Ten years ago today, the Supreme Court issued its famous Citizens United decision, striking down a federal ban on independent campaign advertising by corporations and labor unions as a violation of the First Amendment.
Last year, the Committee for Justice continued to play an influential role in holding judges and politicians accountable to the constitution. We worked to reclaim the judiciary from activist judges, confront the unaccountable administrative state, and oppose calls to restructure the Supreme Court.
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), and its progeny held that courts should apply narrow tailoring to violations of the freedom of association. Has that requirement been overruled such that the right to associate privately does not enjoy the strong protective standard that applies to other First Amendment rights, which this Court has held requires narrow tailoring regardless of the level of scrutiny?
It may never be known whether Obama’s tirade against the Supreme Court was politically motivated or sincere. Levey for one is skeptical. “They didn’t worry about it when it was George Soros, who was doing this before the Koch brothers did,” he said. “There’s a lot of hypocrisy involved.”
At The Federalist Society blog, Ashley Baker remarks that Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion in Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck, the court held that a private nonprofit that runs a public-access TV channel is not a “state actor” and therefore cannot be sued for violating the First Amendment, "notably declined — despite clear opportunities — to opine on online speech."
The Supreme Court's decision comes as the public debate about free speech heats up, with lawmakers and the general public upset about social media practices and conservatives wary of what they see as discriminatory censorship of online content by Facebook, Twitter, Google, and the like.
While House Democrats cloak the bill in terms of “restoring democracy” and “preventing corruption,” the legislation has one goal: to protect incumbents at the expense of the First Amendment, federalism, and individual voter integrity.
The Committee for Justice was very busy in 2018. In the last year, we advocated for a clear framework for accessing data abroad, worked to dispel the myth of Russian social media ads and election interference, applauded Supreme Court rulings on privacy and religious liberty, weighed in on how to regulate new technologies, and – last but not least – helped lead the long and brutal fight to #ConfirmKavanaugh.
Following the confirmation of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee referred several of his accusers to the Justice Department for lying to Congress, reminding us that the importance of taking accusations of sexual assault seriously must be balanced with a presumption of innocence for the accused. It is precisely that balance that the U.S. Department of Education was aiming for when it recently proposed rules, under its Title IX authority, governing how institutions of higher education and K-12 schools handle students' accusations of sexual misconduct.
Policies can only do so much to address the perceived bias because, as the recent hearing reminded us, the roots of any anti-conservative bias lie largely in structural features of our society rather than with Google or other online platforms.
Part I of this blog post addressed a recent federal appeals court decision that turned on the distinction between 'status' and 'act'. Now, Part II will discuss the larger significance of this distinction in other areas of the law.
In order to provide the greatest added value to this committee's consideration of the Kavanaugh nomination, this letter will focus on an issue which has not gotten a lot of attention—specifically, what Judge Kavanaugh's confirmation to the Supreme Court would mean for America's tech industry. To answer that question, we look to the areas of federal law that will be most impactful on the future of that industry, including the First Amendment, antitrust law, and administrative law.
Alarm bells rang in the media and on Capitol Hill last month when Facebook announced its discovery and removal of a new wave of malicious political ads of probable Russian origin, indicating 'determined, well-funded adversaries who will never give up.' ... Whether viewed in monetary terms (the official Clinton and Trump campaigns alone spent $81 million on Facebook ads) or reach (28 of the 32 removed pages and accounts had fewer than 10 followers), the deleted pages’ influence on the American electorate could not have been more than a drop in the ocean...
Recently, CFJ was featured in an interview by The Associated Press, which also appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, U.S. News, The Houston Chronicle, and many other news outlets. Additional interviews and commentary can be found in The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Signal, Dallas Weekly, Harvard Political Review, Washington Internet Daily, Communications Daily, American Family Radio, OneNewsNow, and elsewhere. Links and quotes can be found below...