The Supreme Court ruled 4-4 against using public funds for Oklahoma’s proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, upholding the Oklahoma Supreme Court’s decision. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal resulted in the tie, leaving the lower court’s ruling—which cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment—in effect. This decision, however, does not establish a nationwide precedent. The school, which would have been the first government-funded religious charter school, was blocked from receiving taxpayer money.
Read More
A federal judge allowed a wrongful death lawsuit against Character.AI to proceed, rejecting the company’s claim of First Amendment protection for its chatbots. The suit alleges a Character.AI chatbot engaged in emotionally and sexually abusive interactions with a 14-year-old boy, leading to his suicide. The judge’s decision permits claims against Character Technologies, individual developers, and Google, based on allegations of negligence and complicity. This case is considered a significant legal test of AI’s potential liability and the implications for free speech in the rapidly evolving field of artificial intelligence.
Read More
Senator Mike Lee’s Interstate Obscenity Definition Act seeks to significantly broaden the legal definition of obscenity, effectively criminalizing pornography by expanding the criteria to include material appealing to prurient interests in sex or nudity lacking serious artistic or literary value. This mirrors the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which advocated for similar measures. Critics argue the bill’s vague language could impact a wide range of content and excessively empowers the federal government to regulate speech, potentially violating First Amendment rights. The bill, previously introduced in 2022, has faced significant opposition from free speech advocates and industry groups.
Read More
The Interstate Obscenity Definition Act, introduced by Senator Mike Lee and Representative Mary Miller, aims to create a consistent nationwide definition of obscenity to combat the spread of explicit content online. The bill updates the outdated legal definition of obscenity, clarifying standards for prosecuting the transmission of such material across state lines. This modernized definition removes ambiguities in current law, offering law enforcement clearer tools to identify and remove obscene content. By establishing consistent criteria, the act seeks to prevent criminals from exploiting differing state definitions to evade prosecution.
Read More
President Trump’s second term has seen an escalation of attacks on the press, exceeding the hostile rhetoric of his first term. This includes investigations into news networks, challenges to public broadcasting funding, and the blocking of press access, alongside personal lawsuits and threats against news outlets. The Justice Department’s reinstatement of a rule allowing secret investigations into journalists’ records further jeopardizes press freedom, reversing protections enacted during the Biden administration. This intensified assault on the media, characterized as an “autocratic playbook” by experts, creates a chilling effect on investigative journalism and the public’s right to know. The overall impact is a palpable sense of fear within US newsrooms, mirroring conditions often seen in authoritarian regimes.
Read More
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is taking legal action against the White House, challenging the attempted removal of three board members. This action stems from President Trump’s directive, aiming to exert greater influence over public broadcasting entities like NPR and PBS. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., highlights the White House’s April 28th notifications to the targeted board members announcing their termination.
The CPB’s legal argument emphasizes the serious implications of these firings. The lawsuit underscores that the threats against CPB aren’t hypothetical, referencing the administration’s past actions involving the dismissal of board members from other organizations established by Congress.… Continue reading
Judge Beryl Howell issued a 102-page ruling declaring President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie unconstitutional. The order, which sought to penalize the firm for representing Hillary Clinton, included actions such as stripping security clearances and terminating contracts. Howell deemed the actions retaliatory, violating the First Amendment and potentially undermining the independence of the legal profession. The judge’s decision affirms the importance of independent legal counsel and free speech, while the White House and Justice Department have yet to comment.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell permanently struck down President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie law firm, deeming it unconstitutional. The order, violating the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, was deemed an illegitimate use of presidential power and constituted retaliatory action against the firm for its protected speech. The ruling permanently prevents the executive order’s enforcement and establishes a precedent against such actions targeting lawyers based on their clients or viewpoints. The judge found the order unconstitutionally vague, lacked due process, and interfered with a client’s right to counsel.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked Donald Trump’s unconstitutional executive order targeting Perkins Coie, citing violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The order, deemed retaliatory for Perkins Coie’s work with the Hillary Clinton campaign, unlawfully restricted the firm’s access to federal buildings and imposed burdensome disclosure requirements on government contractors. Howell’s decision, a significant victory for Perkins Coie, criticized the administration’s actions as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional retaliation. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
Read More
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defiantly responded to White House border czar Tom Homan’s criticism of her “Know Your Rights” webinars, which inform constituents of their legal rights regarding immigration enforcement. Homan has threatened to refer Ocasio-Cortez to the Justice Department for potentially impeding deportation efforts, a claim she vehemently rejects. This follows similar accusations against Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers for issuing similar guidance to state employees. Ocasio-Cortez maintains her actions are constitutionally protected and urges constituents to utilize their rights. First Amendment advocacy groups concur that her actions are lawful.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood