Email from The Institute for Free Speech The Latest News from the Institute for Free Speech October 29, 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]. Ed. note: The Media Update will return Monday, November 10. In the News Front Page Magazine: Academic Felon: Golden West College By Sara Dogan .....When the Golden West College chapter of Young America’s Foundation dared to question the Left’s sacred cows including illegal immigration and the dictum that trans women are women, they found their legal constitutional rights sacrificed on this altar of left-wing wokeness. In February of last year, student activists Annaliese Hutchings and Matin Samimiat, who ironically was born in the fascist nation of Iran, manned a booth for Young America’s Foundation at Golden West’s Club Expo, a forum to advertise student activities to interested students. Their YAF booth contained a large sign encouraging debate. It read: “CHANGE MY MIND!!! • It is a privilege to be an American and we should all be thankful for it. • Illegal immigration is a cancer upon any society in the world. • Men do not belong in women’s sports and spaces.” While potentially controversial, the sign was clearly protected by the students’ First Amendment right to free expression on a public college campus. But Golden West college administrators didn’t see it that way. Goldwater Institute: Wyoming Mom Faced Retaliation by School Officials. Goldwater Came to Her Defense. By Parker Jackson .....No parent should face time-consuming and costly litigation in retaliation for political advocacy, especially on behalf of their children. Many states prevent such abuses by enacting laws against what lawyers call “strategic litigation against public participation,” or “SLAPP” suits. Unfortunately, Wyoming is one of only 12 states without an anti-SLAPP statute, earning the state an “F” grade on the Institute for Free Speech’s 2025 Report Card on Anti-SLAPP Statutes. Members of the Wyoming Legislature proposed an anti-SLAPP law during the 2025 legislative session, but the bill ultimately failed in committee by just one vote. Had it passed, the legislation would have provided Kari with immunity from these lawsuits, allowed her to get them dismissed more quickly, and enabled her to recover attorney fees and damages. Instead, the school officials faced no consequences for weaponizing the courts—no filing fees, no sanctions, no deterrent at all. People United for Privacy (Video): How Privacy Reforms Can Protect Americans from Political Violence .....From elected officials and citizen activists to donors and everyday Americans, individuals who participate in public life increasingly face threats to their safety. On October 23, 2025, experts from People United for Privacy Foundation, Americans for Prosperity, and the Institute for Free Speech convened to discuss the role privacy reform should play in safeguarding civic engagement. Featuring: Scott Blackburn (Legal Portfolio Manager, Americans for Prosperity) Dr. Helen Knowles-Gardner (Research Director, Institute for Free Speech) Matt Nese (Vice President, People United for Privacy Foundation) New from the Institute for Free Speech Free Speech Arguments – May Burdensome Disclosure Laws Create a De Facto Ban on Political Ads? (State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, Inc.) .....State of Washington v. Meta Platforms, Inc., argued before the Supreme Court of Washington on October 28, 2025. Argued by Robert McKenna (on behalf of Meta Platforms, Inc.) and Cristina Sepe, Deputy Solicitor General of the State of Washington (on behalf of State of Washington) . Background of the case, from the Supplemental Brief of Petitioner Meta: The Courts New York Times (gift link): Exxon Sues California Over New Climate Disclosure Laws By Karen Zraick .....Exxon Mobil sued California late Friday claiming that two new state laws that aim to fight climate change would violate the oil company’s free speech rights. The two laws, passed in 2023 and known as the California Climate Accountability Package, would require thousands of large companies doing business in the state to calculate and report the greenhouse gas emissions created by the use of their products, along with the business risks that climate change represents for the companies. Requiring companies to calculate the climate damage caused by people using their products is a major change. In the past, climate regulations have generally required companies to report their own corporate emissions, but not emissions caused by people using the products that they manufacture and sell... Exxon’s lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, argued that the laws would force the company to use flawed methodology to calculate these emissions and would misrepresent the role that Exxon and its products play in warming the world. The suit asked a judge to block the state from enforcing the laws against it. “The statutes compel Exxon Mobil to trumpet California’s preferred message even though Exxon Mobil believes the speech is misleading and misguided,” the lawsuit said. Courthouse News: Puerto Rico law against ‘false alarms’ gets free speech scrutiny at First Circuit By Thomas F. Harrison .....A Puerto Rico law that criminalizes spreading false information that harms the public came under withering criticism at oral argument at the First Circuit Monday, with the judges strongly suggesting that it violates the First Amendment. Puerto Rico enacted the law in 2017 and strengthened it in 2020 following the devastation of Hurricane Maria and in the midst of the Covid pandemic. It makes it a crime to (1) make a false warning about an imminent catastrophe in Puerto Rico or (2) make a false statement that endangers safety or property during a declared state of emergency. The law applies only if the speaker knows the information is false. The penalty for a violation is up to six months in prison and a $5,000 fine, although it can be increased to a felony with a three-year prison term if the violation causes a personal injury or $10,000 in property damage. Early Returns - Law and Politics with Jan Baran: Shadow Docket Showdown: Trump Litigation, Judicial Tensions, and the Supreme Court's Emergency Powers .....Host Jan Baran welcomes back Josh Gerstein, Senior Legal Affairs Reporter for Politico, for a comprehensive review of the litigation landscape surrounding the Trump administration. They dive into the Supreme Court's increasingly prominent "shadow docket" and how it has become essential for advancing presidential agendas through executive action rather than legislation. The conversation covers major legal flashpoints including immigration enforcement cases, National Guard deployments in California, Oregon, and Illinois, and the administration's removal of officials from independent agencies. Josh and Jan explore the unprecedented criticism of the Supreme Court by lower court judges, growing concerns about judicial security, and the tension between executive power and judicial review. They also preview significant upcoming cases, including Louisiana v. Callais on voting rights and race-conscious redistricting, and a potentially landmark tariffs case with broad implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. The discussion highlights how recent Senate confirmation process changes could reshape federal agencies and examines the legal doctrine of the "Unitary Executive." MLive: St. Charles officials violated Constitution by removing political signs, judge rules By Cole Waterman .....The village of St. Charles violated the U.S. Constitution when its president removed political signs from residents’ yards, a federal judge has ruled. Trump Administration Just Security: How Designating Antifa as a Foreign Terrorist Organization Could Threaten Civil Liberties By Thomas E. Brzozowski .....To understand why an Antifa FTO designation would be so consequential, one must first grasp the extraordinary scope of authorities that such designations unleash. The FTO system was deliberately constructed to maximize governmental power against international terrorist threats. Created by the 1996 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, the framework provides the executive branch with extraordinary authorities that are designed to dismantle terrorist networks quickly and comprehensively. Once an organization is designated as an FTO, providing “material support” to it becomes a federal crime punishable by up to 20 years in prison, or life if the support results in death. The statutory definition of “material support” is intentionally expansive and includes providing: “currency or monetary instruments, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, personnel, and transportation.” Only medicine and religious materials are explicitly exempted. The breadth of this definition reflects Congress’s determination to eliminate all forms of assistance to designated organizations. The statute applies to U.S. persons regardless of where the prohibited conduct occurs, creating global reach for American terrorism prosecutions. The Supreme Court’s decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project clarified that even speech intended to promote peaceful conflict resolution may constitute material support if provided to a designated organization. The States Montana Free Press: Attorney general rules ‘anti-dark money’ ballot initiative has too many parts By Zeke Lloyd .....Attorney General Austin Knudsen rejected a proposed ballot initiative aimed at ending corporate money in Montana political campaigns on Friday, deeming it legally insufficient. The initiative’s primary advocate, former State Commissioner of Political Practices Jeff Mangan, said in a Monday interview that he plans to challenge the decision in court. The proposed constitutional initiative would alter the law that applies to businesses, nonprofits and other incorporated entities that operate in Montana, barring them from contributing to campaigns and political committees that work to influence election outcomes. That ban would also prevent a two-step workaround that allows individuals to make anonymous political donations by giving to corporations that, in turn, donate to political committees that are technically required to disclose their donors. Knudsen, a Republican whose job duties include evaluating proposed initiatives for “legal sufficiency,” struck down the initiative on the grounds that it affects more than one area of the Montana Constitution. He also wrote that it could cost the state up to $500,000 if it were challenged as incompatible with the United States Constitution and that it would bar businesses, nonprofits, trade associations and labor unions from lobbying. Mangan said attorneys with his group, the Transparent Election Initiative, would officially dispute the attorney general’s conclusion within the legally required 10-day window. AG of Texas: Attor­ney Gen­er­al Pax­ton Opens Inves­ti­ga­tion into Love Austin PAC and Affil­i­at­ed Orga­ni­za­tion for Oper­at­ing Scheme to Pass Prop­er­ty Tax Increase .....Attorney General Ken Paxton is launching investigations into multiple organizations regarding a potentially illegal fundraising scheme designed to pass Proposition Q (“Prop Q”) in Austin, TX, which is a ballot measure that would raise property taxes. In an effort to pass Prop Q, which will be on the November 4 ballot, non-profit organization Foundation Communities, Inc. (“Foundation Communities”) has reportedly pledged to donate $25,000 to the Love Austin Political Action Committee (“Love Austin PAC”). Foundation Communities stands to financially benefit from the passage of Prop Q, as it would likely receive a portion of the funds collected by raising Texans’ property taxes. As part of the investigation, Attorney General Paxton has issued a Request to Examine (“RTE”) to both Foundation Communities and Love Austin PAC. Attorney General Paxton is investigating to determine if any laws have been broken related to non-profit compliance with campaign finance laws. Washington Examiner: NJ ELEC votes to allow Ciattarelli to sue Sherrill for defamation during campaign By Molly Parks .....Republican candidate Jack Ciattarelli can legally sue his opponent, Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-NJ), during their race to be New Jersey‘s next governor, the state election board said. The New Jersey Election Law Enforcement Commission issued an advisory opinion Monday that, as long as Ciattarelli uses his own personal funds, the Republican can file a defamation lawsuit against Sherrill. Ciattarelli sought an opinion from NJ ELEC to ensure that a lawsuit before Election Day would not violate any campaign finance laws. Ciattarelli initially threatened to sue Sherrill in early October over her comments at the second gubernatorial debate. Sherrill alleged that Ciattarelli profited from New Jersey’s opioid crisis through his medical publishing company and was subsequently responsible for the deaths of thousands who died from the opioid epidemic. She launched a webpage on the issue, calling him “Opioid Jack.” The New Jersey GOP candidate dismissed Sherrill’s claims as lies and wrote a letter to NJ ELEC on Oct. 15, seeking the advisory opinion. Monday morning, the board voted unanimously to pass an advisory opinion giving Ciattarelli the go-ahead. “Mr. Ciattarelli may use his personal funds to pay for a defamation lawsuit initiated in his individual capacity against Mikie Sherrill, also in her individual capacity. So long as the expenses are not in aid of his gubernatorial candidacy, they will not be subject to the $25,000 contribution limit on personal contributions or the $18.5 million expenditure cap,” NJ ELEC’s legal director, Theresa J. Lelinski, said. 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