December 8, 2025

In the News

Colorado Politics: Colorado Supreme Court to hear case on ballot measure disclosure requirements

By Marissa Ventrelli 

.....The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case challenging whether the state can require ballot measure committees to disclose the names of their registered agents in election communications.

The case stems from a complaint filed during the 2020 election against the ballot issue committee No on EE. The committee, formed in opposition to a ballot measure seeking to increase taxes on nicotine products and impose a new tax on vaping products, registered with the Secretary of State and provided the name of its registered agent, as required by law.

However, it did not include the agent’s name in its advertisements. According to No on EE, it immediately made corrections following the complaint.

Deputy Secretary of State Andrew Kline imposed a $30,000 fine on the committee for violating state election law, which was upheld in district court.

Last August, the Court of Appeals ruled that the disclosure requirement violated the First Amendment. The state appealed that decision, and the case is now headed to the state Supreme Court.

Courthouse News: New Hampshire ‘citizen flagpole’ creates free-speech controversy at First Circuit

By Thomas F. Harrison 

.....A New Hampshire city that allowed citizens to fly flags with political and other messages on a “citizen flagpole” outside City Hall could censor any flags it didn’t like, the city told the First Circuit Tuesday — but the court sounded skeptical that the practice was allowed under the First Amendment.

“Here’s the problem,” U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra Lynch said at oral argument. The city allowed flags “that are brought to it by private seekers who own the flags, design the flags and come up with the messages the flags display. The government is using the force of government to choose among those viewpoints. And that is what a government cannot do.”

New from the Institute for Free Speech

Ballot Committee Fights Speech Mandate at the Colorado Supreme Court

.....Colorado slapped a committee opposing a ballot measure with a $30,000 fine for accidentally failing to include the name of its registered agent in its political ads, even though the agent’s name would have provided voters with no useful information.

This type of burdensome requirement violates the First Amendment because it compels speech that serves no legitimate governmental interest.

That’s why the Institute for Free Speech represents the No on EE—A Bad Deal for Colorado committee (“No on EE”) at the Colorado Supreme Court, arguing in a just-filed brief that this requirement compels political speakers to clutter their messages with irrelevant information in a way that infringes on free political speech rights.

Supreme Court

Election Law Blog: After Trump v. Slaughter, Will There Be Independent Agencies Other than the Fed: The Case of the Federal Election Agencies

By Richard Pildes

.....As the Supreme Court’s Monday argument approaches in Trump v. Slaughter on the unitary executive branch theory and independent agencies, two outcomes already seem foreordained. The Court is likely to overrule Humphrey’s Executor and hold that the President must have the power to remove at will the commissioners of the FTC. As Justice Kagan wrote, dissenting from the Court’s stay decision on the emergency docket in Trump v. Boyle, the Court has already “all but overturned” Humphrey’s Executor. Second, the Court has also strongly signaled that it will not overturn the independence of the Federal Reserve, which the Court recently characterized as “a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.”

SCOTUSblog: Court appears sympathetic to faith-based pregnancy centers’ argument

By Amy Howe

.....The Supreme Court on Tuesday was sympathetic to a group of faith-based pregnancy centers in their quest to challenge New Jersey’s demand for information about the group’s fundraising practices in federal court. The state contends that the group, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, must litigate its claims in state court, but after Tuesday morning’s oral argument, a majority of the justices appeared ready to side with First Choice in its bid to litigate its First Amendment claim in federal court.

People United for Privacy: First Thoughts on the Oral Argument in First Choice

By Zac Morgan

.....“Really?”

That’s perhaps the best response to the arguments advanced by the State of New Jersey at oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in First Choice v. Platkin. And that’s not a personal reaction – that was Justice Barrett, caught responding in exasperated disbelief to an answer provided by New Jersey’s counsel in a colloquy with Justice Kagan.

First Choice should be a simple case. The attorney general of New Jersey issued a subpoena for First Choice’s donor list. That’s not a friendly ask – the attorney general of New Jersey has made plain his disgust with crisis pregnancy centers in general and First Choice in particular.

Donor privacy, in turn, is protected by the First Amendment. That right was firmly established by the Supreme Court in NAACP v. Alabama in 1958, when it held that the Constitution prohibited a virtually identical demand for the NAACP’s funders by the then-segregationist government of Alabama.

Under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, when a plaintiff alleges a deprivation of a constitutional right under color of law, they get access to a federal court to make that argument. But New Jersey has spent years trying to keep First Choice’s case from reaching the docket of a federal judge – it would much prefer to litigate this question on its home turf in the well of a New Jersey state court.

The Courts

Washington Post: The New York Times sues the Pentagon over press restrictions

By Scott Nover

.....The New York Times sued the Defense Department over its press policy prohibiting journalists from soliciting any information not explicitly authorized for release by the government. In a complaint filed Thursday morning in federal district court in Washington, the Times alleged that the press rules violated the First Amendment’s guarantee of a free press and the newspaper’s due process rights under the Fifth Amendment.

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): Geese, Ganders, and Pterodactyls: Amicus Brief in Fifth Circuit En Banc Rehearing of West Texas A&M Drag Ban Case

By Eugene Volokh

.....From a brief filed yesterday by Joshua J. Bennett (Baker & Hostetler LLP) on behalf of Dale Carpenter, the Cato Institute, and me in Spectrum WT v. Wendler (for the panel majority and dissent, see here):

Trump Administration

Reuters: Exclusive: Trump administration orders enhanced vetting for applicants of H-1B visa

By Humeyra Pamuk

.....The Trump administration on Wednesday announced increased vetting of applicants for H-1B visas for highly skilled workers, with an internal State Department memo saying that anyone involved in "censorship" of free speech be considered for rejection.

Just the News: DOJ alleges Democrat senators benefited from 'dark money' from megadonor Hoffman

By John Solomon and Steven Richards

.....The Justice Department alleged in a letter to the Senate on Wednesday night that Democrat megadonor and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman has funneled dark money through his network to benefit two U.S. senators who portray themselves as crusaders against such unaccountable contributions.  

The probe into Hoffman and his “political donor ecosystem” was spurred by a letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, following up on the Oct. 7 testimony of Attorney General Pam Bondi to the committee. 

In exchanges with Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the committee's top Democrat, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., over the Epstein files, Bondi confronted the senators and accused them of taking campaign donations from Hoffman, which both later denied in a letter to Grassley.

Hoffman’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein, who died a disgraced financier and sex offender, were previously reported as early as 2019. 

FEC

BakerHostetler: Energy, Elections & Influence — A Conversation with the Former FEC Chairman

.....Join us for a timely and thought-provoking webinar featuring Allen Dickerson, BakerHostetler partner and former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as he explores the evolving landscape of campaign finance law and its implications for energy companies navigating regulatory and political environments.

This exclusive session will cover:

• Campaign Finance Law 101: Key legal frameworks, recent Supreme Court decisions, and what Citizens United means for corporate political activity
• Energy Industry Impacts: How campaign contributions from utilities and energy companies influence regulatory outcomes and public policy
• Compliance Best Practices: What energy companies must know to stay within legal boundaries while engaging in advocacy
• Strategic Engagement: Opportunities and risks in political participation for energy firms, including PACs, Super PACs, and lobbying efforts
• Bipartisanship and the Future: Insights from federal regulatory experience on how energy policy can transcend political divides

Whether you're in government affairs, legal, compliance, or executive leadership, this session will equip you with the knowledge to navigate the complex intersection of energy, politics, and law.

Free Expression

Wall Street Journal: We’re in an Era of Political Violence

By Peggy Noonan

.....Somebody is going to get hurt.

Somebody already has.

This is a partial list of those killed or wounded recently in politically driven violence:

Two members of the West Virginia National Guard ambushed while on patrol near the White House on Nov. 26. Spc. Sarah Beckstrom, 20, killed; Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, is in serious condition. Prosecutors say a nearby guard saw them fall to the ground as the accused shooter, an Afghan exile, screamed, “Allahu Akbar!”

Charlie Kirk was assassinated as he spoke at a peaceful outdoor rally at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10. On June 14, 2025, Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, were shot and killed in their home in Brooklyn Park by a man impersonating a police officer. Earlier the same night state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, were shot and wounded in their home. The shooter is reported to have had a list of about 70 targets. In May, two Israeli Embassy staffers were shot to death outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington. In December 2024 Brian Thompson, CEO of UnitedHealthcare, was assassinated on the sidewalk outside a Manhattan hotel. The accused shooter was angry about protocols surrounding health-insurance coverage. On July 13, 2024, Donald Trump was wounded in an assassination attempt in Butler, Pa. In September 2024 another assassination attempt was thwarted at a golf club in West Palm Beach, Fla.

Online Speech Platforms

New York Times: Chatbots Can Meaningfully Shift Political Opinions, Studies Find

By Steven Lee Myers and Teddy Rosenbluth

.....A pair of studies published on Thursday in the journals Nature and Science found that a short interaction with a chatbot powered by artificial intelligence could meaningfully shift some people’s opinions about a political candidate or issue. Having a brief conversation with a trained chatbot proved roughly four times as persuasive as television ads from recent American presidential elections, one of the studies found.

The findings suggest that A.I. could play an increasing role in political campaigns, including in next year’s pivotal midterm elections in the United States, giving candidates and others tools to sway even those who say they have already made up their minds.

Racket News: Europe Fires a Speech Warning

By Matt Taibbi

.....From the New York Times:

The European Union on Friday fined X, the social media company owned by Elon Musk, $140 million for violating one of the bloc’s major laws targeting the technology industry… X is the first company to be fined under the European Union’s Digital Services Act, a sweeping law intended to force large internet companies to protect their platforms against manipulation and illicit content… In addition to Mr. Musk’s ties to the Trump administration… Mr. Musk has also become involved in European politics, backing far-right groups like the Alternative for Germany party.

The Digital Services Act, the European Commission’s content control law developed across multiple stages dating to the mid-2010s, has finally become fully operational, in Star Wars parlance. Officials announced a long-threatened €120 million (about $140 million) fine of Elon Musk’s X platform, with the major offenses being the use of a “deceptive” check mark program and failure to “provide researchers with access to the platform’s public data.”

The fine comes at a strange time. A few weeks ago, the EC began a public campaign of walking back its biggest censorship initiatives, thanks to a growing belief that its stifling regulatory environment was costing Old-World companies a chance to compete for investment in AI technology.

The States

Reno Gazette Journal: Don’t collect what you can’t protect

By Heather Lauer

.....When Nevada’s state government fell victim to a ransomware attack in August, the consequences were severe. Agencies were forced to shut down phone lines, websites and in-person services as officials scrambled to secure their networks and investigate what had been stolen. Last month, the state issued its final report recounting its extensive efforts to bring services back online and recover lost data.

The episode offers lessons for all state and local governments. Criminals and foreign adversaries target government websites to wreak havoc on public services and steal personal information. State agencies warehouse large amounts of data that can reveal sensitive information about our health, finances and even beliefs.

While collecting some of this data is unavoidable, one way to limit the risk of cyberattacks is to cut back on how much personal information is collected and stored by the government in the first place. Nevada took action on this front earlier in the year by passing legislation to prohibit state agencies from demanding identifying information about a nonprofit’s members, donors and volunteers except where required by current law.