Free Speech
Students for Justice in Palestine at the University of Florida v. Raymond Rodrigues
The University of Florida chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine filed a lawsuit on November 16, 2023, challenging the Chancellor of the State University System of Florida’s order to state universities to deactivate the student group. This order threatens the students’ constitutionally-protected right to free speech and association in violation of the First Amendment. The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ and its partners are seeking a preliminary injunction that would bar the Chancellor and the University of Florida from deactivating the UF SJP.
Status: Ongoing
View Case
Learn ºìÐÓÊÓƵ Free Speech
Featured
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2023
Free Speech
Molina v. Book
Whether police officers violated clearly established First Amendment rights when they tear-gassed plaintiffs for serving as legal observers in a public protest.
U.S. Supreme Court
Aug 2023
Free Speech
O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed
The ºìÐÓÊÓƵ, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Northern California, and the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ of Southern California filed amicus briefs in support of everyday people fighting for government transparency and accountability in two cases set for review by the U.S. Supreme Court this Term: O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jan 2021
Free Speech
Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L.
On September 25, 2017, the ºìÐÓÊÓƵ-PA filed suit on behalf of B.L., a high school sophomore who has been cheerleading since she was in fifth grade and was expelled from the team as punishment for out-of-school speech.
All Cases
152 Free Speech Cases
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2010
Free Speech
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Whether a California law prohibiting the sale of "violent video games" to minors violates the First Amendment.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Sep 2010
Free Speech
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Whether a California law prohibiting the sale of "violent video games" to minors violates the First Amendment.
Court Case
Aug 2010
Free Speech
ºìÐÓÊÓƵ v. DHS
In 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a policy that asserted that CBP had the right to search the laptops, electronic devices and printed material of any traveler at the border, "absent individualized suspicion." The policy applied to both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, and subjected travelers to the possibility of having their personal financial information, family photographs and lists of Web sites visited searched by CBP officials without having reason to believe they had broken the law.
Explore case
Court Case
Aug 2010
Free Speech
ºìÐÓÊÓƵ v. DHS
In 2008, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, issued a policy that asserted that CBP had the right to search the laptops, electronic devices and printed material of any traveler at the border, "absent individualized suspicion." The policy applied to both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens, and subjected travelers to the possibility of having their personal financial information, family photographs and lists of Web sites visited searched by CBP officials without having reason to believe they had broken the law.
Court Case
Jun 2010
Free Speech
Puerto Rico Journalists' Association v. Mueller
Explore case
Court Case
Jun 2010
Free Speech
Puerto Rico Journalists' Association v. Mueller
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2010
Free Speech
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Whether the federal law criminalizing material support for terrorism is unconstitutionally vague because it is unclear whether it extends even to speech opposing terrorism so long as it is directed at designated terrorist organizations and, if so, whether the law violates the First Amendment as applied to such advocacy.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Feb 2010
Free Speech
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
Whether the federal law criminalizing material support for terrorism is unconstitutionally vague because it is unclear whether it extends even to speech opposing terrorism so long as it is directed at designated terrorist organizations and, if so, whether the law violates the First Amendment as applied to such advocacy.
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2009
Free Speech
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Whether a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which bars unions and corporations (both for-profit and non-profit) from engaging in "electioneering communications," violates the First Amendment and should be struck down as facially unconstitutional.
Explore case
U.S. Supreme Court
Jul 2009
Free Speech
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Whether a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which bars unions and corporations (both for-profit and non-profit) from engaging in "electioneering communications," violates the First Amendment and should be struck down as facially unconstitutional.