Last week, I wrote an op-ed in The Boston Globe suggesting that a private attorney should be appointed to challenge the constitutionality of former Sheriff Joseph Arpaio’s pardon—a suggestion that has now been formally presented to the judge in Arpaio’s
Latest in First Amendment
The Trump administration is right to be angry about leaks of truly classified information, but the attorney general should take care not to sow fear and distrust in the national security agencies.
The President’s hostility to the press is inconsistent with an ability to fulfill, and fitness for, his constitutional role as Commander in Chief.
Why the Virginia protests happened where they did.
On Tuesday, a civil action was filed by Columbia University’s Knight First Amendment Institute and seven blocked Twitter users, asserting that President Trump and his staff are violating the First Amendment by blocking users on Twitter based on their viewpoints.
President Trump’s alleged blocking of members of the public on Twitter on what appear to be viewpoint-based considerations, preventing them from reading his tweets and responding to them, raises serious constitutional issues.
A summary of Twitter's complaint against the Department of Homeland Security in response to a CBP summons to reveal account information of one of its users.
FISC Rejects Claim That Public Has a First Amendment Right to Court Decisions About Bulk Data Collection
Citizens do not have a First Amendment right to read the full court decisions that support the legality of the NSA’s bulk data collection program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has concluded.
In an October motion, the ACLU argued that a First Amendment “right of access” mandates release of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court's opinions. Read on for a primer on the underlying legal theory.
To what extent would the First Amendment allow Congress to pass a law allowing the government to target speech that encourages individual acts of terrorism, either by shutting down websites or by prosecuting the “speakers” themselves?