For decades, the federal courts have recognized that the First Amendment protects the right to receive information. Yet this essential companion to the right to speak often gets forgotten, resulting in a lopsided jurisprudence that discounts the rights and interests of listeners.
June 02, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
In any other context, such speech would warrant full First Amendment protection. But when this speech comes clothed in the superficial trappings of an advertisement, the Central Hudson test instructs courts to dilute the First Amendment’s strength. ... The Supreme Court should grant the petition to reconsider this anomaly in First Amendment doctrine.
May 04, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
Business owners have a First Amendment right to speak on their businesses’ social media accounts about matters of public concern without fear of government retaliation.
April 13, 2026
Supreme Court of the State of Idaho
Salina’s mural-sign regime is an unconstitutional content- and speaker-based restriction that cannot be saved by an appeal to aesthetic regulation.
April 01, 2026
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
The Supreme Court should grant the petition to address how listeners’ rights can inform the often confounding distinction between content-neutral and content-based expression.
March 12, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
The First Amendment does not stop at the schoolhouse gate. In our increasingly polarized world, teachers, no less than students, deserve the protection of the First Amendment.
March 11, 2026
Supreme Court of the United States
In this case, the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District is a government agency claiming First Amendment protection to do what the First Amendment forbids—shutting down legitimate claims against government action. ... This inversion of a state anti-SLAPP statute to reduce an individual's First Amendment rights is unconstitutional.
December 19, 2025
California Third District Court of Appeal
"This Court should hold that S3292 is a content-based speech restriction. Otherwise, government may be emboldened to burden more speech and restrict yet more advice offered by various professionals to willing clients."
April 03, 2024
Third Circuit Court of Appeals
West Virginia’s statute muzzles truthful professional speech because consumers might respond with poor choices. We ask the Supreme Court to halt this prior restraint.
September 21, 2022
Supreme Court of the United States