³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥

This amicus brief highlights the constitutional defects of a California law that purports to protect consumer privacy but is actually an impermissible, content-based regulation of online speech. The brief urges that this law should be struck down while emphasizing that the court should rule narrowly and leave paths open for other consumer privacy laws to withstand First Amendment challenge.

On January 24, 2024, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ and ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ of Florida filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit supporting HM Florida-ORL, which operates the restaurant and bar Hamburger Mary’s in Orlando, in its lawsuit alleging that a Florida law infringes upon minors’ First Amendment rights by prohibiting them from attending drag performances.

On January 9th, 2024, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ filed its opening brief on behalf of the National Rifle Association (NRA) in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, a key First Amendment case before the Supreme Court this term. The brief argues that a New York state regulator’s attempts to blacklist a nonprofit advocacy group and deny it access to financial services because of its controversial viewpoint violated the First Amendment. This is a critically important First Amendment fight: if government officials can pressure the businesses they regulate to blacklist the NRA in New York, then officials in other states can punish other advocacy organizations in the same way–including the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ itself.

In a prominent defamation suit, the ³Ô¹ÏÖ±²¥ is urging a trial court to rigorously apply the First Amendment rule that statements of opinion are protected, so long as speakers share the facts that led to them. Without this First Amendment protection, unchecked defamation lawsuits would silence the critics of more powerful speakers, and stifle scientific discussions and academic inquiry.