Free Speech

In fact, Justice Kavanaugh (fairly) describes Justice Breyer as arguing in favor of overruling Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015).  

In Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants the Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Telephone Consumer Protection Act’s (TCPA) debt-collection exception was content-based, failed strict scrutiny, and therefore violated the First Amendment.

The State and Local Legal Center filed an ...

In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia the Supreme Court will decide whether local governments may refuse to contract with foster care agencies who will not work with gay couples…and possibly much, much more.

The City of Philadelphia long contracted with Catholic Social Services (CSS) to place foster care children. The City stopped doing so when it discovered CSS wouldn’t work with same-sex couples. Philadelphia requires...

What does Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants have to do with state and local governments? The question the Supreme Court will decide in this case is whether allowing robocalls for government-debt only violates the First Amendment. State and local governments aren’t likely recipients of such calls.

In one word the answer is Reed; as in Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015). In Reed the Supreme Court held that strict (usually fatal)-scrutiny applies to content-based restrictions on speech, and the Court defined content-based broadly. In short Reed was a bad decision for state and local governments, which regularly regulate content-based speech.  

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) prohibits automatic dialing or prerecorded calls to cell phones with three exceptions—emergencies, consent, and debt collection owed to or guaranteed by the United States. The American Association of Political Consultants claims the third exception violates the First Amendment.

Following Thompson v. Hebdon states with low individual-to-candidate or individual-to-group campaign contribution limits may want to review their constitutionality.

In a per curiam (unauthored) opinion the Supreme Court instructed the Ninth Circuit to decide again whether Alaska law, which limits the amount an individual can contribute to a candidate for political office or to an election-oriented group other than a political party...

May a private entity running a public access channel ban speakers based on the content of their speech—something a government entity running the same channels could not do? Yes, the Supreme Court held in a 5-4 opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck. Why? Because the First Amendment doesn’t apply to private entities in this instance.

The Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 authorizes states and local governments to require cable operators to set aside channels on their cable systems for public access. Under New York law the cable operator operates the public access channels unless the local government chooses to do so or designates a private entity to do so.

New York City designated a private nonprofit, Manhattan Neighborhood Network (MNN), to operate the public access channels in Manhattan. MNN suspended two producers from its facilities and services after MNN ran a film they produced about MNN’s alleged neglect of the East Harlem community. The producers claimed MNN violated their First Amendment free speech rights when it “restricted their access to the public access channels because of the content of their film.”

Pages