Year
Issue Area
Court
2026
Rio Grande Foundation v. Oliver
Question Presented
1. Whether New Mexico’s informational interest is sufficient under exacting scrutiny to justify applying its disclosure regime to issue advocacy organizations, like Petitioner, that engage in no express advocacy or its functional equivalent. 2. Whether applying New Mexico’s disclosure regime to an organization that does not meet Buckley’s “major purpose” test and does not engage in express advocacy, like Petitioner, constitutes narrow tailoring under exacting scrutiny absent donor earmarking. 3. Whether disclosure regimes applied to issue advocacy organizations, like Petitioner, that engage exclusively in political speech—without express advocacy or its functional equivalent—must satisfy strict scrutiny rather than exacting scrutiny.
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.
Amicus Commentary
- All
Ryan Mulvey on WBNA TV 21 Kentucky’s Voice Discussing the Misuse of Copyright Law to Block Records Requests
AFP Foundation’s Ryan Mulvey appeared on WBNA’s Kentucky’s Voice to discuss AFP Foundation’s coalition brief urging Sixth Circuit to protect public access and rein in abuses of copyright law.
AFP Foundation Leads Coalition Brief Urging Sixth Circuit to Protect Public Access and Rein in Abuses of Copyright Law
ARLINGTON, VA – Today, a coalition of organizations led by Americans for Prosperity Foundation (AFP Foundation) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Stovall v. Jefferson County Board of Education, a pivotal case concerning government transparency and the misuse of copyright law to block access to public…
AFPF Files Amicus Brief Applauding President Trump’s Effort to Spur The End of The De Facto Fourth Branch of Government
The separation of powers is badly distorted. Today, there are many administrative bodies within the Executive Branch that Congress has tried to shield from presidential control, and in doing so, set up a veritable Fourth Branch of government. President Trump recently has taken several actions to assert his proper control over these extraconstitutional administrative bodies. …
New York Appellate Court Strikes Down A State Practice Allowing Intrusive Surveillance Of Innocent Families
In a significant win for the liberty interests of parents in the care and custody of their children, yesterday a New York appellate court vacated and held unlawful a longstanding state practice that subjected parents who were never accused of any wrongdoing to ongoing supervision by local child services officers. That supervision allowed state authorities…
D.C. Circuit Rules “Clawback” Orders Foreclosed by the FOIA
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit released a noteworthy decision today in Human Rights Defense Center v. U.S. Park Police, a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) case in which the federal government sought a court order requiring the return or destruction of “inadvertently disclosed” records. Such relief is commonly known…
NetChoice and the “Informational Interest”: Can the Government Ensure You Listen to the Right Message?
The Supreme Court’s decision in NetChoice v. Moody, the much-anticipated challenge to Texas’s regulation of social media companies, was not the barnburner many had anticipated. Instead of deciding the First Amendment question directly, the Court found that neither lower court did the proper facial analysis, meaning they must not only find a First Amendment violation…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation releases summary of engagement for Supreme Court October 2023 term
Arlington, VA – Americans for Prosperity Foundation today released a report of its amicus engagement during the October 2023 Supreme Court term. AFPF Chief Policy Counsel James Valvo said: This term the Supreme Court upheld protections for free expression, ruling the government cannot coerce companies to stop doing business with organizations based on their speech. The…
Have you heard of these cases before the Supreme Court? Here’s why they should matter to you
UPDATE: On 5/30/2024, in a win for the First Amendment, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in NRA v. Vullo that government officials cannot pressure or otherwise coerce organizations to terminate certain business relationships when doing so infringes the First Amendment rights of the third party. This Supreme Court term has been full of high-profile cases.…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation releases summary of Supreme Court engagement for October 2024 term
Arlington, VA – Americans for Prosperity Foundation today released a report of its amicus engagement during the October 2024 Supreme Court term. AFP Foundation Chief Policy Counsel James Valvo said: “AFPF remains committed to providing the Supreme Court with the best legal arguments to defend liberty and ensure the proper textual interpretation of the Constitution and other laws. We…