September 17, 2025

In the News

Federalist Society: Litigation Update: Dinner Table Action v. Schneider

.....In Dinner Table Action v. Schneider, pending in the First Circuit, Maine is appealing a permanent injunction barring the enforcement of a ballot initiative passed in 2024 that would have capped contributions for independent expenditures at $5,000. The initiative, formulated and supported by the anti-super PAC group, Equal Citizens, was designed to challenge the case that “created” super PACs, SpeechNow.org v. FEC, a unanimous en banc D.C. Circuit decision, which held that no limits can be placed on contributions for independent expenditures, and has since been reaffirmed by several federal circuit courts. If the First Circuit were to remove the injunction, it would create a circuit split, and open up the possibility of revisiting SpeechNow.org v. FEC.

The Dinner Table Action District Court also ruled that mandatory disclosure of donors starting at $0 unconstitutionally burdens Free Speech by not affording any possibility for anonymous speech. As such, this case sits at an interesting intersection between free speech and election law. Join us for a litigation update where we will discuss the developments to date in this case, its potential impacts, and where it may be headed. 

Featuring: 

• Charles Miller, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech
• (Moderator) Stephen R. Klein, Partner, Barr & Klein PLLC

NOTUS: The Crackdown on Speech After Charlie Kirk’s Death Is Alarming First Amendment Groups

By Em Luetkemeyer

.....David Keating, the president of the Institute for Free Speech, told NOTUS that institutions should meet with First Amendment specialists about employees’ posts and tell the public they’re investigating in the meantime, rather than “firing first and thinking about it later.”

“Because it’s going to be a case-by-case thing, they should resist public pressure,” Keating added. “I think just making a rapid-fire announcement without thinking it through is a bad idea.”

New Zealand Herald (Video): Charlie Kirk assassination: Where does this leave free speech in the US?

.....Institute for Free Speech Vice President, Tom Garrett weighs in on what the killing of Trump ally Charlie Kirk means for free speech in the US.

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Delaware Strengthens Free Speech Protections with Passage of Uniform Public Expression Protection Act

.....In a landmark victory for free speech rights in Delaware, Governor Matt Meyer signed Senate Bill 80 into law on September 15, enacting the Uniform Law Commission’s Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA). This legislation replaces Delaware’s severely limited anti-SLAPP statute with comprehensive protections against strategic lawsuits designed to silence public participation. 

The legislation received unanimous bipartisan support, passing both the House (38-0) and the Senate (21-0). This remarkable unity underscores how protecting free speech rights can transcend political divisions. 

Delaware’s previous anti-SLAPP law earned a dismal “D-” grade from the Institute’s Anti-SLAPP Report Card. The old statute only protected “public applicants or permittees”—those involved in zoning or licensing matters—leaving most Delawareans vulnerable to intimidating lawsuits designed to chill free speech. 

With UPEPA, Delaware now provides robust protections for all speech on matters of public concern, dramatically expanding coverage beyond the previous law’s extremely limited scope.  As a result, Delaware’s updated score is now an A+. 

The legislation includes critical improvements absent from Delaware’s previous law: 

Trump Administration

Wall Street Journal: Pam Bondi Needs a Free Speech Tutorial

By The Editorial Board

.....Discussing Kirk’s work on college campuses, Ms. Bondi mentioned the “disgusting” antisemitism on display at many universities, and so far so good. But wait. “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society,” the country’s top law enforcer told a podcast. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Kirk would want a word. “My position is that even hate speech should be completely and totally allowed in our country. The most disgusting speech should absolutely be protected,” he once told a crowd. “The ACLU used to hold this viewpoint. The American Civil Liberties Union, they sued so that legitimate Nazis could march through downtown Skokie.”

Bloomberg: Trump Renews Threat to Investigate Soros for Funding ‘Agitation’

By Josh Wingrove

.....President Donald Trump suggested his administration may pursue a racketeering investigation against George Soros or his family, accusing the Democratic megadonor of funding protests.

Protesters “get paid for their profession from Soros and other people,” Trump said in a Fox News interview, recalling protesters who peacefully confronted him at a Washington restaurant this week. “And we’re going to look into Soros, because I think it’s a RICO case against him and other people. Because this is more than like protests. This is real agitation.”

He did not elaborate and it wasn’t clear which Soros family member he was referring to or what grounds would be used in any investigation. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO Act, is typically used to prosecute organized crime.

Trump has previously said Soros “and his wonderful Radical Left son” should be investigated. It wasn’t entirely clear which son he was referring to. Alex Soros, one of the billionaire’s sons, is also a major supporter of Democratic causes and chairs the board of directors of the Open Society Foundations, which was founded by George Soros and is one of the world’s biggest and most influential philanthropies.

Archive link

Congress

The Intercept: New Bill Would Give Marco Rubio “Thought Police” Power to Revoke U.S. Passports

By Matt Sledge

.....In March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stripped Turkish doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk’s of her visa based on what a court later found was nothing more than her opinion piece critical of Israel.

Now, a bill introduced by the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee is ringing alarm bells for civil liberties advocates who say it would grant Rubio the power to revoke the passports of American citizens on similar grounds.

The provision, sponsored by Rep. Brian Mast, R-Fla., as part of a larger State Department reorganization, is set for a hearing Wednesday.

Mast’s legislation says that it takes aim at “terrorists and traffickers,” but critics say it could be used to deny American citizens the right to travel based solely on their speech. (The State Department said it doesn’t comment on pending legislation.)

“Rubio has claimed the power to designate people terrorist supporters based solely on what they think.”

Seth Stern, the director of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, said the bill would open the door to “thought policing at the hands of one individual.”

Free Expression

Fox News: Jonathan Turley: Charlie Kirk wouldn't fire people who hated him, he'd win them over

.....The way to honor Charlie Kirk's life and legacy is not with hypocrisy and intolerance. That is what he died fighting against.

To fire people on campuses for speaking out against Kirk would make an utter mockery of his work and his death. It would be like banning LGBTQ groups in response to the assassination of Harvey Milk in 1978.

Kirk wanted unfettered debate. He wanted people to be able to express themselves regardless of how the majority felt about their views. He was the victim, not the advocate, of cancel campaigns.

There are instances where hateful views may raise grounds for termination. A Secret Service agent is under investigation after dismissing the assassination. Given the need to protect conservative as well as liberal figures (including those in the current administration), the bias in the postings can raise legitimate grounds for inquiry.

The Free Press: Tyler Cowen: Stop Blaming ‘Them’

By Tyler Cowen

.....At a time when the radical left and the radical right are on the rise, the last thing America needs is a new dose of collectivist thinking. So, in the wake of the murder of Charlie Kirk, my counsel is this: Judge individual people, not groups. Stop saying “they did this,” when it is individuals who act and choose.

One claim I have seen on social media since Wednesday—and for that matter, from our president—is that “the left” murdered Charlie Kirk. I would instead consider the individual who has been charged with the murder, namely Tyler Robinson. “The left,” if you do wish to regard that notion collectively, has said and done many objectionable things along the way, but it did not pull the trigger.

Suggesting otherwise isn’t just to argue a falsehood. It’s also a bad tactic. Blaming a group of people for a murder they did not commit is hardly going to persuade those individuals to adopt more sensible political positions.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Firing Public Employees Who Publicly Praise Violent Criminal Attacks

By Eugene Volokh

.....Some have been calling for the firing of people who publicly praised the murder of Charlie Kirk, or at least who argued that the murder was justified or defensible. I'm not wild about such calls; I think we generally need less cancel culture, not more, even as to people who say morally repugnant things. (Among other things, these calls for firing tend to spiral, to cover a wide range of other speech beyond the outrageous statements that first led to them.) But here let me focus not on the ethical or pragmatic question, but the legal one: If a government employer fires an employee for such speech, would that violate the employee's First Amendment rights?

The States

Washington Times: Donor disclosure laws put ordinary Americans in crosshairs of political extremists

By Heather Lauer 

.....The recent rise in political violence is not random. It reflects a dangerous shift in the way we engage with politics, and it has been escalating for years. More and more, Americans are being targeted for having the “wrong” opinion or supporting the “wrong” cause. In this environment, even a campaign donation or a vote on a bill can put a target on someone’s back.

This is ultimately a dehumanization problem. In civil society, we don’t reduce people to party labels or treat them as mortal enemies because of differing political beliefs. Yet that’s where we seem to be as a country at the moment. Elected officials and their campaign donors, nonprofit leaders and employees, along with donors to groups that take stands on political issues, are especially vulnerable to harassment and violence. The reason? Their personal information is far too easy to find online.

New York Times: How They’re Watching You

By Elizabeth Daniel Vasquez

.....I ran a practice inside Brooklyn’s public defense office focused on the police department’s use of science and technology, so I am well accustomed to the department’s collection of personal information on people being investigated for crimes. But more than a decade of observing traditional police work did not prepare me for what the department is doing today: building vast, hidden repositories of data it collects on everyone in the city, with no clear boundaries on how it can be used. As cities across the country follow New York’s lead, I am gravely worried about what this system enables, and the effect on what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis termed our most valued right: the “right to be let alone.”

The city’s police force has spent more than $3 billion amassing information that reveals where you have been, whom you have interacted with and what you have said, thought and believed. Unlike previous surveillance methods, new digital tools allow law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance persistently, universally, at an unimaginable scale. They can do so with no special permission, no oversight and no advance planning. The results amount to a digital time machine that not only makes our past constantly available to law enforcement officers but also can provide them with predictions about our futures.