Free Speech Arguments

Episode 57: NetChoice v. Jay Jones
NetChoice v. Jay Jones, argued before Judges J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Roger L. Gregory, and DeAndrea Gist Benjamin of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on October 28, 2026. Argued by Erin E. Murphy (on behalf of NetChoice) and Tillman J. Breckenridge (on behalf of the Commonwealth of Virginia).  
Case Summary, from the Appellees’ Brief: 
Virginia Senate Bill 854 is one of the latest attempts in a long line of government efforts to restrict new forms of constitutionally protected expression based on concerns about their potential effects on minors. Books, movies, rock music, and video games have all been accused of endangering minors in the past. Today, similar debates rage about “social media.” Those debates are important, and the government may certainly participate in them. But the First Amendment does not take kindly to government efforts to resolve them. The Constitution instead leaves the power to decide what speech and how much of it is appropriate for minors where it belongs: with their parents. 
Nevertheless, several states have recently enacted statutes restricting minors’ access to some of the most popular “social media” services. Courts across the country have held that these laws violate the First Amendment. And rightly so. States may certainly take steps to protect minors who use “social media,” but requiring minors to obtain parental consent before accessing those websites is not a narrowly tailored means of advancing a legitimate governmental interest… 
Like similar state efforts, SB854 violates the First Amendment. The law bans minors from spending more than an hour a day on a covered “social media” website unless they obtain parental consent. SB854, moreover, does not limit its reach to “social media” as that term is commonly understood. It defines “social media” broadly to reach websites like YouTube, blogging platforms like Dreamwidth, and messaging boards like College Confidential. By restricting the ability of minors (and adults, who must now prove their age) to access these websites, Virginia has restricted millions of Virginians “from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.” 
Issues Presented, from the Opening Brief for Appellant:   
Did the district court err in concluding that NetChoice was likely to establish that Virginia’s Parental Control Provision violates the First Amendment? 
Did the district court err in weighing the public interest, the balance of equities, and irreparable harm against Virginia? 
Resources:   
CourtListener Docket 
Opening Brief for Appellant 
Appellees’ Brief 
ACLU Amicus Brief in Support of Plaintiff-Appellees 

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.

Episode 56: Samantha Hallman v. Travis Reeds, et al. 
Samantha Hallman v. Travis Reeds, et al., argued before Senior Judge Eugene E. Siler, Jr., Senior Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton, and Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 21, 2026. Argued by Sophia Miller (on behalf of Samantha Hallman) and William H. Horton (on behalf of the Oakland County judges). 
Case Summary, from the Corrected Brief for Appellees: 
Appellant [Dr. Samantha Hallman] sought access to and copies of audio and video recordings of court proceedings from a Michigan district court and circuit court. The requests were denied pursuant to a Michigan Supreme Court rule requiring trial courts to enter an administrative order adopting a policy regarding access to and copying of court recordings from a list of permissible choices. The district court had entered an administrative order which does not allow access to or copying of such recordings. The circuit court had entered an administrative order allowing the viewing of such recordings but not copying. Appellant claims she has a First Amendment right to both access and copying. The District Court dismissed, holding the Michigan Supreme Court rule and the trial court administrative orders do not implicate the First Amendment. 
Statement of Issues, from the Corrected Brief for Appellees:  
Did the District Court err in deciding the motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and should this Court review that issue since it was not raised or decided in the District Court? Appellant says “yes.” Appellee says “no.” The issue was not raised or decided in the District Court. 
Did the District Court err in holding there is no constitutional right to access or copy recordings of trial court proceedings? Appellant says “yes.” Appellee says “no.” District Court said “no.” 
Resources:  
District Court Opinion   
Appellants’ Brief 
Corrected Brief for Appellees 
CourtListener 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.

Episode 55: Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts
Rhode Island Latino Arts v. National Endowment for the Arts, argued before Judges David J. Barron, Julie Rikelman, and Seth R. Aframe of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 7, 2026. Argued by Vera Eidelman (on behalf of Rhode Island Latino Arts) and Jennifer L. Utrecht (on behalf of the federal government / National Endowment for the Arts).
Case Summary, from the Corrected Brief for Appellants:  
The NEA opens applications for grants from the Grants for Arts Project—the NEA’s premier grant program—on a semiannual basis. Depending on the availability of congressionally appropriated funds, approved grant applications will typically receive between $10,000 to $100,000 for “specific, definable activities” outlined in the application. In advance of these application cycles, NEA historically has encouraged applications for projects covering certain topics, which often reflect issues of contemporary significance or other administration priorities… 
Approximately three weeks before the application deadline for the Grants for Arts Project, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”… The NEA responded by updating its grant procedures to require applicants to certify that federal funds would not be used to promote gender ideology, in compliance with the Executive Order. 
Statement of Issues, from the Corrected Brief for Appellants: 
Whether the district court erred in concluding that the process outlined in the NEA’s final notice is unlawful or arbitrary and capricious under the APA. 
Whether the district court erred in concluding that the final notice is facially unconstitutional. 
Whether the district court’s remedy is overbroad.
Resources:   
Corrected Brief for Appellants 
Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees 
District Court Summary Judgment Opinion 
CourtListener 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.

Episode 54: NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al.
NewsGuard Technologies, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission, et al., argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Patricia A. Millett, and Judge Bradley N. Garcia of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on October 6, 2026. Argued by Robert Corn-Revere (on behalf of NewsGuard Technologies) and Alex Potapov (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).  
Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellant:  
NewsGuard is a journalistic service founded in 2018 to provide assessments and reporting about the reliability of online news sources for consumers, businesses, and the public…NewsGuard developed a rating process for assessing reliability based on nine criteria that assess adherence to long-established practices of journalistic credibility and transparency—such as whether a news source references multiple sources and differing viewpoints in its reporting; takes action to correct errors; discloses ownership and financing of the site; or publishes demonstrably false information… 
Over the years, NewsGuard has faced criticisms from across the political spectrum that its ratings are biased in one direction or another. In one year, for example, one advocacy group produced a report claiming NewsGuard’s ratings are biased against conservative publishers while another published a separate report claiming NewsGuard’s ratings are biased in favor of conservatives. Most attacks have come from news publishers that receive lower scores based on NewsGuard’s application of journalistic criteria… 
As a Commissioner on the FTC and continuing after he was appointed Chairman by President Trump, Appellee Andrew Ferguson has promoted an ideologically motivated effort to pursue and censor NewsGuard and other organizations that address the reliability of online sources. As reflected in his public statements and those of others in the administration (notably Brendan Carr, Chairman of the FCC), Ferguson’s view is that (1) the federal government can regulate “purely private censorship,” i.e., the government can investigate and punish private parties’ speech and editorial views if the government thinks they are biased; (2) providing website ratings or analyses to advertisers to help them protect brand safety constitutes collusive and impermissible “ad boycotts”; and (3) the government can use its full panoply of powers to pressure, intimidate, and coerce parties—directly and indirectly—to censor speech the government cannot ban outright. 
Statement of Issues: 
Whether the district court erred in denying NewsGuard’s motion for a preliminary injunction on irreparable harm grounds where NewsGuard alleged ongoing First Amendment injury from a campaign of retaliation— both directly and through coercion of intermediaries—severely limiting NewsGuard’s ability to disseminate its speech to news consumers, advertisers and other subscribers, including its news ratings, daily newsletters, and journalism about online misinformation. 
Resources:  
Statement by NewsGuard Co-CEOs Steven Brill and Gordon Crovitz Titled “Why We’ve Just Sued the Government” 
Brief of Appellant 
Response Brief of Defendants-Appellees 
CourtListener 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

Episode 53: Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence
Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence, argued before Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Marjorie O. Rendell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 10, 2026. Argued by Allen Dickerson (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity Foundation) and Emily Burton (on behalf of the state of Delaware). 
Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: 
…Delaware administers perhaps the most staggeringly overbroad donor disclosure regime in the nation. It reaches any mention of a candidate for office—including an incumbent officeholder—in a public communication made sixty days before a general election. A mere $500.01 in aggregate spending triggers the reporting requirement. Once triggered, any speaker that falls into Delaware’s regulatory maw must publish the name and address of every one of its donors giving more than $100, in aggregate, over a period of up to four years. 
Delaware makes no effort to connect the dots between an organization’s donor and a reporting organization’s often much later speech. There is no requirement that a donor earmark a contribution for a particular advertisement, for activity in Delaware, or even for ostensibly political purposes generally. There is no opportunity to opt out of funding regulated speech and thereby, through an act of unlikely prescience, proactively safeguard one’s privacy. There is not even a requirement that a contribution be given with knowledge that an organization might engage in a paltry amount of political speech in Delaware at some point in the future. Delaware simply asserts that its voters need to know every donor to an organization that dips a toe into advocacy within its borders—in this case, thousands of individuals, across the nation and across multiple years… 
Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for Appellants: 
Whether Appellants are likely to show that Delaware violates the First Amendment by requiring that any entity sponsoring any public communication that references a Delaware candidate near a Delaware election disclose all persons everywhere who donated more than $100 to that entity during a period up to four years; and 
Whether the equitable factors governing injunction requests favor First Amendment rights over First Amendment deprivations.  
Resources:  
Opening Brief for Appellants 
Brief for Appellees 
Reply Brief for Appellants 
District Court ruling 
Third Circuit 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.