Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech September 10, 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]. In the News Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Sixth Circuit Judges on Restrictions on Parents' School Board Meeting Comments By Eugene Volokh .....From today's concurrence by Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar and Eric Murphy in Moms for Liberty v. Wilson County Bd. of Ed. You can read the panel opinion by Judge Jane Stranch, which is also joined by the other two judges, here. But there's a lot of procedural detail in the panel opinion, so I thought I'd focus on the simpler concurrence, which represents the view of a majority of the panel members, and lays out the constitutional issues (and briefly explains the procedural ones at the end): For parents, few things matter more than their children's education. But when a group of moms began voicing concerns to their local Tennessee school board, they discovered that their input wasn't welcome. They now challenge the set of policies that restricted the tone, content, and format of their remarks. While I agree with the majority that the moms are not entitled to a preliminary injunction, I write separately to emphasize the troubling nature of the Board's rules. New from the Institute for Free Speech SCOTUS Amicus Brief: Procedural Gamesmanship in New Jersey Lawsuit Violates the First Amendment .....History repeats itself, as shown by the unfortunate similarities between First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin and NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958). The people are different, but the tactics used by government officials to silence citizens remain the same. The U.S. Supreme Court granted review of the petition by First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and will consider it in the term beginning in October. The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief in the case identifying key similarities between the two cases and urging the Court to rule in favor of the group. Notably, both cases feature a “rogue attorney general [who] wields its broad power to punish an ideological enemy and try to drive it out of the state. And in both cases, the First Amendment violation on associational privacy is clear.” Free Speech Arguments – Can a California City Silence a Critic Through Targeted Campaign Finance Laws? (Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez) .....Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez, argued en banc before Chief Judge Mary H. Murguia and Circuit Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw, Consuelo M. Callahan, Jacqueline H. Nguyen, John B. Owens, Ryan D. Nelson, Eric D. Miller, Daniel P. Collins, Lawrence VanDyke, Lucy H. Koh, and Jennifer Sung for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 9, 2025. Argued by Chad Morgan (on behalf of Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc.) and Holly Whatley on behalf of Lourdes Lopez. Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech case page]: IRS Fox News: IRS fires top aide linked to Obama-era Tea Party targeting scandal By Brooke Singman .....A top aide and confidante to former Obama official Lois Lerner who targeted conservatives and conservative groups was fired by the Internal Revenue Service, Fox News Digital has learned. Sources told Fox News Digital that Holly Paz, who served as the IRS Commissioner of Large Business and International Division, was terminated Monday. Paz was placed on administrative leave last month and was subsequently fired following an internal review, sources say. Paz had served as Lerner’s deputy during the Obama administration. In 2013, it was revealed that the IRS, under Lerner, had wrongfully scrutinized tax-exempt applications related to the phrases "Tea Party," "9/12" and "Constitution." The Treasury’s inspector general later confirmed "inappropriate criteria" were used to target conservative groups and criticized ineffective oversight of systemic bias. The IRS reportedly spent more than two years targeting conservative tax-exempt groups. Paz reviewed and helped oversee the handling of tax-exempt applications, and has been described as a key link between the Cincinnati, Ohio IRS office where the screenings of applications took place and the IRS headquarters. The Courts Courthouse News: Ninth Circuit sides with California over regulating minors' 'addictive' social media feeds By Matt Simons .....A panel of Ninth Circuit judges mostly upheld a lower court decision on Tuesday, allowing California to move forward with a law regulating minors’ access to addictive social media algorithms. In its 40-page ruling, the panel affirmed all but one part of a lower court decision, declining a bid from NetChoice, one of the most powerful tech lobbying groups active today, to thwart the Golden State law. “For the most part, the district court got it right,” U.S. Circuit Judge Ryan D. Nelson wrote for the panel. The decision was largely a win for California, which was sued last year by NetChoice, claiming violations of its members’ First Amendment rights. South Carolina Daily Gazette: SC law banning 8 concepts on race from classrooms can remain in place, judge says By Skylar Laird .....A state law banning certain race-based concepts from K-12 public schools can remain in place, a federal judge said in a Monday order dismissing a lawsuit. In January, several students and educators, along with an author and the state NAACP, sued to challenge a state law included in the state budget since 2021 that bans teachers from using eight concepts in classrooms. They include ideas that any race is inherently superior or automatically racist, that anyone is responsible for past atrocities because of their race, that someone’s worth is determined by race, and that traits such as hard work are oppressive and racist. Washington Legal Foundation: It’s Time for the Supreme Court to Fix the Zauderer Problem By Zac Morgan .....The First Amendment has a Zauderer problem. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the First Amendment protects both “[t]he right to speak and the right to refrain from speaking.” Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977). Whether stopping New Hampshire from forcing its citizens to carry state propaganda on their car, id., striking down a requirement for newspapers to carry the ripostes of criticized political candidates, Miami Herald Publishing Co v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 258 (1974), or signaling that state purview of a social media platform’s content moderation is verboten, Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 732 (2024), the Court has repeatedly pushed down efforts to hijack private speech for public purposes. And it has done so by insisting that, at a minimum, before the government gets to take over private speech, the state must show that the need to do so is unusually great and that few other means (short of prohibition or prior restraint) could cure the problem. This is what the law sometimes refers to as “narrow tailoring,” NIFLA v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595, 609 (2021), traditionally part of the First Amendment’s exacting scrutiny analysis. But that long line of venerable caselaw means nothing in the commercial context. The States National Review: Disclosure Laws Put Targets on the Backs of Nonprofit Donors By Jon Riches and Andrew Gould .....Across the country, activists pretending to combat so-called dark money in politics are pushing laws to force nonprofits to disclose their donors’ names and personal information to the government. While they say they’re promoting the public’s right to know, what these activists are really doing is putting targets on the backs of nonprofit donors, threatening to expose them to retaliation and even violence simply for supporting causes they believe in. This isn’t mere speculation — it is well documented that disclosure mandates in some states have led to attacks against nonprofits and their supporters. But a case set to be argued before the Arizona Supreme Court this September could become a national turning point for protecting donor privacy and free speech. If the court strikes down Arizona’s Proposition 211 as unconstitutional, its decision could offer the first clear road map for mounting state constitutional challenges to donor disclosure laws across the country. Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Oklahoma AG on the First Amendment and Drag Shows By Eugene Volokh .....From Opinion No. 2025-13, released Aug. 29: Is a performance by an individual dressed in drag included in the definitions of "obscene material" in title 21, section 1024.1? Is a performance by an individual dressed in drag included in the definitions of "adult performance" in title 21, section 1024.6(A)(1) (Supp.2025)? Does a performance by an individual dressed in drag, in view of a minor in a public place, violate the provisions of title 21, section 1024.6(B)(1) (Supp.2025)? Is a performance by an individual dressed in drag protected speech under the First Amendment? If so, under what circumstances can said speech be regulated by the state or other political subdivisions? … The answer to all four questions depends upon whether the drag performance contains "obscene material" …. The definition of "adult performance" … requires the performance to contain "obscene material." For a performance to be prohibited by section 1024.6(B)(1), it likewise must also contain "obscene material." Finally, the performance is not protected by the First Amendment to the extent it contains "obscene material." Miller v. California (1973). As a result, a drag performance violates Oklahoma law only if it contains "obscene material." … 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