In *Rosado v. Bondi*, a federal court has determined that plaintiffs have standing to challenge government actions that allegedly led to the removal of their platforms for sharing information about ICE activity. The court found that the plaintiffs’ injuries were likely traceable to government coercion of social media companies, not to independent decisions by those companies. This conclusion was based on evidence that the platforms had previously met content standards, changed their positions immediately after government contact, and that government officials publicly claimed credit for the removals. The court further held that the government’s actions likely violated the First Amendment by attempting to coerce private parties to suppress disfavored speech, citing public statements that conveyed threats of adverse government action.
Read More
A federal judge ruled that the Trump Administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring Facebook and Apple to remove ICE-tracking groups and apps. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, Judge Alonso found that government officials cannot coerce private parties to suppress disfavored views. The administration’s actions, described as demands rather than requests, led to the censorship of groups and apps used to track ICE agents. While an appeal is expected, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision offers a strong foundation for the plaintiffs.
Read More
Federal prosecutors are now pursuing information about an anonymous Reddit user, “Tired_Thumb,” who criticized the Trump administration’s immigration policies, after an initial attempt by ICE to obtain this information was withdrawn. This action follows a pattern of federal agents seeking to unmask social media users critical of immigration enforcement, often targeting individuals who express anger or share widely circulated biographical details of ICE agents. Despite DHS claims that the investigation is about threats and doxxing, legal advocates argue that the user’s posts do not constitute true threats or doxing, but rather protected political speech, raising concerns about the chilling effect on First Amendment rights.
Read More
The Trump administration has reportedly escalated efforts to identify an anonymous Reddit user by issuing a grand jury subpoena to the platform. This action follows an unsuccessful attempt to use an administrative subpoena to uncover the identity of a user who posted information and criticisms regarding an immigration enforcement officer involved in a fatal shooting. Reddit, emphasizing its commitment to user privacy and civil rights, stated it reviews and often objects to requests that are overbroad or threaten constitutional protections. Free speech advocates have raised concerns, asserting that criticizing the government anonymously is a protected First Amendment right.
Read More
A US judge has stepped in to remind the Pentagon that freedom of the press isn’t just a suggestion, ordering them to restore access for journalists who had been previously barred. This ruling is a pretty significant win for transparency and the foundational principles of a free society. It’s frankly wild that it even needed a federal judge to deliver this basic reminder, especially considering how fundamental the First Amendment is to the American ideal. One can only imagine the internal scrambling and perhaps a bit of indignant sputtering happening behind closed doors at the Pentagon after this decision. It highlights a concerning trend where governmental bodies might feel emboldened to circumvent established rights, and it truly underscores the importance of a judiciary that acts as a check on such power.… Continue reading
At a protest in Fairhope, Alabama, Renea Gamble donned an inflatable penis costume to express dissent, leading to her arrest by Fairhope Police Cpl. Andrew Babb. Babb claimed the costume was an obscene display inappropriate for a “family town,” while Gamble asserted her First Amendment rights. Despite videos of the arrest going viral and drawing widespread criticism, city officials doubled down, adding charges of disturbing the peace and giving a false name. Gamble’s case continues to be a focal point for discussions about free expression and the potential for misuse of legal charges against peaceful protesters.
Read More
The Supreme Court has ruled against Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” for LGBTQ+ youth, finding it raises free speech concerns under the First Amendment. In an 8-1 decision, the majority sided with a Christian counselor who argued the law censors speech based on viewpoint. This ruling is expected to impact similar laws in other states, while Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing states should be able to regulate healthcare.
Read More
A suburban Detroit school district will provide First Amendment training to staff to resolve a lawsuit filed by a teenager. The student alleged a teacher humiliated her for not standing for the Pledge of Allegiance, citing her protest against U.S. support for Israel’s actions in Gaza. The settlement also includes a $10,000 payment from an insurer on behalf of the teacher, though the district denied liability. As part of the agreement, any record of the student’s actions violating school policy will be removed from her file.
Read More
The Pentagon’s restrictive policies for journalists, which penalize the publication of “unauthorized” information and were recently struck down by a judge, are being appealed by the administration. This legal battle echoes a previous case where a citizen journalist was arrested for inquiring about public tragedies, highlighting a disturbing trend where the government attempts to criminalize the act of asking questions. This position, now echoed by the Department of Justice, suggests that soliciting non-public information, even for journalistic purposes, could be considered unlawful. Such an interpretation threatens fundamental First Amendment rights, potentially transforming routine reporting into a prosecutable offense and silencing critical journalism.
Read More
The Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal from journalist Priscilla Villarreal, who was arrested for asking a police officer to confirm information regarding a fatal accident and a suicide. Justice Sonia Sotomayor sharply dissented, arguing that Villarreal’s arrest for performing routine journalistic duties violated her First Amendment rights and that the doctrine of qualified immunity improperly shields the officials involved. Despite a prior Supreme Court instruction to reconsider the case in light of new precedent, the lower court again ruled in favor of the officials, leaving Villarreal without a remedy. This decision highlights concerns about the application of qualified immunity in cases involving free speech and journalistic inquiry.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood
Judge Rules Trump Administration Violated First Amendment in ICE-Tracking Fight
A federal judge ruled that the Trump Administration violated the First Amendment by pressuring Facebook and Apple to remove ICE-tracking groups and apps. Citing a Supreme Court precedent, Judge Alonso found that government officials cannot coerce private parties to suppress disfavored views. The administration’s actions, described as demands rather than requests, led to the censorship of groups and apps used to track ICE agents. While an appeal is expected, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision offers a strong foundation for the plaintiffs.
Read More