Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech May 7, 2025 Click here to subscribe to the Daily Media Update. This is the Daily Media Update published by the Institute for Free Speech. For press inquiries, please contact [email protected]. We're Hiring! Litigation Attorney – Institute for Free Speech – Virtual .....IFS is hiring an Attorney with at least seven years of experience to support its ongoing litigation efforts. The position is located either in the Washington, DC office or remotely at any location within the United States with reasonable access to air travel. This is a rare opportunity to litigate to protect and advance Constitutional rights. IFS challenges laws, practices, and policies that infringe upon First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, press, and petition concerning politics. Cases typically secure people’s rights to speak at public meetings, such as school boards and legislative hearings, protect people’s ability to give and receive campaign contributions, and ward off any intrusion into people’s private political associations. You would work to hold censors accountable and secure legal precedents clearing away a thicket of laws, regulations, and practices that suppress speech about government and candidates for political office, threaten citizens’ privacy if they speak or join groups, or impose heavy burdens on political activity. In the News New Hampshire Union Leader (via Yahoo): Bow parents appeal judge's ruling in pink XX wristband lawsuit By Paul Feely .....The appeal was filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston on May 2 by attorneys representing Kyle Fellers, Anthony and Nicole Foote, and Eldon Rash, following an April 14 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Steven McAuliffe denying the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Attorneys from the Institute for Free Speech and attorney Richard J. Lehmann filed the parents’ lawsuit in September in federal court in Concord against Bow school administrators, including Superintendent Marcy Kelley, Principal Matt Fisk and athletic director Mike Desilets. Original article (paywalled) New from the Institute for Free Speech Montana Governor Signs Landmark Bill, as State Becomes the 37th to Enact Anti-SLAPP Protections .....Montana took a historic step forward in protecting public expression as Governor Greg Gianforte signed House Bill 292, the “Uniform Public Expression Protection Act” (UPEPA), into law on May 1st. This landmark legislation establishes crucial protections for victims of strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), making Montana the 37th state in the U.S. to enact anti-SLAPP safeguards. The path to the governor’s desk demonstrated remarkable bipartisan unity, with the House of Representatives passing it, 96-1, and the Senate passing it 50-0, both votes highlighting the cross-ideological appeal of reinforcing the First Amendment rights of Montanans. Prior to this legislation, Montana earned an “F” grade and the worst-possible score of 0 out of 100 points on the Institute for Free Speech’s Anti-SLAPP Report Card. This lack of protection left Montanans vulnerable to frivolous lawsuits designed to intimidate critics into silence through lengthy legal battles and mounting attorney fees. The Courts Courthouse News: Bribery conviction of disgraced former Ohio speaker upheld on appeal By Kevin Koeninger .....A unified Sixth Circuit panel on Tuesday upheld the federal racketeering conviction of former Ohio Speaker Larry Householder, who took bribes from FirstEnergy to make sure its failing nuclear power plants were bailed out by taxpayers... Tuesday's decision also upheld the RICO conspiracy conviction of Matthew Borges, an associate of Householder who facilitated bribes and massaged state representatives during both the passage of House Bill 6 and a statewide recall effort that would have rescinded the power plant bailout included in the legislation. The panel refused to overturn the jury's decision in spite of Borges' claim that he had no idea Householder and his cronies engaged in illegal activity. In a concurring opinion [pp. 44–64], U.S. Circuit Judge Amul Thapar, a Donald Trump appointee, expounded on the current caselaw regarding bribery in the political sphere and, specifically, the U.S. Supreme Court's application of the Hobbs Act — which deals with extortion — in bribery cases. Thapar theorized such an expansion of the Hobbs Act likely criminalizes some campaign contributions, an effect "inconsistent with the constitution's ironclad protection of political speech." He urged the Supreme Court to revisit its decision in Evans and, in what should give the former speaker a glimmer of hope, noted that "should the Supreme Court act, Householder's conviction may well fall." Washington Legal Foundation: Federal Court Rebukes Another Prop 65 Mandate of Misleading Speech By Zac Morgan .....Children growing up in California all share two formative experiences. The first: the sudden and panic-inducing realization, thanks to a large disclaimer affixed within a store, that you have stumbled into an establishment which sells, and from which you may perhaps be about to purchase, an item known to the government to contain a chemical that causes cancer. The second, typically delivered in the form of a soothing explanation from a trusted adult: there’s nothing to worry about, the disclaimers are very often useless clutter. Since the government-approved list of items which may (or may not) cause cancer is so voluminous (over 900 as of 2025), many merchants simply post or affix a product-specific disclaimer as a way to avoid official harassment or burdensome litigation. For those shared formative experiences, Californians must thank the 4.4 million voters who enacted Proposition 65 in 1986… A recent federal district court decision, California Chamber of Commerce v. Bonta, however, set aside the Prop 65 disclaimer as it applies to dietary acrylamide. NTUF: Can a State Ban Listing a Tax on a Receipt? Fourth Circuit Hears Argument By Tyler Martinez, Joe Bishop-Henchman, and Lindsey Carpenter .....We live-tweeted today’s argument in Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Lierman, the challenge to Maryland’s Digital Ad Tax. The key question in the case is whether the state can ban businesses from listing the tax separately on customers’ receipts. The business taxpayers challenging the law argue that the state allows companies to raise their prices to pay for the taxes, but forbids them from telling customers why the prices went up. In other words, the invoice could not itemize the new tax. The lower court ruled against them, saying the taxpayers didn’t meet a facial challenge burden of proving the law is unconstitutional in all possible applications. Our amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief urged the Fourth Circuit to strike down Maryland’s law preventing businesses from listing the state’s new Digital Ad Tax customer invoices. This “tax speech” ban infringes on key First Amendment rights, is not pursuant to any weighty governmental interest, and is not tailored to any relevant interest. Basically, it wants to lay customers’ blame on higher prices on companies like Google rather than let customers know that Maryland created a new tax. Trump Administration The Hill: Trump’s attack on ActBlue violates the First Amendment By Austin Sarat .....President Trump is at it again, accusing his political opponents of fraud and corruption. This time, he is targeting ActBlue, a major fundraising platform for Democratic candidates at the local, state and national levels… As the New York Times put it, “The move steps up Republicans’ efforts to cripple their opponents’ political infrastructure” and “is likely to create vulnerabilities for the entire Democratic fund-raising apparatus.” Republicans, who have long argued that political contributions are a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment — a view embraced by the Supreme Court in a series of key decisions — are now seeking to take down a mechanism through which millions of Americans have made their voices heard. The first of those Supreme Court decisions, Buckley v. Valeo, held that “a contribution serves as a general expression of support for the candidate and his views … and the limitation on total campaign expenditures did violate the First Amendment.” In its infamous Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision of 2010, a 5-4 majority on the court reaffirmed that view. Nonprofits People United for Privacy: HBO’s “Dark Money Game” is More Misleading Doc Slop By Luke Wachob .....HBO’s “The Dark Money Game” is many things, but it is not subtle. The 2-part, 4-hour production from documentary filmmaker Alex Gibney hammers a simple message: American politics has been corrupted by big business conservatives and anti-abortion activists who teamed up to tear down the limits on money in politics in order to buy their way into power. The problem? It’s just not true. In order to protect its narrative, the series jettisons any and all facts that might get in its way. The result may be entertaining as a true-crime spectacle, but it is essentially worthless as a commentary on politics, law, and history. Among the documentary’s biggest flaws, “The Dark Money Game” completely distorts the history of campaign finance law in order to present deregulation as a partisan project intended to secure Republican victories in elections. For instance, viewers are introduced to the seminal 1976 Supreme Court decision Buckley v. Valeo, which struck down portions of the Federal Election Campaign Act, as a case that the “tremendously right-wing” Koch brothers “get involved with.” The series never mentions the leading role liberals played in that case, the plaintiffs of which included the New York Civil Liberties Union and former Democratic U.S. Senator and liberal stalwart Eugene McCarthy. Nor does it mention that they were represented before the Court by the ACLU. The States Politico: Andrew Cuomo warned: Don’t pass notes to super PAC By Jeff Coltin and Nick Reisman .....Campaign finance regulators sent a warning shot to Andrew Cuomo, the Democratic front-runner in the New York City mayoral race, over a recent practice that raised concerns. The New York City Campaign Finance Board emailed all city campaigns Monday noting that the board had adopted new rules in November, strengthening those outlawing coordination between candidates and independent expenditure committees, known as super PACs. Missouri AG: Attorney General Bailey Files Groundbreaking Rule to End Big Tech’s Censorship Monopoly and Protect Online Free Speech .....Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey today announced the filing of a first-in-the-nation rule under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act that targets corporate censorship and secures freedom of expression for social media users. The rule requires Big Tech platforms to allow Missouri users to choose their own content moderators rather than being forced to rely on the biased algorithms of monopolistic tech giants... The rule—codified as 15 CSR 60-19—clarifies that it is an unfair, deceptive, or otherwise unlawful practice for social media platforms to deny users the ability to choose an independent content moderator. Platforms must now provide a choice screen upon account activation and at regular intervals, must not favor their own moderation tools, and must allow full interoperability for outside moderators chosen by users. The rule also prohibits social media companies from imposing unreasonable access restrictions on third-party content moderators and includes carefully tailored exceptions to prevent child exploitation and unlawful threats. This regulation is grounded in the Supreme Court’s guidance from Moody v. NetChoice, which recognized the authority of state governments to enforce competition laws in the interest of free expression. Louisiana Illuminator: Louisiana lawmakers might shield campaign spending on constitutional amendments, tax proposals By Julie O'Donoghue .....Louisiana lawmakers might eliminate requirements that political donations and spending on constitutional amendments, tax millages and other election propositions be made available to the public. The change would result in voters knowing less about who is working to pass or defeat ballot measures they are asked to consider. Rep. Mark Wright, R- Covington, chairman of the House Republican Caucus, has sponsored House Bill 596. It would make dozens of changes to Louisiana campaign finance reporting laws, including one to end finance reporting requirements for a “proposition or question to be submitted to the voters.” Should his bill pass, campaign contributions and political spending in an election that doesn’t involve a candidate would not have to be made public. The change would apply to proposed state constitutional amendments, property tax measures, local government charter changes and gambling legalization initiatives, among other referenda. Read an article you think we would be interested in? Send it to Tiffany Donnelly at [email protected]. For email filters, the subject of this email will always begin with "Institute for Free Speech Media Update." The Institute for Free Speech is a nonpartisan, nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization that promotes and defends the political rights to free speech, press, assembly, and petition guaranteed by the First Amendment. Please support the Institute's mission by clicking here. For further information, visit www.ifs.org. Follow the Institute for Free Speech The Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Ave., NW Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice