A federal judge ordered the White House to reinstate the Associated Press’s full access to presidential events, citing First Amendment violations. The judge ruled that the government cannot retaliate against the AP for its editorial decisions, specifically its refusal to adopt the President’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. This preliminary injunction is a significant win for the AP amidst broader White House challenges to press freedom. While the ruling doesn’t guarantee the AP permanent access, it prevents discriminatory treatment based on viewpoint. The White House was given a week to respond or appeal.
Read More
A federal judge ruled that the White House violated the First Amendment by barring Associated Press journalists from White House and Air Force One events due to the AP’s refusal to adopt the President’s renaming of the Gulf of Mexico. Judge Trevor McFadden’s order, temporarily stayed until Sunday to allow for appeal, mandates that the White House cannot selectively restrict access based on viewpoint. The ruling emphasizes that while the AP is not entitled to preferential treatment, the government cannot deny access to journalists based on their reporting choices. The AP welcomed the decision as an affirmation of press freedom.
Read More
A federal judge blocked Alabama’s attorney general from prosecuting individuals assisting Alabamans in obtaining out-of-state abortions, citing violations of First Amendment rights and the right to interstate travel. The ruling, a victory for the Yellowhammer Fund and other plaintiffs, prevents the enforcement of Alabama’s anti-conspiracy laws against those facilitating access to abortion services in other states. This decision comes in response to the attorney general’s suggestion that such actions could be prosecuted, despite the state’s complete abortion ban. The judge’s opinion emphasizes the difference between regulating in-state conduct and attempting to extra-territorially enforce state values.
Read More
Due to rising tensions between the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) and the Trump administration, the WHCA canceled comedian Amber Ruffin’s scheduled performance at its annual dinner. The decision, made after concerns arose regarding potential backlash to Ruffin’s known anti-Trump sentiments, prioritizes celebrating journalistic excellence and the First Amendment. Instead of a comedian, the WHCA will focus on honoring journalists and supporting future generations. This shift follows previous years where the dinner’s format was altered in response to similar political pressures.
Read More
The Texas Senate passed SB 10, mandating Ten Commandments displays in all public schools, by a 20-11 party-line vote. Supporters argued the Commandments are foundational to American law and ethics, while opponents cited potential First Amendment violations, specifically the Establishment Clause. The bill now proceeds to the House; if enacted, legal challenges are anticipated given a similar law’s temporary blockage in Louisiana. Debate included discussion of religious freedom and the Supreme Court’s evolving stance on such displays.
Read More
A federal judge rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to dismiss the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student facing deportation, transferring it to New Jersey. The judge found the case outside his jurisdiction but upheld an order preventing Khalil’s removal from the country pending the New Jersey court’s decision. Khalil, a legal U.S. resident, alleges his arrest and attempted deportation violated his First and Fifth Amendment rights due to his participation in pro-Palestine protests. The government’s accusations of Khalil’s ties to terrorism remain unsubstantiated.
Read More
This latest development signifies a further consolidation of influence by Trump within the Kennedy Center. The specifics of this “new move” remain undisclosed, but it’s anticipated to significantly impact the Center’s operations and direction. Observers speculate this action is part of a broader strategy to exert greater control over cultural institutions. The move is likely to spark further debate and controversy regarding the politicization of the arts.
Read More
A lawsuit filed by a Cornell professor and two students, with the support of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), alleges that the Trump administration unconstitutionally suppressed free speech through executive orders. The plaintiffs claim these orders, enforced via deportation and other means, target individuals expressing pro-Palestinian views, citing the detainment of a Columbia University student as an example. This chilling effect has led plaintiffs to self-censor and limit public engagement for fear of government retaliation. The ADC seeks a temporary restraining order to block enforcement of the relevant executive orders, arguing they violate the First and Fifth Amendments.
Read More
A protest march, dubbed the first official People’s Solidarity March on Mar-a-Lago since 2020, targeted President Trump, Elon Musk’s DOGE, and the Department of Government Efficiency. Participants, representing groups like United PLUS and United Against Trumpism, decried the administration’s actions, expressing concerns about social security, healthcare, and foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine. The marchers, exercising their First Amendment rights, hope to influence Trump’s policies and plan future demonstrations. A Ukrainian native highlighted the global impact of US decisions, emphasizing the shared concerns of Americans and Ukrainians.
Read More
President Trump’s administration is waging a broad assault on free speech, targeting various sectors with executive orders designed to enforce conformity to its viewpoints. This campaign utilizes threats of funding cuts, retaliation, and even deportation, as exemplified by the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder deported for pro-Palestinian activism. The actions chill free expression, prompting self-censorship among organizations fearful of losing funding, and represent a significant escalation of attacks on First Amendment rights. Legal challenges are mounting against these executive orders, which critics argue are unconstitutionally vague and constitute viewpoint discrimination.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker