PLF’s Wen Fa speaks to Sacramento Federalist Society on PLF’s Supreme Court case
Pacific Legal Foundation isn’t just litigating for the free speech rights of voters in Minnesota that want to wear Tea Party shirts that say “liberty” or “don’t tread on me.” We’re fighting for small business owners in Tennessee who want to wear Chamber of Commerce shirts. We’re fighting for union members in New York who want to wear AFL-CIO shirts. We’re fighting for sportsmen in Texas who want to wear NRA shirts. And we’re fighting for civil rights advocates in Vermont who want to wear shirts that say NAACP. We’re fighting for all voters, no matter what their views, no matter where they live, for their First Amendment right to free speech.
You can read the entire transcript here. Last October, before the Supreme Court granted review, I delivered a speech on the same topic to students at the University of Michigan Law School. On February 12, I’ll be speaking to the Federalist Society at the University of Minnesota Law School. Thanks to my colleagues Debbie La Fetra, Oliver Dunford, and Dave Breemer, who are working with me to persuade the Supreme Court to vindicate the First Amendment rights of voters nationwide.
learn more about
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a polling-place dress code in Minnesota, upholding free speech rights across the nation and protecting the right of Americans to peacefully express their political views at the polls.
PLF represented Minnesota voters, including Andy Cilek, who showed up at his polling place wearing a t-shirt that read “Don’t tread on me.” State law bans voters from wearing any “political” apparel at a polling place. This includes any t-shirt, button, or other items that could be construed as political, or even organizations that take political positions such as the AFL-CIO or NRA. A poll worker not only prevented Andy from voting for five hours, but also took down his name for possible prosecution.Read more
What to read next
The Forest Service pulled a bait-and-switch on a decades-old land deal. Here’s how the owners are fighting back.
When the government negotiates for a limited-access easement across your property, it cannot turn around later and decide it has an unlimited right to cross your property. Wil Wilkins and … ›
This morning, PLF filed an Amicus Letter urging the Supreme Court of California to grant review of the court of appeal’s decision in Environmental Law Foundation v. State Water Resources Control … ›