Institute for Free Speech

“No such committees existed.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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. 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.”

“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.”

“Fellers, et al. V. Kelley, et al. 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 rightsand 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. A victory in this suit would help preserve the right to protest and the first amendment right to assemble.”

“Fresh vision op, inc., et al. V. Skoglund, et al. (donor disclosure and vague campaign finance law) in june 2024, we filed a federal lawsuit in the u.s. District court for the district of kansas to protect fresh vision op's right to speak without fear of prosecution. Fresh vision is a grassroots nonprofit promoting its issue agenda in overland park. The lawsuit challenges two provisions of kansas law. The first is the definition of "political committee." state law improperly extends this definition to groups for whom urging voters to elect a candidate is only an incidental purpose of its activities rather than the major purpose of the group. The second is the state's extremely low $100 threshold for triggering burdensome reporting requirements, which includes the threat of jail time for failure to comply. Even a small mailing or a few yard signs could easily surpass the $100 threshold. That would effectively transform a small group of citizens into a political action committee as far as the state is concerned. The state claimed that fresh vision was required to register as a political committee and comply with a host of onerous regulations and donor reporting requirements that would have threatened its existence. Fearing further enforcement actions, fresh vision suspended its activities. Now, the group wants to resume its community advocacy but fears that doing so will trigger a new threat of hefty fines and jail time and force the disclosure of its donors' identities. In a decisive early ruling in july 2024, a federal court granted a temporary restraining order (tro) in favor of our client based on an overly broad definition of "political committee." the tro allowed fresh vision op to resume its community advocacy activities without fear of being regulated as a political committee. A combined hearing on the preliminary injunction and a trial on the merits of the case occurred in october 2024. The lawsuit asks the court to declare the challenged laws unconstitutional and block their enforcement. A victory in this case would protect community advocacy and the right to free speech.”

“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 we filed a notice of appeal to the u.s. Court of appeals for the tenth circuit on the same day. A victory would preserve the right to free speech.”

“Oliver, et al. V. Federal election commission (donor disclosure) should donating even five dollars or less to a candidate result in your personal information being posted online for anyone to find? Confusingly, current law says "sometimes." the law says "no" if you personally hand a check for $200 directly to a federal candidate. But it says "yes" if your donation, no matter how small, is passed through a conduit like winred and actblue. Your direct donations are protected, but your indirect ones are exposed. The institute for free speech strongly believes the answer should be uniformly "no," which is why we filed a federal lawsuit in july 2024 in the u.s. District court for the northern district of ohio on behalf of two small-dollar donors from toledo. The plaintiffs feared that the public disclosure of their small-dollar political donations could lead to personal and professional repercussions, including potential impacts on their business relationships and increased pressure from other candidates for further donations, effectively chilling their ability to engage in anonymous political speech. We believe that the federal campaign finance disclosure requirements for small-dollar donors who use online platforms to donate are unconstitutional. The suit 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. On november 22, 2024, the parties filed a stipulated voluntary dismissal.”

“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.”

“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, 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. We await the court's decision. 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.”

“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. 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.”

“Brevard moms for liberty v. Brevard public schools (school board censorship) when brevard (florida) public schools (bps) adopted policies that many parents disagreed with, the brevard moms for liberty (m4l) did what any group of americans would do. They organized members of their community to attend public school board meetings and speak out. But instead of a fair hearing, they received a torrent of abuse and censorship. Now, m4l and four of its members are our clients in this lawsuit against bps. M4l members have been prevented from addressing specific actions or statements by board members, prohibited from using specific words and phrases that members of the board dislike, prevented from participating in meetings on the same terms as the board's allies, and threatened by board officials with fines and penalties for speaking. Board members are elected government officials, and parents have a first amendment right to express their views during public comment periods. Yet under bps's public participation policy, speakers at public board meetings are prohibited from addressing board members individually or from making "personally directed or "abusive" comments. Brevard school officials enforce the policy unevenly, allowing favored speakers and those who praise the board to ignore the rule. At one meeting, seven different speakers praised school officials by name, a policy violation. Yet when community members criticized the actions or views of board members, they were censored. Our lawsuit, which was filed on november 5, 2021, asked the court to declare unconstitutional the prohibitions on personally addressing school board members and on speech deemed "personally directed or "abusive," as well as the board's practice of discriminating based on viewpoint. In a decisive and significant victory for free speech, on october 8, 2024, the united states court of appeals for the eleventh circuit ruled in favor of our clients. In the decision, the court found that multiple policies restricting speech at school board meetings violated the first amendment rights of parents and community members. Writing for the majority, judge grant emphasized: "the government has relatively broad power to restrict speech in limited public forumsbut that power is not unlimited. Speech restrictions must still be reasonable, viewpoint-neutral, and clear enough to give speakers notice of what speech is permissible. The board's policies for public participation at board meetings did not live up to those standards." the appeals court sent the case back down to the district court for further proceedings to resolve the case. This ruling set a new precedent that helped protect the first amendment freedom of speech and the right to petition. This precedent has the same impact in alabama, florida, and georgia (states covered by the 11th circuit) that a supreme court precedent would have nationally, thereby enhancing speech rights for nearly 40 million americans. And it is persuasive authority in every court nationally.”

“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. That petition was still pending as of december 31, 2024. A victory in this case would help protect the privacy of nonprofit donors and the right to assembly under the first amendment.”

“Dinner table action, et al. V. Schneider, et al. 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. A victory would protect rights to free speech and association.”

“Gilley v. Stabin (university of oregon twitter block of a professor) portland state university professor bruce gilley filed a federal lawsuit against an officer in the university of oregon's division of equity and inclusion after being blocked by the division's official twitter (now x) account, @uoequity, for seemingly no reason other than his viewpoint. Gilley had quote-tweeted a message from @uoequity promoting a "racism interrupter and chimed in with his own: "all men are created equal." that, apparently, was enough to earn a block from the account's manager. The lawsuit by our attorneys explains that the interactive portions of the @uoequity twitter account, where users can post replies to its tweets, are designated public forums under the first amendment, where state actors may not discriminate based on viewpoint. The division of equity and inclusion also has no policy governing how users are blocked from its social media pages. In a decisive win for free speech, the u.s. District court for the district of oregon granted our request for a preliminary injunction in july 2024, protecting gilley's right to interact with @uoequity without his speech being blocked, muted, or censored. The court's decision prevents the communications manager of the university of oregon's division of equity and inclusion from blocking gilley or hiding his posts for being "hateful," "racist," "offensive, or "off-topic." this ruling comes after the ninth circuit vacated a previous denial of the preliminary injunction in march 2024. The court rejected the university of oregon's arguments that recent changes in staffing and oversight made an injunction unnecessary. Instead, the opinion emphasized the importance of preventing potential first amendment violations. Litigation continues to fully resolve the case. A victory in this case would protect the first amendment right to freedom of speech.”

“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 corporationsincluding nonprofits like oursfrom 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. 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.”

“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. This strong recommendation”

“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. A victory in this case would protect the first amendment rights of free speech and assembly.”

“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. An appeal was filed with the united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit, and the case is ongoing. A victory would protect the first amendment right to free speech.”

“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. Success in this case would help protect the rights to free speech and petition of the government.”

“Nexstar media, inc. D/b/a kfor-tv, et al. V. Ryan walters, et al. Oklahoma's oldest tv station fought back against state officials who repeatedly barred its journalists from public meetings and press conferences - all without explanation. Attorneys from the institute for free speech filed a federal lawsuit on september 2024 on behalf of three reporters and their employer, nexstar media, inc., the owner of oklahoma city television station kfor-tv, against oklahoma superintendent of public instruction ryan walters and oklahoma state department of education press secretary dan isett. The defendant state officials blocked the station's reporters from attending state board of education meetings and superintendent walters' press conferences. Isett has physically prevented kfor-tv journalists from entering spaces accessed by other media members. At the heart of the suit is the allegation that state officials engaged in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, arbitrarily deciding which media outlets can attend public events. On december 11, 2024, the case reached a settlement ensuring that kfor-tv and its reporters will have full access to state education meetings and officials. At the end of 2024, the case remained open only to resolve the amount of attorney's fees that would be awarded in the case.”

“Scaer, et al. V. City of nashua, et al. 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. A victory in this case would help protect the first amendment right to free speech.”

“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 challenges 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." at the end of 2024, the case remained open only to resolve the amount of attorney's fees that would be awarded to the institute. This victory protected the rights to free speech and petition.”

“Belin v. Nelson (freedom of the press) our constitutional rights to a free press and free speech ensure that government officials can't unequally apply rules to deny a journalist access. Yet, that's exactly what the clerk of the iowa house of representatives did to reporter laura belin for years. Belin sought press credentials from the iowa house of representatives before every legislative session since january 2019. In her requests, belin has shown how her independent online news site, bleeding heartland, meets the house's stated requirements for a press pass. Belin also now works as the statehouse reporter for khoi radio. Despite her qualifications, iowa house chief clerk meghan nelson and a previous clerk denied belin's credentials each time, offering shifting rationales - first saying she did not qualify as media at all, then denying her based on being "nontraditional" media, before finally denying access with no explanation whatsoever. It was clear that credentials were denied because of hostility toward her hard-hitting reporting and personal views. Days after belin sued the house chief clerk this january 2024, she was granted her press credentials. The lawsuit highlighted that the denial of press credentials was arbitrary, violated belin's first and fourteenth amendment rights, and unconstitutionally gave nelson unbridled discretion to decide who should be credentialed. As part of the settlement of the lawsuit, the iowa house of representatives agreed to pay $49,004 in attorney's fees to the institute. This victory protected the rights to freedom of speech and the press.”

“Joe markley and rob sampson v. State elections enforcement commission (limits on candidate speech) the institute's case began in the run-up to the 2014 connecticut election, when then-state senator joe markley and then-state representative rob sampson (now a state senator) were both running for reelection. The two candidates, whose districts overlapped, decided to send out a series of standard campaign mailers highlighting their policy positions in opposition to those of the sitting governor, dannel malloy. The connecticut state elections enforcement commission (seec) said that these commonplace pieces of campaign literature were illegal. A complaint filed by rep. Sampson's opponent began the investigation into whether the fliers distributed by sampson and markley violated connecticut campaign finance law. The seec ruled they did because the mailers implicitly benefited governor malloy's opponents by criticizing the governor's policies. In connecticut, the cost of ads that support multiple candidates must be split equitably. While the markley/sampson pamphlets were paid for by their respective committees, the seec argued that because the mailers mentioned the governor, these were also ads in opposition to the governor. Therefore, someone running against malloy also needed to share the cost of the ad. The seec ultimately fined sampson $5,000 and markley $2,000. We represented them in an appeal of the decision to the connecticut courts. In 2018, we asked a connecticut court to dismiss the fines and declare the law unconstitutional. After the state court ruled that it could not rule on the case because too much time had passed, our clients appealed. The connecticut supreme court agreed to hear the case before the lower appeals court had even ruled on it. The supreme court reversed the lower court and ruled that dismissal of the appeal would "effectively penalize the plaintiffs for the commission's mistake" that delayed a judicial appeal. Finally, after six years of litigation, on may 20, 2024, the connecticut supreme court unanimously ruled in favor of our clients, vindicating the first amendment rights of candidates like markley and sampson. This was an extremely important and hard-fought victory for free political speech in connecticut.”

“Moms for liberty-yolo county v. Lopez (content-based discrimination) in december 2023, we and the alliance defending freedom filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of moms for liberty (m4l) and several other california civic organizations and individuals, challenging the unconstitutional actions of yolo county public library officials. The suit argued that the library's policies and practices violate first amendment free speech rights by discriminating based on viewpoint. The case stemmed from an august 2023 "forum on fair and safe sport for girls organized by m4l at the yolo county public library. Despite m4l paying to reserve the space, library officials invited disruptive protesters to interfere with the event. The officials then ended the event almost immediately after it began, claiming that participants were "misgendering" by referring to biological males as "males or stating that "men" are participating in women's sports. In may 2024, we reached a favorable settlement for our clients with yolo county library officials. They have adopted a new library meeting room policy and code of behavior that better protects free speech rights at library events. The library also allowed m4l to reschedule and hold its event without interference. Additionally, it paid $17,219.02 in attorney's fees to the institute. This victory protected the rights to free speech and assembly.”

“Ny v. Vdare foundation, inc. (protecting the privacy of pseudonymous authors) in february 2024, the institute for free speech filed a motion to protect the identities of anonymous authors caught in the crossfire of an investigation by the new york attorney general into vdare, a group with a blog to which the authors contribute under pseudonyms. Our clients wanted to keep their anonymity. We requested the adoption of a protocol that would allow vdare to produce responsive documents in the state's investigation of the group while hiding any personal details about anonymous writers for the blog. The first amendment requires protecting the right of these authors to remain anonymous. Free speech rights must not become collateral damage in an otherwise unrelated investigation. Within weeks, the court granted a motion to protect the identities of the anonymous authors, establishing a protocol for an independent referee to review documents and redact identifying information before providing them to the attorney general's office. This outcome represents a significant win for the first amendment rights of authors.”

“No on e v. Chiu (excessive disclaimers on political advertising) want to advertise to san francisco voters? Before starting your message, the city could force you to spend over 30 seconds reciting publicly available donor information. Instead of reserving a small portion of an ad to announce the speaker's identity, as most jurisdictions do, san francisco's disclaimer law forces speakers to make the government's message the focal point of their ads. Groups are required to recite a lengthy disclaimer naming their donors - and their donors' donors - at the start of audio and video ads. Failure to include the disclaimer can trigger criminal and civil penalties, including fines up to $5,000. These requirements make it all but impossible for groups to communicate effectively with san francisco voters. Speakers' messages are shoved to the side in favor of redundant donor information of questionable value. All of the donor information included in the disclaimer is already publicly available on city websites, the lawsuit explains. Rather than inform voters, the disclaimer actually misleads voters by naming them as "secondary donors" individuals who have not contributed to or supported the speaker's messaging in any way. Viewers will be led to believe these "secondary donors" played a significant role in the creation of the ad or the group running the ad. Yet, in many cases, those individuals will not even be aware of the ad their name appears on until it airs. The lawsuit asked the court to strike down san francisco's requirement that groups list "secondary donors" on the face of their ads as unconstitutional under the first amendment. Americans are accustomed to simple "paid for by" disclaimers at the end of political ads. Yet san francisco has radically expanded these disclaimers to coopt, in some cases, a speaker's entire message. After the ninth circuit court of appeals denied an en banc rehearing, attorneys at the institute filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the u.s. Supreme court in february 2024. Many organizations filed amicus briefs to support the petition. Unfortunately, the supreme court denied cert in this case.”