Free Speech Arguments

Institute for Free Speech
  • 5.0(4개의 평가)
  • 정부

Presented by the Institute for Free Speech The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.

  1. 5시간 전

    IRS Donor Disclosure Law: What First Amendment Standard of Review Applies? (The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service)

    Episode 50: The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech website: The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a decades-old tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye’s lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association. The IRS itself admits that it does not need these donor records, and issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in related contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires it. The lawsuit claims that Buckeye’s work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye’s supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause... District Court Judge Michael H. Watson ruled that exacting scrutiny is the appropriate level of judicial review to apply to the law in question in the Buckeye case. Relying on AFPF, Judge Watson’s order shifts the burden to the IRS. The government must prove that this law is narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest in tax enforcement and administration. That means the government must justify collecting sensitive donor information from every 501(c)(3) non-profit every year. A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That’s the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson’s ruling, stating that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review. Statement of Issues, from the Appellee’s Brief: Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.”Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development. Resources:     Institute for Free Speech case page (contains all documents)Opening Brief for the AppellantAppellee’s BriefSixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory ReviewInstitute for Free Speech Blog Post, “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny”The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    50분

  2. 4월 13일

    Can Government Retaliate Against Critics by Launching an Investigation and Demanding Documents? (Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission)

    Episode 48: Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission  Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission). Case Summary, adapted from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee Media Matters: When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged. MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters’ articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content. The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA. Musk’s company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X’s terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA. The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed. Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee MMFA: Whether the district court had jurisdiction.Whether Media Matters has a cause of action.Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation.Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking.Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities. Resources:     Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for AmericaBrief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al.CourtListener DocketDistrict Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    1시간 31분

  3. 4월 8일

    Can Government Punish Nondisruptive Private Speech of Its Employees? (Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.)

    Episode 47: Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials).   Case Summary, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief:  “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee’s right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge…  “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article’s link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring’ a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.”   “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.”    Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief:   Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge’s interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate.Resources:     Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees’ Brief Appellees’ En Banc Brief  Appellants’ En Banc Supplemental Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    1시간 38분

  4. 3월 17일

    Can Government Refuse Media Credentials Based on a Journalist’s Viewpoint? (Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al.)

    Episode 46: Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al.  Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. argued before Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy, and Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on March 17, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Utah Political Watch) and Daniel Vitagliano (on behalf of Utah legislative officials).    Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page:  Bryan Schott, a journalist with 25 years of experience covering Utah politics, is fighting back after being denied press credentials under a newly revised policy that appears designed to silence independent reporting. Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed suit on behalf of Schott and his outlet, Utah Political Watch (UPW), against Utah legislative officials who denied Schott’s application for press credentials. The denial came after the Utah Legislature changed its credentialing rules in November 2024 to exclude “blogs, independent media outlets or freelance media,” a change made just weeks after Schott inquired about obtaining credentials for the 2025 session.   Despite receiving press credentials every year they were offered since at least 2013, Schott, a recipient of the National Press Foundation’s Election Journalism Fellowship and Utah’s Best Newspaper Reporter award, was denied access for the 2025 legislative session. The denial followed Schott’s hard-hitting coverage of Senate President Stuart Adams. Schott was blocked from covering key events, including the House GOP’s legislative priorities announcement and the governor’s monthly press conference. Additionally, without credentials, he cannot attend the legislative session itself or daily leadership meetings, participate in Friday media availabilities with the Speaker, or access areas of the Capitol reserved for press coverage.  Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief:  Are any of the following allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging First Amendment violations for viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, prior restraint and unconstitutional vagueness?   A government media credentialing policy that expressly excludes “independent media” from receiving media credentials constitutes viewpoint discrimination against independent voices;  A media credentialing policy that uses subjective and vague terms such as “established reputable news organization,” and “blogs, independent media and other freelance media” affords too much discretion to government officials issuing credentials;  Government officials apply criteria not included in the written credentialing policy, including requiring institutional ownership and editorial control; or,   A media credentialing policy was revised and applied inconsistently to deny credentials and access to a single reporter who had gotten under the skin of elected officials. Should a preliminary injunction issue to prevent the defendants from denying media credentials based on the viewpoint expressed?  Resources:     Appellants’ Opening Brief Appellees’ Response Brief Our Client’s Story blog Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    36분

  5. 2월 26일

    Buckley v. Valeo Expert Panel Discussion

    Episode 45: The Enduring Legacy of Buckley v. Valeo January 30, 2026, marked the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo. To commemorate the anniversary, the Institute for Free Speech convened a virtual panel to reflect on the history of the case and its enduring legacy. Moderated by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, the panel discussion featured the insights of Bradley A. Smith, Joel Gora, and Eugene Volokh. About the panel:  Brad Smith is the Founder & Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He is one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law and the First Amendment. Joel Gora is a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School and a former attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. While at the ACLU, Joel was one of three advocates that argued against the law challenged in Buckley v. Valeo before the Supreme Court. Eugene Volokh is a legal scholar who is the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the co-founder of the popular legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy. Kim Strassel is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. She writes the  All Things with Kim Strassel  newsletter and hosts the associated podcast by the same name. Resources:  ⁠Buckley v. Valeo blog series ⁠⁠Original Buckley v. Valeo oral argument audio⁠ ⁠Expert panel transcript⁠ (Note: The transcript was automatically generated. Please excuse any typos or transcription inaccuracies.) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    1시간 11분

  6. 1월 20일

    Oral Arguments in the Landmark Case That Saved Democracy (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976)

    January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark First Amendment speech clause case. While the podcast normally airs current oral arguments, we thought that it would be interesting to spotlight the oral arguments in this landmark case during month of its anniversary. Episode 44: Buckley v. Valeo James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975 and decided on January 30, 1976. Argued by Ralph K. Winter, Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett, and  (on behalf of James L. Buckley) and Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of Francis R. Valeo).    Case Background [from the Federal Election Commission]: On January 2, 1975, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, Eugene McCarthy, Presidential candidate and former Senator from Minnesota, and several others. The defendants included Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the newly formed Federal Election Commission, and the Commission itself. The plaintiffs charged that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), under which the Commission was formed, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act were unconstitutional on a number of grounds. On January 24, 1975, pursuant to Section 437h(a) of the FECA, the district court certified the constitutional questions in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 15, 1975, the appeals court rendered a decision upholding almost all of the substantive provisions of the FECA with respect to contributions, expenditures and disclosure. The court also sustained the constitutionality of the method of appointing the Commission. On September 19, 1975, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which reached its decision on January 30, 1976.  Questions Presented, from the Appellants' Brief:  1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on expenditures by political candidates and organizations are constitutional? 2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitation imposed by FECA on expenditures by any person relative to a clearly identified candidate are constitutional? 3. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on contributions to political candidates and organizations are constitutional? 4. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the disclosure requirements imposed on political candidates, organizations and individuals by FECA are constitutional? 5. Did the courts below correctly conclude that the public financing provisions of FECA and Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code are constitutional? 6. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the method provided by FECA for appointing members of the Federal Election Commission is constitutional? 7. Did the Court of Appeals properly decline to decide whether certain powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA are constitutional? 8. Are the powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA constitutional? Resources:    Supreme Court OpinionInstitute for Free Speech AnalysisC-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 1C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 2C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 3The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    4시간 1분

  7. 2025. 12. 09.

    Can Congress Limit Coordination Between a Party and Its Candidates? (National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.)

    Episode 43: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of National Republican Senatorial Committee), Sarah M. Harris (on behalf of the federal respondents in support of petitioners), Roman Martinez (Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae defending the law), and Marc Elias (Counsel for Intervenor-Respondents DNC, DSCC, and DCCC).   Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket:  A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d).   In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called “coordinated party expenditure limits” stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising (“party coordinated communications”), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (Colorado II). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II, this Court “has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation,” that “tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court,” and that relevant facts have “changed, most notably with 2014 amendments” to the limits and “the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees.” App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought “any new assessment of the validity of the limits” remained the Supreme Court’s “province, not ours.” App.14a-15a.   The question presented is:   Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37.  Resources:    Brief for the Petitioners NRSC Brief for the Respondents FEC Supreme Court Docket Sixth Circuit Oral Argument Audio Institute for Free Speech SCOTUS Amicus Brief Campaign Regulations Are Unconstitutional, by Bradley A. Smith, The Wall Street Journal The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    2시간 11분

  8. 2025. 12. 03.

    Can the Government Constitutionally Use Broad Subpoena Power in a Way that Chills Nonprofit and Donor Speech? (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin)

    Episode 42: First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. Argued by Erin Morrow Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General (on behalf of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers), and Sundeep Subramanian Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General of New Jersey (on behalf of the state of New Jersey).   Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page:  First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a Christian medical nonprofit serving pregnant women, new mothers, and fathers. The Attorney General of New Jersey has specifically singled out this organization due to its religious beliefs and pro-life stance. New Jersey thus issued a sweeping and unjustified subpoena, demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit. This places a heavy burden on the organization, forcing it to allocate its limited resources to comply or face legal consequences. Despite this, the Attorney General has not provided any concrete evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such intrusive measures.  Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket:  New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court. The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues. The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court? Resources:    Brief for Petitioner First Choice Women’s Resource Center Brief for Respondent Matthew Platkin Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief Supreme Court Docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

    1시간 22분
모두 보기(49개)

평가 및 리뷰

5
최고 5점
4개의 평가

소개

Presented by the Institute for Free Speech The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.

정보

  • 제작진
    Institute for Free Speech
  • 방송 연도
    2024년 - 2026년
  • 에피소드
    49
  • 등급
    전체 연령 사용가
  • 저작권
    © Institute for Free Speech
  • 웹사이트 보기
    Free Speech Arguments

좋아할 만한 다른 항목