Tag: 1st amendment

SURPRISE: Justice Jackson Gets NUKED by Fellow Leftist Justice Kagan For Writing This Insane Dissent in Case Regarding Conversion Therapy Ban for LGBTQ Minors

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has become such an embarrassing spectacle on the Supreme Court that even her fellow leftists appear to be tiring of her.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, The US Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled 8-1 against Colorado’s conversion therapy ban for LGBTQ minors. Jackson was the lone dissenter.

The lawsuit was filed by Christian talk therapist Kaley Chiles, who argued that Colorado’s ban on her talk therapy methods violated her First Amendment rights.

In an insane 35-page dissent, Jackson essentially said that therapists like Chiles should not have the same free speech rights as other Americans.

“Professional medical speech does not intersect with the marketplace of ideas: ‘In the context of medical practice, we insist upon competence, not debate,’” she wrote. “Treatment standards exist in America.”

“It threatens to impair States’ ability to regulate the provision of medical care in any respect,” she added. “It extends the Constitution into uncharted territory in an utterly irrational fashion. And it ultimately risks grave harm to Americans’ health and well-being.”

She also attacked the Court for ‘playing with fire’, which could ‘burn Americans.’

Keep reading

Oregon’s Union Crackdown Spreads

The state of Oregon passed a law last year that should outrage every American who believes in the First Amendment.

Not because it bans speech outright. Not because it targets a newspaper or a broadcaster. Because it targets a letter. An email. A text message. A conversation telling public employees they have a constitutional right to opt out of their union.

That’s what Oregon made illegal.

The Freedom Foundation has been communicating with public employees for years. We do it because back in 2018 the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed in Janus v. AFSCME that every government employee has a constitutional right to decline union membership and dues — a right workers will never find out about if they’re waiting for their union to inform them of it.

Someone else, most likely the Freedom Foundation, has to do it for them.

Oregon’s HB 3789, which took effect Jan. 1, was written specifically to shut down our outreach activities in that state — and potentially others. Egged on by their union puppet masters, lawmakers in that state approved legislation threatening heavy financial penalties for what the law describes as impersonating a labor union.

Keep reading

US State Dept Settles Free Speech Suppression Lawsuit

The US State Department has settled a lawsuit brought by The Daily Wire, The Federalist, and the State of Texas, accepting a consent decree that bars it from using, financing, or promoting technology designed to suppress or “fact-check” the constitutionally protected speech of American citizens and domestic media outlets.

The settlement also prohibits the Department from working with foreign governments or NGOs for those purposes, whether through formal agreements or informal arrangements.

We obtained a copy of the joint motion for you here.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance, which represented The Daily Wire and The Federalist, secured what amounts to a binding admission that the government had been doing exactly what it was accused of. The Department now acknowledges that its plaintiffs’ speech on COVID-19, sexual ethics, the biological nature of sex, and election integrity was constitutionally protected all along. It took three years of litigation to get the government to say that out loud.

Keep reading

“No One Knows What Will Happen Now”: Justice Jackson Warns Against Unbridled Free Speech

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is again warning of a growing threat to the nation. In her lone dissent in Chiles v. Salazar, Jackson observed that “to be completely frank, no one knows what will happen now.” The ominous tone stemmed from the fact that free speech had prevailed over state-imposed orthodoxy in a Colorado case.

Eight justices, including her two liberal colleagues, ruled that Colorado could not prevent licensed counselors from “any practice or treatment” that “attempts or purports to change” a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The win for free speech was catastrophic for Jackson and many on the left. Allowing counselors to discuss the causes and basis for sexual orientation changes, Jackson maintained, would “open a can of worms.” It would be far better for the majority to simply silence such dissenting voices in the name of science.

The dissent in Chiles is only the latest example of the chilling jurisprudence of Justice Jackson, including a pronounced dismissal of free speech values. Consider the holding of her colleagues that Jackson finds so horrific.

Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment “reflects … a judgment that every American possesses an inalienable right to think and speak freely, and a faith in the free marketplace of ideas as the best means for discovering truth … any law that suppresses speech based on viewpoint represents an ‘egregious’ assault on both of those commitments.”

What a nightmare.

Instead, Jackson would have declared the ban on anything deemed “conversion therapy” to be “conduct,” not speech.

It is that easy.

You simply impose an orthodoxy and then treat any dissenters as being regulated for their conduct, not their viewpoints.

Justice Elena Kagan could not withhold her frustration with her colleague, noting that “[b]ecause the State has suppressed one side of a debate, while aiding the other, the constitutional issue is straightforward.” She added that Jackson’s view “rests on reimagining—and in that way collapsing—the well-settled distinction between viewpoint-based and other content-based speech restrictions.”

Other countries have embraced Jackson’s permissive approach to speech curtailment.

Keep reading

Government Actions Against Anthropic Are ‘Classic First Amendment Retaliation’

Good news in the battle between the federal government and the AI company Anthropic: A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Department of Defense from declaring Anthropic a “supply chain risk,” which would have barred any federal agency or contractor from doing business with the company.

The government’s “conduct appears to be driven not by a desire to maintain operational control when using AI in the military but by a desire to make an example of Anthropic for its public stance on the weighty issues at stake in the contracting dispute,” wrote U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in an order granting Anthropic’s motion for preliminary injunction.

“Weighty issues” might undersell it. The supply chain risk designation—usually reserved for foreign companies—and President Donald Trump’s declaration that all federal agencies must “IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology” came after Anthropic refused to remove contract language preventing the Pentagon from using its AI system, Claude, for autonomous weapons or mass domestic surveillance.

Rather than simply discontinue Anthropic’s contract, the Trump administration threw a massive public tantrum over not being able to use Claude for killer robots or new frontiers in the surveillance state. (Not that it wanted to do these things, the Pentagon insisted. It just needed these restrictions removed because…reasons.)

Anthropic sued, alleging a violation of its First Amendment rights.

In a March 26 order, Lin issued a preliminary injunction order that prohibits the federal government “from implementing, applying, or enforcing in any manner” the president’s directive and “any and all other agency actions taken in response to the Presidential Directive.” Lin further blocked the Department of Defense and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth from designating Anthropic a supply chain risk.

“It is the Department of War’s prerogative to decide what AI product it uses,” notes Lin in the order.

Everyone, including Anthropic, agrees that the Department of War may permissibly stop using Claude and look for a new AI vendor who will allow ‘all lawful uses’ of its technology. That is not what this case is about.

The question here is whether the government violated the law when it went further.

For now, Lin has concluded that there is strong evidence that it did. “This appears to be classic First Amendment retaliation,” she wrote.

Keep reading

Hegseth Slashes ‘Faith Codes’ in Move to Make Chaplains the Spiritual Backbone of the US Military

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says his latest reforms will allow the Chaplain Corps to fulfill its mission of being the spiritual backbone of America’s military.

The number of faith codes used in the service has been winnowed down to 31, according to a War Department news release.

In 2017, the Pentagon issued a list of 221 groups that qualify as a religious group. The list included Wiccans and atheists, according to Stars and Stripes.

“The previous system had ballooned to well over 200 faith codes,” Hegseth said Tuesday.

“It was impractical and unusable, and many codes were never used at all,” Hegseth said, adding that most of the 82 percent of service members who identify as being religious used six of the codes.

The reduction “brings the codes in line with its original purpose, giving chaplains clear, usable information so they can minister to service members in a way that aligns with that service member’s faith background and religious practice,” Hegseth said.

Hegseth added that the chaplains will display their religious insignia on their uniforms instead of their ranks.

“A chaplain is first and foremost a chaplain, and an officer second. This change is a visual representation of that fact,” he said.

“While they will retain rank as an officer to those they serve, their rank will not be visible.”

Hegseth said his Chaplain Corps reforms are not over.

“These two reforms are big progress, but we’re not even close to being done. These are the first steps toward restoring the esteemed position of chaplain as moral anchors of our fighting force,” Hegseth said.

“Theirs is a high and sacred calling, but they can only be successful if they are given the freedom to boldly guide and care for their flock.”

Keep reading

Christian Girl Subjected to Daily Backpack Searches, Scolded for Sharing Her Faith in Jesus

Imagine your daughter being pulled out of math class by a school official and told she must leave her faith at the door – while the very same school encourages other students to walk out for anti-ICE protests.

That’s not hypothetical. That’s exactly what happened to our client at a middle school in Washington state – in a district with a troubling pattern of violating the Constitution.

And we know this district well – because the ACLJ has already held it accountable once before.

Years ago, when our client was just a second grader in this same district, school officials searched her backpack every morning, treating Christian materials like contraband. Simply sharing her faith was enough to trigger daily inspections.

We stepped in. We took action. And we forced the district to back down.

After we sent a demand letter, the school district entered into a formal written agreement – explicitly affirming our client’s constitutional right to share her faith.

However, during a recent math class, the vice principal entered the room, pulled our client aside, and told her she was not allowed to distribute Christian Gospel tracts – even to willing classmates.

Keep reading

SCOTUS Rejects Citizen Journalist’s Case Against Officials Who Arrested Her for Asking Police Questions

Priscilla Villarreal built a following in the way modern news often grows now. Not through printing presses or broadcast towers, but through a Facebook page that drew more than 200,000 people into its orbit.

In Laredo, Texas, under the name La Gordiloca, she reported quickly, conversationally, sometimes uncomfortably close to the raw edge of events.

In 2017, she texted a police officer to confirm the identities of two victims, one from a suicide, one from a car accident. She received answers. She published them.

Months later, she was arrested.

The law used against her had been sitting unused for 23 years. It makes it a felony to solicit nonpublic information from a government official “with intent to obtain a benefit.”

In Villarreal’s case, authorities argued that the benefit was popularity, more followers, more attention, more reach.

In other words, doing well at the job became the job’s alleged crime.

A state judge dismissed the charges, finding the statute too vague to stand. That might have sounded like a resolution, the system correcting itself in the end.

Instead, it became the beginning of a second act.

Villarreal filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officials involved in her arrest. The response was immediate and familiar within legal circles: “Qualified immunity.”

The doctrine protects government officials from liability unless there is already a court decision declaring nearly identical conduct unconstitutional.

No case had ever addressed the idea of arresting a journalist for asking a question over text.

A three-judge panel initially sided with Villarreal, stating, “If the First Amendment means anything, it surely means that a citizen journalist has the right to ask a public official a question, without fear of being imprisoned. Yet that is exactly what happened here: Priscilla Villarreal was put in jail for asking a police officer a question. If that is not an obvious violation of the Constitution, it’s hard to imagine what would be.”

The clarity of that statement did not last.

Keep reading

Settlement Stops Government From Using Social Media As ‘Speech Police’

The government censorship machine took a huge hit Tuesday in a historic win for First Amendment rights. 

What is being billed as an “unprecedented” agreement will bar the three government agencies central to killing speech the Biden administration didn’t like from pressuring social media platforms from doing so in the future. 

“This case began with a suspicion, that blossomed into fact, that led to Congressional hearings and an Executive Order that government censorship of Americans’ social media posts should end,” said John Vecchione, Senior Litigation Counsel for the New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA), the nonprofit civil rights group that has battled in courts for years to bring justice to victims of government-led speech suppression. 

Also celebrating, Sen. Eric Schmitt, who, as Missouri’s attorney general, sued the Biden administration for “brazenly colluding with Big Tech to silence Missourians.” 

“This is a massive win for the First Amendment and for every American who believes in free speech,” the Missouri Republican said in a press release, adding that President Biden’s tenure in office brought “the most aggressively liberal and antiliberty excesses of government that America has ever seen.”

Keep reading

Government Agencies BANNED From Pressuring Big Tech to Censor Americans for 10 Years

In a historic win for free speech, the U.S. Surgeon General, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) have been legally restricted from pressuring social media companies to silence Americans for the next decade. This comes from a formal Consent Decree in Missouri v. Biden, one of the most consequential First Amendment cases in modern history.

The agreement itself is striking. It acknowledges that, in recent years, federal officials “exerted substantial coercive pressure” on social media companies to suppress speech they did not approve of. This case began after physicians, journalists, and everyday Americans—especially those dissenting on COVID and elections—were systematically censored online. This was confirmed through discovery: a coordinated, government-backed effort to pressure Big Tech into silencing alternative viewpoints.

Now, under this decree, these entities are prohibited from threatening, coercing, or directing platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube, and others to remove or suppress lawful speech—including through algorithmic means. These restrictions will remain in place for 10 years.

Perhaps most important, the agreement explicitly states that labeling speech as “misinformation,” “disinformation,” or “malinformation” does not strip it of First Amendment protection.

This is one of the most significant blows yet to the censorship regime.

Keep reading