February 3, 2026

New from the Institute for Free Speech

To Buckley v. Valeo: The Decision that Saved Democracy

By Bradley A. Smith

.....Americans hate the combination of money and politics. Of that there can be no doubt. Every public opinion poll taken on the topic reflects that reality, as do the daily conversations I have about politics.

Substantial majorities of Americans see political contributions and spending as a source of corruption, believing that officeholders routinely sell votes or other official action in exchange for campaign contributions. It matters naught that there is near-unanimous agreement among political scientists who have studied the issue that campaign contributions do little or nothing to affect how a politician votes once in office.

Further, when wealthy Americans deploy their financial assets to argue for their preferred policies and candidates, it strikes many Americans as an affront to political equality. Few people can comfortably afford to spend $1,000 in an election campaign, let alone six, seven, or eight figures. Why should being rich give someone more political influence? That a big-spending political donor might empower millions of Americans who share the donor’s views but otherwise would not be heard, is rarely considered.

In recent years, discontent with money and politics has focused on the Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which held that U.S. corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money in support of or opposition to candidates. But Citizens United, while a very important decision, was not quite the game-changer many casual observers think it is.

Effective Advocacy

By Allen Dickerson

.....Buckley v. Valeo ranks among the most consequential articulations of American liberty, and yet almost no one reads it in full. It is a famously long decision, written on an emergency timeline, addressing technical material. It lacks the gripping rhetoric of, say, Justice Robert Jackson’s great First Amendment opinions—you will find no paeans to the “fixed stars in our constitutional constellation” here.

But, for all its complexity and compromise, Buckley stood fast on a key point: the Constitution protects effective political organization. The First Amendment exists “to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.”

Free speech is central to individual dignity. But it is also the foundation of democratic self-government. We have Buckley to thank for the enduring influence of that idea.

The Courts

Wall Street Journal (gift link): Trump Sues Treasury Department, IRS Over Tax Return Leak

By Joseph Pisani, Richard Rubin, and C. Ryan Barber

.....President Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department Thursday, alleging the agencies didn’t do enough to prevent an IRS contractor from leaking his tax returns to the press in 2019.

Trump, as well as his two eldest sons and the business that bears his name, is seeking at least $10 billion from the government he runs. The lawsuit was filed in Miami federal court.

The lawsuit alleges that the IRS failed to properly screen workers and monitor its systems, leading to the leak by Charles Littlejohn, the IRS contractor who admitted to providing tax returns to the New York Times and ProPublica. Littlejohn was sentenced to five years in prison in 2024.

In the lawsuit, Trump said the leak hurt his family’s reputation and alleged it was done to “improperly influence the results of the 2020 presidential election.” The lawsuit alleges that the government acted in an “overtly political nature.” At the time, the Treasury Department and IRS were part of the first Trump administration.

The Bopp Law Firm, PC: Federal Court Halts Attempt to Compel National Right to Life’s Internal Advocacy Communications

By James Bopp, Jr.

.....A federal district court in Washington, D.C. has granted a motion to quash subpoenas issued to the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) in Matsumoto et al. v. Labrador, reaffirming strong First Amendment protections for national advocacy organizations.

The court's decision shields NRLC from producing internal communications and advocacy materials sought by plaintiffs challenging Idaho House Bills 242 and 98—legislation addressing abortion trafficking of a minor enacted by the Idaho Legislature. The subpoenas were served in September 2025 and demanded broad categories of documents dating back several years.

Courthouse News: Hawaii's deepfake law struck down over free speech concerns

By Jeremy Yurow

.....A federal judge in Hawaii delivered a sweeping victory to satirists and political commentators on Friday, ruling that the state’s law banning certain digitally altered election content violates the First Amendment.

U.S. District Judge Shanlyn Park granted summary judgment to The Babylon Bee, a conservative satire website, permanently blocking enforcement of Hawaii’s Act 191. The law, which was set to take effect Feb. 2, aimed to curb the use of deepfakes and AI-generated content in state elections.

In a 38-page opinion, the Joe Biden appointee found that the law imposed unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.

“Political speech, of course, is at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect,” Park wrote in her order.

NLRB Edge: The ACLU Is Attempting to Limit the Speech Rights of All Private Sector Workers

By Matt Bruenig

.....Earlier this month, as part of their appeal of the NLRB ALJ decision, the ACLU filed a troubling motion asking the NLRB to allow the ACLU to file a supplemental brief to the Board. In this short motion, the ACLU makes it clear that it wishes to submit a brief arguing that the Trump NLRB should overturn current NLRB precedent that expansively protects workers’ rights to complain about their working conditions in favor of narrower legal constructions that make it much easier for employers to fire workers for speaking up.

Jonesing for Nonprofits: Federal Court Enjoins Texas From Running Nonprofit Voter Registration Org Out of Town

By Darryll K. Jones

.....In a stinging rebuke, a federal judge ruled the Younger abstention doctrine inapplicable and then enjoined a state court proceeding to evict a nonprofit organization from the state for its voter registration activities focusing on encouraging young Latino voters.

Trump Administration

Washington Post: Homeland Security is targeting Americans with this secretive legal weapon

By John Woodrow Cox

.....Though the U.S. government had been accused under previous administrations of overstepping laws and guidelines that restrict the subpoenas’ use, privacy and civil rights groups say that, under President Donald Trump, Homeland Security has weaponized the tool to strangle free speech.

For many Americans, the anonymous ICE officer, masked and armed, represents Homeland Security’s most intimidating instrument, but the agency often targets people in a far more secretive way.

Reason: Group Chats About ICE Whereabouts Are Protected Speech. The FBI Is Investigating Anyway.

By Elizabeth Nolan Brown

.....Group chats about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents aren't illegal. But FBI Director Kash Patel doesn't seem to care.

On Monday, Patel told conservative podcaster Benny Johnson that the FBI was investigating a Signal group in which people had been chatting about ICE agents' whereabouts.

The Trump administration has said that people are doxing federal agents, employing a term once reserved for the act of publishing private information about someone's identity or address online. "Doxing" generally implies that this sharing is done with ill intent.

But there are all sorts of perfectly benign reasons why Americans—whether in the country legally or not—might want to keep tabs on where immigration authorities are going. Sharing this information allows people to protest, observe, or document ICE activity, or avoid run ins with ICE agents.

Chatting about ICE agent whereabouts is unambiguously speech that's protected by the First Amendment. So the idea that the FBI would investigate on these grounds is worrying.

Free Expression

Washington Post: College deans aren’t protected by academic freedom

By Ilya Shapiro and Josh Blackman

.....The University of Arkansas School of Law hired Professor Emily Suski as dean in early January, but promptly rescinded that offer less than a week later based on “feedback from key external stakeholders.”

It turns out that Suski joined a Supreme Court brief arguing that federal law guarantees biological males the right to participate in female sports. That position might seem self-evident in the ivory tower, but in the real world, there’s consensus across the political spectrum that this position is wrong as a matter of law, policy and science…

To be sure, universities are legally bound to protect speech rights. Public institutions such as the University of Arkansas must comply with the First Amendment. Private universities typically have similar contractual protections, as well as strings attached to federal funds. But this is immaterial to Suski’s firing.

First, the free speech clause does not protect a dean who is appointed by a university to serve the institution’s interests. Under Supreme Court jurisprudence, government employees’ speech rights decrease as they go up the organizational chart. People tend to lose some of their speech rights as they gain managerial authority. Eugene Volokh rightly analogizes law school deans to political appointees who are picked to advance a particular agenda — so of course ideology can be considered.

The States

City & State NY: New York lawmakers want to keep AI out of news

By Rebecca C. Lewis

.....A new proposal from state lawmakers aims to make sure that when First Read hits your inbox every morning, you know that it’s made by human hands, rather than AI. 

State Sen. Pat Fahy and Assembly Member Nily Rozic have introduced the New York Fundamental Artificial Intelligence Requirements in News Act, or the NY FAIR News Act. The legislation would enact several protections for journalists and news industry workers, including requiring media companies to inform employees how they utilize AI to make content and prohibiting them from replacing human workers with artificial intelligence. The bill would also create safeguards to protect journalists and their sources from AI systems and establish safeguards for the public, like requiring disclosures if a news organization substantially uses artificial intelligence to create published content. 

First Alert 6: Nebraska lawmakers push bill to crack down on swatting calls

By Brenna Kiefner

.....Nebraska state lawmakers will debate legislation this week to crack down on “swatting” calls after a hoax threat forced Wayne schools into lockdown for two and a half hours Friday.

The bill comes as Nebraska currently does not have a specific swatting law, leaving prosecutors to rely on other charges when fake emergency calls trigger large police responses…

LB 1020 would make swatting a misdemeanor for first-time offenders. The charges would escalate to a felony if someone gets hurt or police deploy deadly force during the response.

The bill would also force offenders to pay for all emergency response costs, medical treatment and property damage.

News from the States: Senate moves campaign-finance reform. House panel promptly kills it

By Taylor Vance

.....A Senate committee approved legislation to reform Mississippi’s notoriously lax campaign finance laws, while a House committee made clear it has no intentions of even considering it. 

The Senate Elections Committee on Thursday approved a bill that would require local and state candidates to file reports online, cap cash donations from any donor to political candidates at $1,000 and corporate donations, cash or otherwise, to $1,000 a year. Donations from individuals, other than cash, would still not be capped. The measure would transfer enforcement authority from the Mississippi Ethics Commission to both the Secretary of State’s office and the Attorney General’s office.