETHER FREE LEGAL SERVICES HAPPEN TO BE OFFERED BY A NONPROFIT CORPORATION. UNFORTUNATELY, THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION (TEC) DISAGREES. SO, WE'VE FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE TEC'S COMMISSIONERS AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OVER THE TEC'S BAN ON PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES FOR CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL COMMITTEES WHO WISH TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF TEXAS CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS AND TEC REGULATIONS. THIS BAN STOPS ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH FROM ADVOCATING FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF SUCH CLIENTS, IMPOSING STIFF CIVIL AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS. TEXAS LAW PROHIBITS CORPORATIONS--INCLUDING NONPROFITS LIKE OURS--FROM MAKING "IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS" TO CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL COMMITTEES. THE TEC RECENTLY INTERPRETED THIS BAN TO EXTEND TO PRO BONO LITIGATION SERVICES, EVEN WHEN SUCH SERVICES ONLY AIM TO CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF STATE LAWS. ON AUGUST 30, 2024, THE JUDGE GRANTED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. ON NOVEMBER 27, 2024, WE FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. ON JULY 28, 2025, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT THE INSTITUTE HAS STANDING TO CHALLENGE A TEXAS LAW PROHIBITING NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS FROM PROVIDING PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES TO TEXAS CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL COMMITTEES. A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT RENDERED A UNANIMOUS DECISION IN INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH V. J.R. JOHNSON, ET AL., REVERSING A LOWER COURT DISMISSAL AND ALLOWING THE INSTITUTE'S FIRST AMENDMENT CHALLENGE TO PROCEED. THE FIFTH CIRCUIT CONCLUDED THAT THE INSTITUTE HAS SUFFERED A CONCRETE INJURY SUFFICIENT FOR PRE-ENFORCEMENT STANDING, FINDING THAT THE ORGANIZATION HAS DEMONSTRATED A CREDIBLE INTENT TO PROVIDE PRO BONO LEGAL REPRESENTATION THAT COULD SUBJECT IT TO CRIMINAL LIABILITY UNDER TEXAS LAW AS ENFORCED BY THE TEC. THE COURT ALSO RULED THAT THE INSTITUTE'S CLAIMS ARE RIPE FOR ADJUDICATION AND THAT SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT BAR THE LAWSUIT'S PURSUIT OF INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION (TEC) OFFICIALS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES. TEXAS ESSENTIALLY BARS THE COURTHOUSE DOORS TO GROUPS LIKE OURS AND THE CLIENTS WE SEEK TO REPRESENT, PREVENTING CHALLENGES TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS. IN ADDITION, FEDERAL LAW GUARANTEES A REMEDY FOR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS. BUT THIS STATE-IMPOSED RULE INTERFERES WITH THAT FEDERAL LAW. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD SUPPORT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. CASES IN LITIGATION PART VIII JOHNSON V. FLIGER (FORMERLY JOHNSON V. WATKIN) (FORCED ALLEGIANCE TO AN IDEOLOGY) IN 2023, THE CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES BOARD OF GOVERNORS ISSUED A PERVASIVE SET OF GUIDELINES THAT FORCE FACULTY TO EMBRACE AN "ANTI-RACIST" IDEOLOGY, VIOLATING FUNDAMENTAL FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE'S ALL-ENCOMPASSING POLITICAL PROGRAM IS NOW REQUIRED "TO TEACH, WORK, OR LEAD WITHIN CALIFORNIA'S COMMUNITY COLLEGES," COMPLETE WITH EXPLICIT DEMANDS BY THE STATE TO ENGAGE IN PROFESSIONAL PRACTICES THAT EMBRACE THIS IDEOLOGY. OUR CLIENT, PROFESSOR JOHNSON, IS A FULL-TIME PROFESSOR OF HISTORY AT BAKERSFIELD COLLEGE (BC). HE IS ALSO THE FACULTY LEAD FOR THE RENEGADE INSTITUTE FOR LIBERTY (RIFL), A GROUP OF BC FACULTY MEMBERS WHO VALUE GENUINE ACADEMIC FREEDOM, FREE SPEECH, AND CRITICAL THINKING. UNFORTUNATELY FOR PROFESSOR JOHNSON AND HIS COLLEAGUES, THE BC ADMINISTRATION TREATS INDEPENDENT THOUGHT AS A PUNISHABLE OFFENSE. THE KERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT (KCCD), WHICH OPERATES BC, VIEWS THE EXPRESSION OF DISFAVORED VIEWPOINTS AS GROUNDS FOR TERMINATION AND HAS WEAPONIZED A BROAD "CIVILITY" REQUIREMENT AGAINST DISSENTING VOICES. AND BC HAS CLARIFIED THAT IT EXPECTS THE FACULTY TO ADHERE TO ITS "ANTI-RACISM" IDEOLOGY. THE COLLEGE DISTRICT'S BOARD OF TRUSTEES EXEMPLIFIED THIS TOXIC, ANTI-SPEECH ATMOSPHERE, WITH ONE OF THEM EVEN SAYING PUBLICLY OF THOSE WHO SPEAK OUT, "THEY'RE IN THAT FIVE PERCENT THAT WE HAVE TO CONTINUE TO CULL. GOT THEM IN MY LIVESTOCK OPERATION, AND THAT'S WHY WE PUT A ROPE ON SOME OF THEM AND TAKE THEM TO THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE." PROFESSOR JOHNSON DISAGREED WITH BC'S POLITICAL PREFERENCES WHEN HE QUESTIONED A COLLEAGUE'S ANTI-AMERICAN VIEWS ON RIFL'S FACEBOOK PAGE. THE EXCHANGE LED TO AN ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT FOR "HARASSMENT AND "BULLYING" THAT NECESSITATED THE RESOLUTION OF 29 ALLEGATIONS. AFTER A FIVE-MONTH ORDEAL THAT REQUIRED PROFESSOR JOHNSON TO RETAIN LEGAL COUNSEL, THE ADMINISTRATION FINALLY CLEARED HIM, BUT WITH A WARNING THAT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT. BC ADMINISTRATORS HAVE SENT AN UNMISTAKABLE MESSAGE: ANYONE WHO DARES COMMIT WRONGTHINK AGAINST THE STATE-APPROVED IDEOLOGY--OR WHO CHALLENGES OTHER FACULTY WHO PROMOTE IT--CAN HAVE THEIR CAREERS SIDETRACKED OR RUINED. THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO PROFESSOR JOHNSON'S RIFL FACULTY LEAD PREDECESSOR, PROFESSOR MATTHEW GARRETT. THE ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED GARRETT AFTER HE SPOKE OUT PUBLICLY AGAINST BC'S PREFERRED VIEWS, INCLUDING WRITING AN OP-ED PUBLISHED IN THE LOCAL NEWSPAPER, APPEARING ON A RADIO SHOW, GIVING MEDIA INTERVIEWS, AND POSTING ONLINE COMMENTS. THE LAWSUIT ASKS THAT ADMINISTRATORS BE ENJOINED FROM INVESTIGATING OR DISCIPLINING PROFESSOR JOHNSON FOR OFFERING HIS VIEWPOINTS AND SEEKS TO PREVENT OFFICIALS FROM DEMANDING THAT FACULTY ADVANCE AND TEACH THE STATE'S OFFICIAL DEIA IDEOLOGY. THE LAWSUIT ALSO CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THESE NEW STATEWIDE GUIDELINES TO HELP PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF JOHNSON AND OTHER FACULTY MEMBERS ACROSS CALIFORNIA FROM THESE NEW REQUIREMENTS. THE RULE AFFECTS ALL 116 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES SERVING 1.9 MILLION STUDENTS. IN NOVEMBER 2023, MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHRISTOPHER D. BAKER ISSUED A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (R&R) SUPPORTING PROFESSOR JOHNSON'S LAWSUIT, IN WHICH HE NOTED THAT "CALIFORNIA'S GOAL OF PROMOTING [DEIA] IN PUBLIC UNIVERSITIES DOES NOT GIVE IT THE AUTHORITY TO INVALIDATE PROTECTED EXPRESSIONS OF SPEECH." THE R&R FOUND THAT IT IS LIKELY THAT PROFESSOR JOHNSON HAS STANDING TO PURSUE SUCH A SUIT, IS HARMED BY THE POLICIES AND PRACTICES IN QUESTION, AND THAT AN INJUNCTION IS AN APPROPRIATE REMEDY FOR THE STATE'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL SUPPRESSION AND PUNISHMENT OF PROFESSOR JOHNSON. THE JUDGE RECOMMENDED BLOCKING CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES CHANCELLOR SONYA CHRISTIAN AND KERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT TRUSTEES FROM ENFORCING MANDATORY (DEIA) POLICIES AGAINST JOHNSON WHEN HE SPEAKS AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN OR THROUGH HIS TEACHING AND SCHOLARSHIP. UNFORTUNATELY, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE REJECTED THE RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSED THE CASE, RULING THAT JOHNSON DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO SUE. WE APPEALED THE RULING. IN JULY 2025, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT RULED THAT JOHNSON'S CONDUCT WAS ARGUABLY FORBIDDEN BY A CALIFORNIA LAW, OVERRULING THE DISTRICT COURT AND RECOGNIZING JOHNSON'S STANDING TO SUE. THE CASE THEN RETURNED TO THE DISTRICT COURT. IN EARLY 2026, THE DISTRICT COURT RULED TO BLOCK CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE OFFICIALS FROM ENFORCING THE STATE'S MANDATORY DEIA AND ANTI-RACIST REGULATIONS AND GRANTED JOHNSON'S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. THE RULING WILL HELP PROTECT THE ACADEMIC FREEDOM OF CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGE FACULTY, WHO SERVE NEARLY 1.9 MILLION STUDENTS. CASES IN LITIGATION PART IX LOPEZ V. GRISWOLD (CONTRIBUTION LIMITS) THE NATION'S MOST RESTRICTIVE LIMIT ON DONATIONS TO LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES IS IN FEDERAL COURT. TWO COLORADO CANDIDATES AND A CITIZEN WHO WISHES TO SUPPORT CANDIDATES CHALLENGED COLORADO'S LIMITS ON INDIVIDUAL DONORS AS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY LOW. INDIVIDUALS IN COLORADO ARE LIMITED TO GIVING $625 PER ELECTION TO A CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR AND $200 PER ELECTION TO A CANDIDATE FOR THE COLORADO SENATE OR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. THE LIMIT FOR STATEWIDE CANDIDATES IS PERIODICALLY ADJUSTED BUT LAGS BEHIND INFLATION, WHILE THE $200 LIMIT TO LEGISLATIVE CANDIDATES SAT UNCHANGED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2022. THESE LOW LIMITS PREVENT CANDIDATES FROM EFFECTIVELY COMMUNICATING WITH VOTERS IN THEIR DISTRICTS. IN ADDITION TO SETTING ITS LIMITS TOO LOW, COLORADO LAW PUNISHES CANDIDATES WHO CHOOSE TO FULLY EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO PROMOTE THEIR CAMPAIGNS. CANDIDATES WHO AGREE TO LIMIT THEIR CAMPAIGN SPENDING ARE PERMITTED TO RAISE CONTRIBUTIONS TWICE THE SIZE OF OPPONENTS WHO REFUSE. A 2018 STUDY BY THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH FOUND THAT COLORADO'S CONTRIBUTION LIMITS FOR INDIVIDUAL DONORS WERE THE MOST RESTRICTIVE IN THE NATION AFTER ACCOUNTING FOR POPULATION AND DISTRICT SIZE. LOW CONTRIBUTION LIMITS ARE ESPECIALLY HARMFUL TO CANDIDATES IN MAJOR MEDIA MARKETS LIKE DENVER AND NEW CANDIDATES AND CHALLENGERS WHO HAVE NOT YET ESTABLISHED NAME RECOGNITION WITH VOTERS. INCUMBENTS, BY CONTRAST, ENTER CAMPAIGNS WITH NUMEROUS ADVANTAGES THAT MAKE IT EASIER TO FOREGO LARGE CONTRIBUTIONS. COLORADO VOTERS DESERVE TO HEAR FROM THE CANDIDATES ON THEIR BALLOT. COLORADO CHALLENGER CANDIDATES DESERVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO COMPETE AGAINST WELL-KNOWN INCUMBENTS. THE STATE'S LOW CONTRIBUTION LIMITS UNDERMINE THESE BASIC DEMOCRATIC VALUES AND SHOULD BE STRUCK DOWN UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT. A SIX-DAY TRIAL WAS HELD IN THE SUMMER OF 2024, AND POST-TRIAL BRIEFING WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 12, 2024. AS OF THE END OF 2025, THE JUDGE HAD NOT YET ISSUED A DECISION. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF FREE SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY. CASES IN LITIGATION PART X LOWERY V. MILLS (FORMERLY LOWERY V. HARTZELL) (FORCED ALLEGIANCE TO AN IDEOLOGY) A FINANCE PROFESSOR SUED OFFICIALS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN (UT) WHO THREATENED TO PUNISH HIM FOR HIS CRITICISM OF THE UNIVERSITY BY THREATENING HIS JOB, REDUCING HIS PAY, AND REMOVING HIS AFFILIATION WITH UT'S SALEM CENTER. IN A COMPLAINT FILED IN THE AUSTIN FEDERAL COURT, DR. RICHARD LOWERY, AN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF FINANCE AT THE MCCOMBS SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AT UT-AUSTIN, SAID THE OFFICIALS AT THE STATE'S FLAGSHIP UNIVERSITY VIOLATED HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CRITICIZE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS. THE LAWSUIT ALSO CLAIMS THE UT ADMINISTRATION HARMED HIS RIGHT TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM AFTER HE PUBLICLY QUESTIONED THE UT ADMINISTRATION'S APPROACHES TO CRITICAL RACE THEORY, AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, ACADEMIC FREEDOM, COMPETENCE-BASED PERFORMANCE MEASURES, AND THE FUTURE OF CAPITALISM. ONE KEY TARGET OF PROF. LOWERY'S CRITIQUES WAS THE UT ADMINISTRATION'S USE OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION (DEI) REQUIREMENTS TO FILTER OUT COMPETENT ACADEMICS WHO DISSENT FROM THE DEI IDEOLOGY. FEARING RETRIBUTION, LOWERY BEGAN SELF-CENSORING. HE LOCKED HIS TWITTER ACCOUNT, WHICH HID IT FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC. HE ALSO STOPPED USING TWITTER ENTIRELY AND HAS CURTAILED HIS PUBLIC SPEECH CRITICAL OF THE UT ADMINISTRATION. THE LAWSUIT ASKS THE COURT TO BAR UT OFFICIALS FROM THREATENING OR ACTING ON THE THREATS MADE TO LOWERY FOR HIS PROTECTED SPEECH, DECLARE THAT THE THREATS AGAINST LOWERY AMOUNTED TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL STATE ACTION DESIGNED TO CHILL LOWERY'S PROTECTED SPEECH AND RETALIATE AGAINST HIM, AND AWARD COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES AS PROVIDED BY FEDERAL LAW. ON OCTOBER 2, 2024, THE JUDGE GRANTED THE DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS. IN JANUARY 2025, THE INSTITUTE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT. BOTH THE DISTRICT COURT AND THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT ACKNOWLEDGED THAT UT'S THREATS WOULD DETER "A PERSON OF ORDINARY FIRMNESS" FROM SPEAKING. YET BOTH COURTS DISMISSED PROFESSOR LOWERY'S FIRST AMENDMENT RETALIATION CLAIM BECAUSE THE UNIVERSITY NEVER FOLLOWED THROUGH ON ITS THREATS WITH A FORMAL REPRIMAND, PAY REDUCTION, OR ACTUAL PUNISHMENT. THAT REASONING PUTS THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AT ODDS WITH TEN OTHER FEDERAL CIRCUITS NATIONWIDE. WE FILED A PETITION IN EARLY 2026 ASKING THE U.S. SUPREME COURT TO GRANT REVIEW OF THE CASE TO RESOLVE THIS CRITICAL SPLIT OF OPINION AMONG THE COURTS AFFECTING FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS FOR PUBLIC EMPLOYEES. THE PETITION HAD AMICUS SUPPORT FROM HALF A DOZEN ORGANIZATIONS AND MANY OF THE NATION'S LEADING FIRST AMENDMENT SCHOLARS. A VICTORY WOULD HAVE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. UNFORTUNATELY, ON JUNE 29, 2026, THE COURT DENIED THE PETITION. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XI MCDONALD V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (DONOR PRIVACY) FILED IN FEBRUARY 2025, THIS LAWSUIT SEEKS TO MAKE DISCLOSURE RULES UNIFORM BY ENJOINING THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC) FROM APPLYING FEDERAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS TO CONTRIBUTIONS OF $200 OR LESS MADE THROUGH ONLINE FUNDRAISING PLATFORMS LIKE WINRED, ACTBLUE, OR OTHER CONDUITS. THE PLAINTIFF, TONY MCDONALD, WHO SERVES AS GENERAL COUNSEL FOR THE TARRANT COUNTY (TX) REPUBLICAN PARTY, FEARS THAT THE PUBLIC DISCLOSURE OF HIS SMALL-DOLLAR POLITICAL DONATIONS COULD LEAD TO CONFUSION OVER THE PARTY'S STANCE IN PRIMARY RACES AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS REGARDING THE INTENT OF HIS DONATIONS, EFFECTIVELY CHILLING HIS ABILITY TO ENGAGE IN ANONYMOUS POLITICAL SPEECH. THE LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT FOR CONDUIT CONTRIBUTIONS VIOLATES DONORS' FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION. IT SEEKS DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PREVENT THE FEC FROM REQUIRING DISCLOSURE OF DONOR INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTIONS OF $200 OR LESS MADE THROUGH ONLINE PLATFORMS--BRINGING THE LAW IN LINE WITH REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR DIRECT DONATIONS. AFTER THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE IN JULY 2025, THE CASE WAS APPEALED TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN SEPTEMBER 2025. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT SPEECH AND ASSEMBLY RIGHTS. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XII MINNESOTA RIGHT TO LIFE AND MINNESOTA GUN RIGHTS V. RASHID, ET AL. (VIEWPOINT-BASED DISCRIMINATION AND DONOR DISCLOSURE) MINNESOTA'S INVASIVE, UNCONSTITUTIONAL LOBBYING DISCLOSURE LAWS PRACTICALLY HAND-DELIVER AN "ENEMIES LIST" TO ACTIVISTS LOOKING TO HARASS GROUPS AND THEIR VENDORS. TWO MINNESOTA ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS ARE FIGHTING BACK. MINNESOTA RIGHT TO LIFE AND MINNESOTA GUN RIGHTS CHALLENGED THE STATE'S SWEEPING DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS THAT FORCE GRASSROOTS GROUPS TO PUBLICLY DISCLOSE PRIVATE VENDORS' INFORMATION WHENEVER THEY SPEND MORE THAN $2,000 ON ADVERTISING ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO CONTACT THEIR ELECTED OFFICIALS. UNDER CURRENT MINNESOTA LAW, THESE GROUPS FACE AN IMPOSSIBLE CHOICE: RESTRICT THEIR ADVOCACY, EXPOSE THEIR VENDORS TO HARASSMENT, OR RISK CRIMINAL PROSECUTION FOR INCOMPLETE REPORTING. THE GROUPS FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA IN JUNE 2025 CHALLENGING THE STATE'S LOBBYING DISCLOSURE LAWS THAT CHILL PROTECTED SPEECH AND EXPOSE ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS AND THEIR BUSINESS PARTNERS TO HARASSMENT INTENDED TO DRIVE SUCH GROUPS OUT OF THE PUBLIC SQUARE. IN OCTOBER, A FEDERAL JUDGE GRANTED A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, BLOCKING MINNESOTA FROM ENFORCING ITS VENDOR DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS AGAINST THE GRASSROOTS ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS MINNESOTA RIGHT TO LIFE AND MINNESOTA GUN RIGHTS. THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REMAINS IN EFFECT WHILE THE CASE PROCEEDS TO A FINAL DETERMINATION. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD PROTECT THE RIGHT TO ASSEMBLY. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XIII MOMS FOR LIBERTY - WILSON COUNTY, TN V. WILSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION (SCHOOL BOARD CENSORSHIP) THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH REPRESENTS A GROUP OF WILSON COUNTY MOMS FILING A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WILSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR VIOLATING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEAK AT THE BOARD'S PUBLIC MEETINGS. WHEN ROBIN LEMONS DECIDED TO SPEAK TO THE WILSON COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD IN 2022 ABOUT HOW SCHOOL OFFICIALS IGNORED AND MISHANDLED AN ALLEGATION OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT INVOLVING HER FOURTH-GRADE DAUGHTER, SHE WORRIED THE SCHOOL BOARD MIGHT CENSOR HER. SHE WAS RIGHT. AS SOON AS SHE STARTED CRITICIZING THE SCHOOL DIRECTOR DURING THE OCTOBER 3, 2022, MEETING, BOARD CHAIRMAN JAMIE FAROUGH TOLD LEMONS TO "STOP TALKING." FAROUGH CUT HER OFF BECAUSE SHE HAD NOT ANNOUNCED HER HOME ADDRESS TO THE CROWD - A WIDELY IGNORED RULE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD DID NOT ENFORCE AGAINST ANY OTHER SPEAKER THAT YEAR. LEMONS COMPLIED WITH THE REQUEST, BUT NOW IS A PLAINTIFF IN A FEDERAL LAWSUIT AGAINST THE WILSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION FOR VIOLATING HER FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. THE WILSON COUNTY CHAPTER OF MOMS FOR LIBERTY AND ITS CHAIR, AMANDA DUNAGAN-PRICE, JOIN HER AS PLAINTIFFS IN THE CASE. THE MOMS CHALLENGE THREE POLICIES THAT VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT, INCLUDING THE BOARD'S REQUIREMENT THAT SPEAKERS PUBLICLY ANNOUNCE THEIR HOME ADDRESS BEFORE SPEAKING. THIS RULE--WHICH THE BOARD SELECTIVELY ENFORCED AGAINST LEMONS--EXPOSES SPEAKERS, THEIR HOMES, AND THEIR FAMILIES TO POTENTIAL HARASSMENT OR REPRISALS IF THEIR SPEECH IS UNPOPULAR. THE MOMS ALSO CHALLENGE THE BOARD'S POLICY AGAINST "ABUSIVE" COMMENTS AND A REQUIREMENT THAT INDIVIDUALS OBTAIN APPROVAL TO SPEAK BY FIRST PERSUADING A BOARD MEMBER THAT THEIR COMMENTS ARE IN "THE PUBLIC INTEREST." PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, THESE POLICIES ALLOW THE BOARD TO CENSOR SPEAKERS IF THEY CRITICIZE OFFICIALS TOO HARSHLY. THEY ALSO MAKE SPEAKING AT BOARD MEETINGS "A DIFFICULT AND INTIMIDATING PROCESS--ONE THAT PREVENTS THE BOARD'S SHARPEST CRITICS FROM SPEAKING FREELY," READS THE COMPLAINT. ON JANUARY 10, 2024, THE JUDGE DENIED THE MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND AN APPEAL WAS FILED WITH THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT. IN SEPTEMBER 2025, THE APPEALS COURT AFFIRMED THE DISTRICT COURT'S DECISION DENYING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION REQUEST AND REMANDED THE CASE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, TWO OF THE APPEALS COURT JUDGES WROTE A CONCURRING OPINION AND WARNED THAT "IF THE BOARD REINSTATED ITS POLICIES OR INDICATED THAT IT WOULD, PLAINTIFFS WOULD BE WELL-POSITIONED TO SEEK A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FOR PROMPT RELIEF. AND IF PLAINTIFFS CAN ESTABLISH STANDING, THEIR ALLEGATIONS THAT THE BOARD'S REMAINING POLICIES IMPERMISSIBLY CHILL PROTECTED SPEECH DESERVE CLOSE CONSIDERATION." SUCCESS IN THIS CASE WOULD HELP PROTECT THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND PETITION OF THE GOVERNMENT. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XIV NO ON EE V. BEALL (DISCLAIMERS) NO ON EE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE "A BAD DEAL FOR COLORADO, ISSUE COMMITTEE," WAS FORMED TO OPPOSE A TAX ON THE 2020 BALLOT. IT REGISTERED WITH THE COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE AND PROVIDED THE NAME OF ITS REGISTERED AGENT, AS REQUIRED BY LAW. HOWEVER, THE INITIAL ADS OMITTED THE REGISTERED AGENT'S NAME, PROMPTING A COMPLAINT TO THE SECRETARY FROM A POLITICAL OPPONENT. THE STATE IMPOSED A $30,000 FINE FOR THIS MINOR OVERSIGHT, WHICH A DISTRICT COURT UPHELD ON APPEAL. THE COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS OVERTURNED THE STATE'S FINE, HOLDING THAT THE DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE SECRETARY APPEALED THIS RULING TO THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, WHICH GRANTED REVIEW. NO ON EE ASKED US TO DEFEND THE RULING AT THE STATE'S HIGHEST COURT. THE CASE CAN ESTABLISH A SIGNIFICANT COURT PRECEDENT THAT LIMITS THE REACH OF DISCLAIMER LAWS, WHICH WOULD PROTECT FREE SPEECH RIGHTS. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XV SAFE AFFORDABLE GEORGIA, INC. V. JAMES D. KREYENBUHL, ET AL. (CONTRIBUTION LIMITS) SAFE AFFORDABLE GEORGIA, A POLITICAL COMMITTEE CHAIRED BY GEORGIA SECRETARY OF STATE AND NOW-FORMER GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE BRAD RAFFENSPERGER, IS CHALLENGING GEORGIA LAWS THAT LIMIT THE ABILITY OF HIS POLITICAL COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT HIS CAMPAIGN. ONE OF HIS OPPONENTS BENEFITS FROM A 2021 LAW THAT ALLOWS THE GOVERNOR, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, AND EIGHT OF THE MOST POWERFUL LEGISLATORS TO FORM "LEADERSHIP COMMITTEES." THESE LAWMAKERS CAN RAISE UNLIMITED FUNDS FOR THEIR COMMITTEES AND SPEND THEM IN ANY STATE RACE, INCLUDING IN THEIR OWN CAMPAIGN. EFFECTIVELY, THESE POWERFUL INCUMBENTS NO LONGER HAVE CONTRIBUTION LIMITS, BUT NEARLY ALL OTHER CANDIDATES DO. IN DECEMBER 2025, THE INSTITUTE FILED A COMPLAINT AND AN EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BEFORE THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION. THE DISTRICT COURT ULTIMATELY DENIED THE MOTION, AND THE CASE WAS APPEALED TO THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT. THE CASE WAS ARGUED BEFORE THAT COURT IN APRIL 2026. IF WE SUCCEED WITH THIS CHALLENGE, ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND CANDIDATES WILL BE TREATED EQUALLY WHEN SPEAKING TO VOTERS, PROTECTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO SPEECH. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XVI SCAER, ET AL. V. CITY OF NASHUA, ET AL. (VIEWPOINT-BASED CENSORSHIP) SHOULD A CITY BE ABLE TO PICK AND CHOOSE WHOSE MESSAGES ARE "WORTHY" TO APPEAR ON ITS PUBLIC "CITIZEN FLAG POLE?" THE CITY OF NASHUA, NH, THINKS SO. THAT'S WHY THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH FILED A LAWSUIT IN SEPTEMBER 2024 ON BEHALF OF BETHANY AND STEPHEN SCAER. THE SUIT CHALLENGES THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF NASHUA'S POLICY GOVERNING THE USE OF ITS CITIZEN FLAG POLE AND SEEKS TO ENJOIN NASHUA CITY OFFICIALS FROM DENYING FLAG APPLICATIONS BASED ON VIEWPOINT AND FROM ENFORCING PARTS OF ITS FLAG POLICY THAT LIMIT ACCEPTABLE FLAGS. UNDER THE CURRENT POLICY, RESIDENTS CAN APPLY TO FLY FLAGS ON THE CITIZEN FLAG POLE IN FRONT OF CITY HALL. HOWEVER, THE POLICY STATES THAT ANY MESSAGE "WILL BE ALLOWED ONLY IF IT IS IN HARMONY WITH CITY POLICIES AND MESSAGES THAT THE CITY WISHES TO EXPRESS AND ENDORSE." THE SCAERS HAD MULTIPLE FLAG REQUESTS DENIED, INCLUDING MOST RECENTLY THE PINE TREE FLAG TO COMMEMORATE THE BATTLE OF BUNKER HILL. THE CITY PROVIDED NO EXPLANATION BEYOND STATING THEIR FLAGS WERE NOT IN HARMONY" WITH THE CITY'S MESSAGE. THE LAWSUIT ARGUES THAT NASHUA'S POLICY VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY IMPOSING VIEWPOINT-BASED RESTRICTIONS ON SPEECH, CREATING AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL PRIOR RESTRAINT, AND BEING IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE AND OVERBROAD. ON MARCH 29, 2025, THE DISTRICT COURT JUDGE RULED THAT THE FLAGS WERE GOVERNMENT SPEECH AND DISMISSED THE CASE. WE APPEALED. IN DECEMBER 2025, A THREE-JUDGE PANEL OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT UNANIMOUSLY REVERSED A LOWER COURT DECISION, HOLDING THAT THE CITY VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT WHEN IT ENGAGED IN VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION BY DENYING BETHANY AND STEPHEN SCAER'S REQUESTS TO FLY FLAGS ON THE CITY'S CITIZEN FLAG POLE. IN A DECISION AUTHORED BY JUDGE SANDRA LYNCH, THE FIRST CIRCUIT PANEL REJECTED NASHUA'S ATTEMPT TO CHARACTERIZE ITS CENSORSHIP AS "GOVERNMENT SPEECH." THE COURT FOUND THAT, BETWEEN 2017 AND 2024, NASHUA'S CITIZEN FLAG POLE OPERATED AS A FORUM FOR PRIVATE SPEECH, NOT GOVERNMENT EXPRESSION--MAKING THE CITY'S VIEWPOINT-BASED DENIALS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A VICTORY IN THIS CASE WOULD HELP PROTECT THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. CASES IN LITIGATION PART XVII UTAH POLITICAL WATCH, ET AL. V. MUSSELMAN, ET AL. (PRESS FREEDOM) A JOURNALIST WITH 25 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE COVERING UTAH POLITICS IS FIGHTING BACK AFTER BEING DENIED PRESS CREDENTIALS UNDER A REVISED POLICY THAT APPEARS DESIGNED TO SILENCE INDEPENDENT REPORTING. INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH ATTORNEYS FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF BRYAN SCHOTT AND UTAH POLITICAL WATCH (UPW) AGAINST UTAH LEGISLATIVE OFFICIALS WHO DENIED SCHOTT'S APPLICATION FOR PRESS CREDENTIALS. THE DENIAL CAME AFTER THE UTAH LEGISLATURE CHANGED ITS CREDENTIALING RULES IN NOVEMBER 2024 TO EXCLUDE "BLOGS, INDEPENDENT MEDIA OUTLETS OR FREELANCE MEDIA," A CHANGE MADE JUST WEEKS AFTER SCHOTT INQUIRED ABOUT OBTAINING CREDENTIALS FOR THE 2025 SESSION, DESPITE RECEIVING PRESS CREDENTIALS EVERY YEAR THEY WERE OFFERED SINCE AT LEAST 2013. THE DENIAL FOLLOWED SCHOTT'S HARD-HITTING COVERAGE OF SENATE PRESIDENT STUART ADAMS REGARDING A COMPLAINT FILED AGAINST ADAMS ABOUT THE ADEQUACY OF HIS CAMPAIGN FINANCE DISCLOSURES. THE IMPACT OF THE REFUSAL TO GRANT CREDENTIALS WAS IMMEDIATE. SCHOTT WAS BLOCKED FROM COVERING KEY EVENTS, INCLUDING THE HOUSE GOP'S LEGISLATIVE PRIORITIES ANNOUNCEMENT AND THE GOVERNOR'S MONTHLY PRESS CONFERENCE. ADDITIONALLY, WITHOUT CREDENTIALS, HE CANNOT ATTEND THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION ITSELF OR DAILY LEADERSHIP MEETINGS, PARTICIPATE IN FRIDAY MEDIA AVAILABILITIES WITH THE SPEAKER, OR ACCESS AREAS OF THE CAPITOL RESERVED FOR PRESS COVERAGE. THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGES THE CREDENTIAL POLICY AS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE AND DISCRIMINATORY AND SEEKS TO PROTECT THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. IN PARTICULAR, THE NEW RULES FAIL TO DEFINE KEY TERMS LIKE "INDEPENDENT AND "REPUTABLE," ALLOWING OFFICIALS TO ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHO QUALIFIES AS LEGITIMATE MEDIA. DISCOVERY REVEALED THAT THERE WERE NO SPACE RESTRAINTS OR OTHER REASONS TO LIMIT THE SIZE OR SCOPE OF THE PRESS POOL. HOWEVER, BOTH HOUSE AND SENATE LEADERS HAVE COMPLAINED ABOUT SCHOTT'S COVERAGE. A STATE SENATOR SAID SCHOTT WAS EXCLUDED TO "TEACH HIM A LESSON." DESPITE THIS, THE DISTRICT COURT DISMISSED THE CASE ON THE THEORY THAT MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA DO NOT HAVE MORE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAN THE PUBLIC, AND THERE IS NO GENERAL PUBLIC RIGHT TO ACCESS LEGISLATIVE SESSIONS OR PRESS CONFERENCES. THE CASE WAS APPEALED TO THE TENTH CIRCUIT. ON JUNE 30, 2026, THE APPEALS COURT REVIVED INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST BRYAN SCHOTT'S FIRST AMENDMENT LAWSUIT AGAINST UTAH LEGISLATIVE OFFICIALS, FINDING THAT SCHOTT PLAUSIBLY ALLEGED THAT THE STATE LEGISLATURE DENIED HIM A PRESS CREDENTIAL BECAUSE OF HIS VIEWPOINT. SCHOTT, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEYS FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, WILL NOW GET A FULL OPPORTUNITY TO VINDICATE HIS FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. IN ITS FIRST RULING ADDRESSING SUCH A QUESTION, A PANEL OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT REVERSED A DISTRICT COURT'S DISMISSAL OF SCHOTT'S FACIAL AND AS-APPLIED VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION CLAIMS, FINDING THAT THE LOWER COURT WRONGLY CONCLUDED SCHOTT HAD NO PROTECTED SPEECH INTEREST IN EQUAL ACCESS TO A GOVERNMENT-CREATED PRESS FORUM. THE COURT SENT THE CASE BACK TO THE DISTRICT COURT FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. IN A SEPARATE CONCURRENCE, JUDGE TIMOTHY TYMKOVICH EXPLAINED THAT UTAH'S BLANKET EXCLUSION OF INDEPENDENT MEDIA APPEARS UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE, NOT MERELY AS APPLIED TO SCHOTT, BECAUSE IT PENALIZES JOURNALISTS FOR THE UNEDITED, INSTITUTIONALLY UNAFFILIATED WAY THEY CHOOSE TO REPORT. JOURNALISM BY INDEPENDENT MEDIA IS BECOMING INCREASINGLY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY FOR SMALL AND START-UP MEDIA OUTLETS. A WIN IN THIS CASE WOULD ENSURE THAT BOTH LEGACY MEDIA AND INDEPENDENT MEDIA OUTLETS ARE TREATED EQUALLY AND NOT PUNISHED BECAUSE PUBLIC OFFICIALS DISLIKE THEIR REPORTING. IT WOULD PROTECT THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. CLOSED CASES PART I BREVARD MOMS FOR LIBERTY V. BREVARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS (SCHOOL BOARD CENSORSHIP) THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT RULED IN OUR CLIENTS' FAVOR IN OCTOBER 2024 IN A CASE INVOLVING THREE CONCERNED PARENTS FROM MOMS FOR LIBERTY'S BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, CHAPTER. THEIR LAWSUIT AGAINST BREVARD PUBLIC SCHOOLS CHALLENGED PROHIBITIONS ON PURPORTEDLY "ABUSIVE AND "PERSONALLY DIRECTED" SPEECH, AS WELL AS THE SCHOOL'S UNUSUAL BAN ON WHAT IT CALLED "OBSCENE" SPEECH THAT WAS IN FACT NOT OBSCENE. THIS PRECEDENT HAS THE SAME IMPACT IN ALABAMA, FLORIDA, AND GEORGIA (STATES COVERED BY THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT) AS A SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT WOULD NATIONWIDE, THEREBY ENHANCING SPEECH RIGHTS FOR NEARLY 40 MILLION AMERICANS. AND IT IS PERSUASIVE AUTHORITY IN EVERY COURT NATIONALLY. AFTER THE APPELLATE WIN, THE CASE RETURNED TO DISTRICT COURT, AND THE CASE CLOSED IN 2025. AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT TO CLOSE THE CASE, THE SCHOOL BOARD PAID THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH $541,810.19 IN LEGAL FEES. THIS VICTORY PROTECTED THE RIGHTS OF SPEECH AND PETITION. CLOSED CASES PART II FRESH VISION OP, INC., ET AL. V. SKOGLUND, ET AL. (DONOR DISCLOSURE AND VAGUE CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW) FRESH VISION IS A LOCAL NONPROFIT THAT ADVOCATES FOR QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUES IN OVERLAND PARK, KANSAS. THE STATE HAD PREVIOUSLY ATTEMPTED TO FORCE FRESH VISION TO REGISTER AS A POLITICAL COMMITTEE, WHICH THREATENED ITS EXISTENCE BECAUSE MANY OF ITS SUPPORTERS WOULD CEASE CONTRIBUTING IF THEIR DONATIONS WERE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED. FEARING FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS, FRESH VISION SUSPENDED ITS ACTIVITIES. AFTER THE COURT RULED THAT THE LAW WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, THE GROUP RESUMED ITS COMMUNITY ADVOCACY AND CAN MAINTAIN THE PRIVACY OF ITS DONORS' IDENTITIES. MOREOVER, A RECENT BILL SIGNED INTO LAW BY GOVERNOR LAURA KELLY REFORMED THE CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFECTIVE PROVISIONS CHALLENGED IN THE LAWSUIT. IT ALSO CLARIFIED THAT NON-PACS THAT MAKE INDEPENDENT EXPENDITURES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DISCLOSE DONORS. AFTER THE COURT PERMANENTLY ENJOINED THE LAW, THE PARTIES AGREED TO SETTLE THE ATTORNEYS' FEES AWARD INSTEAD OF LITIGATING THE MATTER. KANSAS AGREED TO PAY $98,500 IN FEES, OF WHICH $66,500 WAS RETAINED BY THE INSTITUTE AND $32,000 WAS PAID TO LOCAL COUNSEL. THIS CASE HELPED PROTECT COMMUNITY ADVOCACY AND THE RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH. CLOSED CASES PART III GILLEY V. STABIN (UNIVERSITY OF OREGON TWITTER BLOCK OF A PROFESSOR) IN JUNE 2022, A UNIVERSITY OF OREGON TWITTER ACCOUNT BLOCKED PROFESSOR BRUCE GILLEY FOR RESPONDING TO A POST FROM THE SCHOOL'S DEI OFFICE WITH THE PHRASE "ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL." THE INSTITUTE VIGOROUSLY ADVOCATED FOR PROFESSOR GILLEY'S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS THROUGHOUT NEARLY THREE YEARS OF LITIGATION, DURING WHICH THE CASE UNDERWENT SEVERAL KEY LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE ULTIMATELY SETTLING. IN MARCH 2024, THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT VACATED A PREVIOUS DENIAL OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND REMANDED THE CASE. THAT VICTORY ULTIMATELY LED TO A SETTLEMENT IN MARCH 2025. THE AGREEMENT REQUIRED THE UNIVERSITY TO PROHIBIT VIEWPOINT-BASED CENSORSHIP ON ITS SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS, CREATE AN APPEALS PROCESS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE THEY WERE WRONGFULLY BLOCKED, AND CONDUCT ANNUAL FIRST AMENDMENT TRAINING FOR SOCIAL MEDIA MANAGERS. THE INSTITUTE REQUESTED $382,000 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES, WHILE THE UNIVERSITY ARGUED FOR $95,000. A MEDIATOR AWARDED $191,000 IN FEES: $147,070 TO THE INSTITUTE AND $43,930 TO THE ANGUS LEE LAW FIRM, WHICH SERVED AS LOCAL COUNSEL. THE VICTORY IN THIS CASE PROTECTED THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH. CLOSED CASES PART IV KFOR-TV, ET AL. V. RYAN WALTERS, ET AL. (EXCLUSION OF JOURNALISTS FROM PUBLIC EVENTS) OKLAHOMA'S OLDEST TV STATION FOUGHT BACK AGAINST STATE OFFICIALS WHO REPEATEDLY BARRED ITS CREDENTIALED JOURNALISTS FROM PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PRESS CONFERENCES--ALL WITHOUT EXPLANATION. WE REPRESENTED THREE REPORTERS AND THEIR EMPLOYER, THE OWNER OF OKLAHOMA CITY TELEVISION STATION KFOR-TV, AGAINST THE NOW-FORMER OKLAHOMA SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, RYAN WALTERS, AND HIS PRESS SECRETARY. EARLY IN THE LITIGATION, THE JUDGE ISSUED A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER INSTRUCTING THE DEFENDANTS TO ALLOW THE STATION'S REPORTERS TO ATTEND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION MEETINGS AND WALTERS' PRESS CONFERENCES. WE SETTLED THE LAWSUIT'S MERITS SHORTLY BEFORE THE SCHEDULED TRIAL DATE IN DECEMBER 2024, AND WALTERS DROPPED HIS APPEAL OF THE FEE AWARD IN SEPTEMBER 2025. THE STATE THEN PAID THE INSTITUTE $140,333.75 IN ATTORNEYS' FEES THAT WAS ORDERED BY THE JUDGE IN THIS CASE. VICTORY IN THIS CASE HELPED DEFEND THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF THE PRESS. CLOSED CASES PART V POLLAK V. WILSON, ET AL. (SCHOOL BOARD CENSORSHIP) AFTER HARRY POLLAK HEARD HIS LOCAL SUPERINTENDENT DEFEND CONTROVERSIAL POLICIES AT THE SCHOOL BOARD'S PUBLIC MEETING, POLLAK DECIDED TO SIGN UP TO SPEAK DURING THE NEXT MEETING. WHEN HIS TURN CAME, POLLAK EXPLAINED THAT HE INTENDED TO ADDRESS THE SUPERINTENDENT'S PREVIOUS STATEMENTS. BUT THE BOARD CHAIR CUT HIM OFF. THE CHAIR CLAIMED THAT THE BOARD'S RULE AGAINST DISCUSSING "PERSONNEL MATTERS" PROHIBITED POLLAK FROM MENTIONING THE SUPERINTENDENT FOR ANY REASON AT ALL. THAT RULE ORDINARILY REQUIRES INDIVIDUALS TO DISCUSS CONFIDENTIAL PERSONNEL ISSUES IN PRIVATE. BUT WHEN POLLAK STARTED SPEAKING, THE CHAIR USED IT TO STOP HIM FROM CRITICIZING THE SUPERINTENDENT'S PUBLIC STATEMENTS. SHE ORDERED POLLAK TO STOP SPEAKING AND ASKED FOR A RECESS. THE BOARD THEN CALLED THE POLICE TO ESCORT POLLAK OUT OF THE BUILDING. POLLAK SUED THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR VIOLATING HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE FIRST AMENDMENT PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT AGENCIES FROM SHIELDING PUBLIC OFFICIALS FROM CRITICISM DURING MEETINGS OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. POLLAK CHALLENGES THE SCHOOL BOARD'S USE OF ITS PERSONNEL RULE TO DO JUST THAT. WHILE THERE MAY BE A JUSTIFICATION FOR A SCHOOL BOARD TO PREVENT CITIZENS FROM DISCUSSING PERSONNEL MATTERS IN PUBLIC MEETINGS, THE BOARD HERE DEPLOYS THIS RULE TO DISTORT DEBATE ABOUT IMPORTANT POLICY ISSUES. IT WEAPONIZES THE RULE TO PROHIBIT INDIVIDUALS FROM CRITICIZING THE VERY OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR ENACTING THOSE POLICIES. POLLAK ALSO CHALLENGED ANOTHER SPEAKING POLICY THAT PROHIBITS "GOSSIP AND "ABUSIVE OR VULGAR LANGUAGE." NUMEROUS FEDERAL COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THESE KINDS OF SPEECH RESTRICTIONS DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SPEAKERS BASED ON THEIR VIEWPOINT AND THUS VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH TOOK OVER POLLAK'S CASE AFTER THE COURT OF APPEALS DENIED HIS REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND REMANDED THE CASE TO THE TRIAL COURT FOR A FINAL DECISION ON THE MERITS. POLLAK'S LAWSUIT ASKS THE COURT TO DECLARE THAT THE SCHOOL BOARD'S POLICIES VIOLATE THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND PERMANENTLY ENJOIN THE BOARD FROM ENFORCING THOSE POLICIES IN THE FUTURE. ON OCTOBER 25, 2024, THE JUDGE ISSUED AN ORDER THAT HELD THAT, WHILE BOARDS MAY RESTRICT DISCUSSION OF GENUINE PERSONNEL MATTERS, USING SUCH POLICIES TO BROADLY EXCLUDE ALL SPEAKERS WHO MENTION INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES IS "UNREASONABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL." THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE BOARD CHAIR, SUSAN WILSON, VIOLATED THE FIRST AMENDMENT BY INVOKING THE PERSONNEL RULE TO STOP HIM FROM MAKING CRITICAL COMMENTS. THE ORDER PERMANENTLY ENJOINS THE BOARD FROM ENFORCING ITS POLICY TO EXCLUDE SPEAKERS SOLELY FOR REFERRING TO INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES AND AWARDED POLLAK $17.91 IN NOMINAL DAMAGES, THE SYMBOLIC AMOUNT REFERENCING THE YEAR OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT'S RATIFICATION. THE COURT ALSO ORDERED THE BOARD TO PAY POLLAK'S COSTS AND ATTORNEY'S FEES. AS THE JUDGE'S ORDER EXPLAINED, "ENFORCING THE POLICY AGAINST MR. POLLAK BECAUSE HIS COMMENTS WERE 'CRITICAL' BUT NOT ENFORCING IT AGAINST OTHERS WHOSE VIEWPOINTS WERE POSITIVE CONSTITUTES VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION, WHICH IS A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT." HE ADDED THAT THE POLICY "ALSO RUNS INTO CONSTITUTIONAL HOT WATER BECAUSE IT IS ENFORCED UNPREDICTABLY." THE CASE WAS OFFICIALLY CLOSED IN APRIL 2025 AFTER THE SCHOOL DISTRICT PAID THE INSTITUTE $128,046 IN COURT-AWARDED ATTORNEYS' FEES. THIS VICTORY PROTECTED THE RIGHTS TO FREE SPEECH AND PETITION. CLOSED CASES PART VI SAMIMIAT, ET AL. V. SMALLSHAW (UNIVERSITY CENSORSHIP) THE CASE AROSE FROM EFFORTS TO ESTABLISH A YOUNG AMERICA'S FOUNDATION CHAPTER ON THE GOLDEN WEST COLLEGE CAMPUS AND SPEAK OPENLY ABOUT CONTROVERSIAL POLITICAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES DESPITE RESISTANCE FROM THE SCHOOL. DURING A RECENT CAMPUS CLUB EXPO, YAF MEMBERS DISPLAYED A WHITEBOARD ON CAMPUS ENCOURAGING STUDENTS TO "CHANGE MY MIND" ABOUT THEIR MESSAGES, INCLUDING "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS A CANCER UPON ANY SOCIETY AND "HAMAS IS A TERRORIST ORGANIZATION, AND THEY MUST BE WIPED FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH." FOLLOWING COMPLAINTS, THE COLLEGE'S DIRECTOR OF STUDENT LIFE, STEPHANIE SMALLSHAW, SUMMONED YAF OFFICERS TO A MEETING, WHERE SHE WARNED THAT THEY WOULD FACE DISCIPLINARY ACTION FOR CONTINUING TO EXPRESS THESE VIEWS, FALSELY CLAIMING THEIR STATEMENTS COULD "INCITE VIOLENCE." AFTER WE FILED THE LAWSUIT, THE COLLEGE AGREED TO SETTLE THE CASE. IT ELIMINATED AND AMENDED THE PROVISIONS IN ITS STUDENT CODE OF CONDUCT THAT HAD ALLOWED IT TO CENSOR SPEECH, PAID SYMBOLIC DAMAGES OF $17.91, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES OF $25,750.89. SUCCESS IN THIS CASE HELPED PROTECT THE RIGHT TO SPEECH. CLOSED CASES PART VII SCAER V. MASTIN, ET AL. (SCHOOL BOARD CENSORSHIP) BETH SCAER SPOKE OUT AGAINST MALE ATHLETES IN GIRLS' HIGH SCHOOL SPORTS AT A LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD MEETING--BUT THE BOARD SILENCED HER JUST SECONDS INTO HER REMARKS AND THREATENED TO HAVE THE POLICE REMOVE HER, CLAIMING THAT SHE HAD VIOLATED AN UNWRITTEN POLICY AGAINST "DEROGATORY COMMENTS" FOR MERELY REFERRING TO A BIOLOGICALLY MALE ATHLETE WHO COMPETES ON THE GIRLS' SOCCER TEAM AS A "TALL BOY." SHE DECIDED TO FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE CENSORSHIP. ATTORNEYS FROM THE INSTITUTE FOR FREE SPEECH, ALONG WITH LOCAL COUNSEL ROY S. MCCANDLESS, FILED A FEDERAL LAWSUIT MAY 15, 2025 IN THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE ON BEHALF OF SCAER. THE SUIT CHALLENGED THE KEARSARGE REGIONAL SCHOOL BOARD'S ENFORCEMENT OF THE UNWRITTEN "NO DEROGATORY COMMENTS" RULE USED TO CENSOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF CONTROVERSIAL TOPICS. AT AN AUGUST 2024 BOARD MEETING FOCUSED ON TRANSGENDER ATHLETICS, SCAER ATTEMPTED TO SPEAK AGAINST ALLOWING BIOLOGICAL MALES IN GIRLS' SPORTS. BOARD CHAIR ALISON MASTIN CUT SCAER OFF WITHIN SECONDS, DECLARED HER SPEAKING TIME FORFEITED, AND WARNED THAT POLICE WOULD INTERVENE IF SHE CONTINUED SPEAKING. MEANWHILE, OTHER SPEAKERS WERE PERMITTED THEIR FULL THREE MINUTES TO EXPRESS SUPPORT FOR THE TRANSGENDER ATHLETE, EVEN BY NAME. THE LAWSUIT CONTENDED THAT THE BOARD'S ACTIONS WERE UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIEWPOINT DISCRIMINATION IN VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. THE SUIT ALSO ARGUED THAT THE UNWRITTEN "NO DEROGATORY COMMENTS" RULE IS UNREASONABLE, VAGUE, OVERBROAD, AND SELECTIVELY ENFORCED AGAINST DISFAVORED VIEWPOINTS. IN SEPTEMBER 2025, THE SCHOOL BOARD AGREED TO A SETTLEMENT THAT REQUIRED IT TO ELIMINATE ITS "NO DEROGATORY COMMENTS" POLICY AND COMMIT TO VIEWPOINT-NEUTRAL TREATMENT OF ALL SPEAKERS. UNDER THE SETTLEMENT TERMS, THE SCHOOL BOARD FORMALLY AGREED TO ELIMINATE ANY POLICY PROHIBITING CITIZENS FROM MAKING "DEROGATORY" COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC MEETINGS. THE BOARD ALSO COMMITTED TO REFRAIN FROM DISCRIMINATING AGAINST SPEAKERS BASED ON THEIR VIEWPOINT AND TO APPLY MEETING RULES IN A VIEWPOINT-NEUTRAL MANNER. FINALLY, IT AGREED TO PAY ATTORNEYS' FEES IN THE AMOUNT OF $33,000.00. THIS CASE HELPED DEFEND FIRST AMENDMENT SPEECH RIGHTS.