Year
Issue Area
Court
2026
The Babylon Bee v. Bonta
Question Presented
Whether a California law that required large online platforms to police digitally created or modified political speech (so-called “deepfakes”) hosted on their platforms and remove them; label them as “materially deceptive content”; and provide a reporting mechanism to report content for removal or labeling, violates Section 230.
2026
E.D. v. Noblesville School District
Question Presented
Whether Hazelwood applies (1) whenever student speech might be erroneously attributed to the school, as the Fifth, Seventh, and Tenth Circuits have held; (2) when student speech occurs in the context of an “organized and structured educational activity,” as the Third Circuit has held; or (3) only when student speech is part of the “curriculum,” as the Sixth and Eleventh Circuits have held.
2025
The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service
Question Presented
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.
2025
National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo
Question Presented
When it is obvious that a government official’s conduct violates the Constitution under longstanding Supreme Court precedent, is the violation clearly established for purposes of qualified immunity despite some factual distinctions that are irrelevant under the governing constitutional rule?
2025
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, Inc. v. Platkin
Question Presented
Whether, when the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, a federal court in a first-filed action is deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court.
2025
Villarreal v. Alaniz
Question Presented
(1) Whether it obviously violates the First Amendment to arrest someone for asking government officials questions and publishing the information they volunteer; and (2) whether qualified immunity is unavailable to public officials who use a state statute in a way that obviously violates the First Amendment, or instead shields those officials.
2025
Center for Arizona Policy, Inc. v. Arizona Secretary of State
Question Presented
Whether Arizona’s Prop 211, which requires multi-layer donor disclosure for issue advocacy, violates the First Amendment.
2025
Chiles v. Salazar
Question Presented
Whether a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause.
2025
Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond
Question Presented
1. Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students.
2. Whether a state violates the Free Exercise Clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or whether a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the Establishment Clause requires.
2025
First Choice v. Platkin
Question Presented
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.
2024
L.M. v. MiddleBorough
Question Presented
What legal standard is applicable to a student’s untargeted ideological speech that promotes a viewpoint different from the school’s preferred viewpoint.
Amicus Commentary
- All
AFP Foundation Files Amicus Brief in Relentless v. Department of Commerce
Americans for Prosperity Foundation (“AFPF”) has filed an amicus brief in Relentless v. Department of Commerce—the companion case to the historic Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. With Loper Bright held in abeyance on remand, the outcome in Relentless may have significant implications for proper implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act (“MSA”), as well as the understanding…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation Urges Supreme Court to Overrule Humphrey’s Executor and Restore Constitutional Accountability
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trump v. Slaughter, an important separation-of-powers case about democratic accountability, individual liberty, and representative self-government. In October, Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) filed an amicus brief urging the Court to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, a New Deal-era decision that helped create the Administrative State…
AFP Foundation Files Amicus Brief in U.S. Supreme Court Case Supporting Donor Privacy
CONTACT: AFP Media, media@afphq.org Washington, DC — Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFPF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, as they consider the issue of donor privacy in today’s oral argument, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, a case challenging a New Jersey Attorney General subpoena that seeks to force a nonprofit pregnancy center to reveal…
AFP Foundation Urges Supreme Court to Pare Back Qualified Immunity in First Amendment Cases
AFP Foundation filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of petitioner, NRA, which is seeking review of the application of qualified immunity to block recovery in its case alleging First Amendment infringement in NRA v. Vullo. If that name sounds familiar, it should. NRA v. Vullo was before the Supreme Court…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation Urges Supreme Court to Enforce Constitutional Limits on Federal Power to Regulate Local Conduct
Today, Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Canna Provisions Inc. et al. v. Bondi—an important constitutional challenge to Congress’s authority to regulate and criminalize purely local conduct that under our system of federalism is supposed to be handled at the state and local levels—urging the Court to address the important…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation Files Amicus Brief Urging the Supreme Court to End Fourth Branch of Government
Today, Americans for Prosperity Foundation filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in Trump et al. v. Slaughter et al. urging the Court to squarely overrule Humphrey’s Executor—a 1935 Supreme Court decision that led to the rise of so-called “independent agencies” that exercise executive power without being any accountable to any elected official. As…
Supreme Court Grants Cert in Trump v. Slaughter Teeing Up Whether Humphrey’s Executor Should Be Overruled
On September 22nd, the U.S. Supreme Court granted cert in Trump v. Slaughter, signaling it will address an important question of administrative law going to the heart of our system of separated powers and checks and balances: in essence, does the U.S. Constitution authorize the existence of a headless fourth branch of government comprised of…
AFPF Files Amicus Brief to Support Vigorous Application of AFPF v. Bonta
AFPF filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support of petitioner, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, which is seeking to protect its donors’ privacy of against an investigatory subpoena issued by the New Jersey Attorney General. This case should be controlled by AFPF v. Bonta, in which Americans for Prosperity Foundation protected…
Georgia Supreme Court Rules Constitutional Challenge To Direct-Sales Ban May Proceed
Americans for Prosperity Foundation celebrates a Georgia Supreme Court ruling in Lucid Group USA, Inc. v. State of Georgia allowing electric vehicle (EV) manufacturer Lucid’s lawsuit challenging Georgia’s direct-sales ban to continue as a win for economic liberty. As AFPF argued in an amicus brief in support of Lucid, “[a] willing buyer of a lawful…