Free Speech
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students’ constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ Free Speech
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023

Free Speech
Molina v. Book
Whether police officers violated clearly established First Amendment rights when they tear-gassed plaintiffs for serving as legal observers in a public protest.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023

Free Speech
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Northern California, and the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2021

Free Speech
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
On September 25, 2017, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥-PA filed suit on behalf of B.L., a high school sophomore who has been cheerleading since she was in fifth grade and was expelled from the team as punishment for out-of-school speech.
All Cases
146 Free Speech Cases

New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
Smart Justice
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.
Explore case
New York Supreme Court
Feb 2025

Free Speech
Smart Justice
NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration
This case in the New York Court of Appeals (the highest New York state court) asks whether a government agency can conceal guidance that it issues to judges on how to apply the law in adjudicating cases. A few years ago, news reporting brought to light that a New York administrative agency has a practice of issuing such guidance to state court judges without disclosing it to the public. Because the agency's guidance informs how judges decide cases—with important implications for people’s rights—the New York Civil Liberties Union requested access to it under New York’s Freedom of Information Law. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued. The NYCLU and the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative are arguing that the public is entitled to the guidance and that there is a strong public interest in the transparent administration of justice.

Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.
Explore case
Montana Supreme Court
Feb 2025

Free Speech
+2 Issues
City of Kalispell v. Doman
This case asks whether the state can arrest, charge, and convict someone under Montana’s obstruction statute for exercising their federal and state constitutional right to record police officers in public spaces. The defendant was filming a traffic stop when police instructed him to move farther away. When he did not move as far as they wanted, they arrested him for obstructing a peace officer. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative, along with the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Montana, filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant arguing that the officer’s refusal to allow the defendant to peacefully record police activity from a public sidewalk was, in effect, a content-based restriction on speech that could not be justified under strict scrutiny. Even if the restriction was not content-based, our brief argues that it is not a reasonable time place or manner restriction.

New York Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Free Speech
Doe v. Alwan
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ and civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP are representing a Columbia University faculty organization against claims that their speech in defense of students’ rights to free speech and protest injured several students.
Explore case
New York Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Free Speech
Doe v. Alwan
The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ and civil rights firm Wang Hecker LLP are representing a Columbia University faculty organization against claims that their speech in defense of students’ rights to free speech and protest injured several students.

U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025
Free Speech
+2 Issues
TikTok Inc., et al. v. Garland (Amicus)
The Supreme Court will decide whether a law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform. The law also allows the President to ban other foreign-owned apps deemed a national security threat, opening the door to future abuse and censorship. The ban on TikTok is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2025

Free Speech
+2 Issues
TikTok Inc., et al. v. Garland (Amicus)
The Supreme Court will decide whether a law that effectively bans TikTok in the United States violates the First Amendment rights of more than 170 million Americans who use the social media platform. The law also allows the President to ban other foreign-owned apps deemed a national security threat, opening the door to future abuse and censorship. The ban on TikTok is set to go into effect on January 19, 2025.

Minnesota Supreme Court
Nov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.
Explore case
Minnesota Supreme Court
Nov 2024

Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥â€™s State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter’s privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer’s subpoenas.