In their motions to dismiss Rep. Bennie Thompson’s suit, Trump, Giulani and the Oath Keepers defend their conduct on Jan. 6.
Latest in First Amendment
Republican Governor Ron DeSantis has promised that Florida will soon enact “the most ambitious reforms yet proposed” for “holding ‘Big Tech’ accountable.” There’s just one problem: It’s unconstitutional.
After four years of attacks from Trump, journalists thought the worst was over. But Trump’s left a legacy at the Justice Department that Biden’s attorney general will need to undo.
A federal appeals court ruled that a state statute requiring government contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel violates the First Amendment. What’s in the decision?
In a new Wall Street Journal op-ed, Philip Hamburger argues that “the government, in working through private companies, is abridging the freedom of speech.” This argument doesn’t hold water.
Some observers have argued that the First Amendment protects President Trump from conviction before the Senate for his inflammatory rhetoric. Senators should not take this argument seriously.
The secretary of state has accidentally shed light on the burdensome restrictions that the State Department puts on its overseas employees and their families.
The philosopher’s analysis in the midst of the Red Scare suggests a different way of understanding current debates about the suppression of ideas.
Judge Royce Lamberth of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied the government's motion for a temporary restraining order to block distribution of the new memoir by former national security advisor John Bolton. Though Judge Lamberth ruled that "Bolton’s unilateral conduct raises grave national security concerns," he found that "the horse is out of the barn" regarding Bolton's memoir—which will be published on June 23—and wrote that, "For reasons that hardly need to be stated, the Court will not order a nationwide seizure and destruction of a political memoir."
Bolton’s lawyers persuasively argue that the court lacks the authority to issue the requested injunction. They also show why his non-disclosure agreements are narrower than the government portrays, and how irregular his pre-clearance review process was.