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
In Uzuegbunam, the Supreme Court validates nominal damages as a means of protecting constitutional rights
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s March 8, 2021, ruling in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, No. 19-968, that a claim for nominal damages is enough to maintain standing, plaintiffs’ ability to seek vindication in court for infringement of speech rights is secure, even where the plaintiff cannot prove monetary harm. As Casey Mattox and I recently wrote…
Americans for Prosperity Foundation and yes. every kid. file brief in Supreme Court educational freedom case
Every kid needs and deserves a quality education — one that provides them with essential skills and helps them find and develop their talents and interests. Our nation’s education system should be flexible and responsive enough to support students as they identify the subjects and practices that engage them and drive their passion. That’s the…
Narrow question in Supreme Court campus speech case has broad First Amendment implications
The Supreme Court hears oral argument today in Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski, addressing whether “a government’s post-filing change of an unconstitutional policy moots nominal-damages claims that vindicate the government’s past, completed violation of a plaintiff’s constitutional right.” Translation? The justices are deciding whether people whose rights have been violated should have their day in court even…
SCOTUS has chance to clarify the muddy waters of takings jurisprudence in Cedar Point v. Hassid
From before the founding, the “fundamental maxims of a free government [have] seem[ed] to require, that the rights of personal liberty and private property should be held sacred.” The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment exists to protect those sacred rights from unfettered state appropriation by requiring: first, that any taking of private property be…
Supreme Court should protect citizens’ rights to freely access U.S. waters
When Jim and Cliff Courtney sought to offer private boat transportation so customers could conveniently access their businesses — including Stehekin Valley Ranch, with cabins and a lodge house in the Lake Chelan National Recreation Area — the state of Washington denied their right to do so unless the Courtneys could prove the existing ferry…
Supreme Court unanimously rules FTC must comply with the law
Today, the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in an opinion delivered by Justice Breyer that the Federal Trade Commission must comply with the law and end its ultra vires pursuit of money damages. The opinion presents a straightforward statutory interpretation of the scope of FTC enforcement power under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act, which allows…