Over Seven Million People Exercise their First Amendment Rights in Nationwide No Kings Protests

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — At a time when the freedom of the press is in growing peril, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit heard arguments about Puerto Rico’s “fake news” law, which was struck down by a federal district judge in 2023 for violating the First Amendment. Two journalists challenged the law, saying it chilled their reporting and could endanger any journalism during an emergency that may reflect poorly on the government. “If recent attacks on the freedom of the press have taught us anything, it is that the government cannot be allowed to make themselves the arbiter of public debate,” said Brian Hauss, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “Prohibiting ‘fake news’ during an emergency gives the government far too much power to chill and criminalize reporting that they don’t like, and it threatens the foundational principle of our Constitution: a free people requires a free press.” The 2020 Puerto Rico law made it a crime to knowingly raise a “false alarm” about impending catastrophes or knowingly convey false information on any topic when doing so results in an imminent risk to safety, health, property; those found in violation of the law could face up to three years in jail and a fine of up to $5,000. “This is a law created to try to control speech and eliminate any dissent, under the threat of criminally prosecuting people who say something the government disagrees with,” said Fermín Arraiza-Navas, legal director of the ACLU of Puerto Rico. “With this law, the government of Puerto Rico endangers the right to freedom of expression and freedom of the press, especially at a time when we know that freedom of expression is being attacked from multiple angles. This is also an attempt to discourage fair and necessary oversight of the government—precisely during times of emergency. Puerto Rico has plenty of examples showing how, in moments of crisis, the government has failed to provide the public with truthful information, and instead, it has been thanks to journalists and the public that the correct information about these matters has come to light.” Originally filed during the COVID-19 public health crisis, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Puerto Rico filed the lawsuit on behalf of two journalists, Sandra Rodríguez Cotto and Rafelli González Cotto, who feared that the laws would be used to punish them for their reporting on public emergencies, especially reporting that reflects negatively on the government. On March 31, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico permanently enjoined the law, holding that it violates the First Amendment because it imposes a content-based restriction on protected speech without adequate justification. The court observed that the statute’s exceedingly broad sweep risked politicized prosecutions and chilling protected speech on matters of public concern. As the court put it, “[t]he watchdog function of speech is never more vital than during a large-scale crisis.” For more information about the case, see here.

NEW YORK – In a landmark victory for judicial transparency, the New York State Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Court decision in NYCLU v. New York State Office of Court Administration (OCA) yesterday, ruling that the administrative arm of the New York State court system, OCA, cannot blanketly shield its guidance to judges concerning how to interpret the law. As shown by the leaked 2021 Crawford Memorandum, it is believed that these directives play a role in how pressing issues are determined by state court judges. The New York Civil Liberties Union and American Civil Liberties Union have been fighting for these records for four years. “This ruling is an unequivocal vindication of the public’s right to understand the workings of our judicial system,” Daniel Lambright, supervising attorney with the New York Civil Liberties Union. “Every day, judges make decisions that have enormous impact on the rights and lives of New Yorkers, especially vulnerable communities. With so much at stake, New Yorkers deserve to know the influences behind judge decision making — and we’re gratified that the state's highest court agrees. Our judicial system is strongest when it is transparent and accountable to the public.” “The public has a right to know when the government urges judges to adopt its preferred interpretations of the law,” said Terry Ding, staff attorney with the ACLU's State Supreme Court Initiative. “That is true whether those communications take the form of legal briefs filed by government agencies in litigation or legal memos from court administrators. We therefore welcome the Court of Appeals’ decision rejecting the Office of Court Administration’s blanket claim that, under the auspices of attorney-client privilege, it can advise New York judges in secret about how they should interpret the law.” The OCA is intended to be a non-partisan, administrative arm of New York’s court system that oversees operations, staffing, and day-to-day support for judges. But in July 2021, reporting from the New York Focus revealed that the OCA had a practice of issuing secret guidance to state court judges.. This included guidance affecting the adjudication of critical civil rights, including whether defendants in criminal cases are granted bail, whether courts can order people to be forcibly committed for mental health reasons, and whether to uphold due process protections for people accused of crimes. In September 2021, New York Civil Liberties Union filed a Freedom of Information request expressing concern over the OCA’s secretive practices and requesting copies of all memos of this nature. The agency denied the request, so the NYCLU sued, arguing that the public is entitled to such guidance. The trial court then ordered OCA to produce its memos, agreeing with the NYCLU that the request was reasonably tailored and that the guidance is not privileged. The OCA appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the trial court’s ruling. This ruling overturns that Appellate decision. The ruling is available here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/nyclu-v-oca?document=Opinion

PHILADELPHIA — Today, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments from lawyers representing Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and graduate of Columbia University who was detained by ICE for over 100 days in retaliation for his advocacy in support of Palestinian rights. Mr. Khalil’s team asked the appeals court to affirm a lower court’s rulings that ordered his release on bail and barred the government from detaining or deporting him based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s vague and unsupported assertion that Mr. Khalil’s lawful protected speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” “The Trump administration is still trying to bring me back to detention and block the federal court in New Jersey from reviewing my case, the same court that ordered my release and ruled that their actions against me were unlawful. Their intention couldn’t be more clear: They want to make an example of me to intimidate those speaking out for Palestine across the country,” said Mahmoud Khalil. “I’m stating unequivocally: I will continue my legal fight in federal courts for my rights, and for everyone’s right, to free speech.” Back in June, a federal judge granted Mr. Khalil’s request for a preliminary injunction after concluding that he would continue to suffer irreparable harm if the government continued efforts to detain and deport him on the basis of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s determination under the “Foreign Policy Ground,” a rarely used federal statute, that Mr. Khali’s lawful protected speech would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” The court also found that Mr. Khalil was likely to succeed on the merits of his constitutional challenge to his detention and attempted deportation on the Foreign Policy Ground, and it ordered his release on bail after determining that he presented neither a danger nor a flight risk. “There is no world in which Mahmoud should be torn away from his family for a second time and sent back behind bars,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel in the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “In this country, the government cannot punish people just because they don’t like what they have to say, and if it tries, the federal courts have an immediate role to play in stopping that unconstitutional behavior. That’s what the district court did here, and the government’s arguments for reversal are both weak and wrong.” The Trump administration and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) illegally arrested and detained Mr. Khalil in direct retaliation for his advocacy for Palestinian rights at Columbia University. Shortly after, DHS transferred him 1,300 miles away to a Louisiana detention facility — ripping him away from his then eight-months pregnant wife and legal counsel. During the 104 days he remained in ICE custody, Mr. Khalil missed the birth of his first child. “Since day one, the Trump administration had no legitimate reason to detain Mahmoud Khalil — it was retaliatory and unconstitutional,” said Bobby Hodgson, assistant legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union. “The law is on our side: in the United States, ideas are not illegal, and government officials can't weaponize a vague immigration law to incarcerate or remove people for expressing opinions with which they disagree.” On Thursday, the magistrate judge overseeing Mr. Khalil’s case agreed to lift the strict travel restrictions imposed on him since his release on bail, requiring only that the government be given two days’ advance notice of where and how he would travel. Mr. Khalil is represented by Dratel & Lewis, the Center for Constitutional Rights, CLEAR, Van Der Hout LLP, Washington Square Legal Services, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU), the ACLU of New Jersey, and the ACLU of Louisiana. For all case materials, please see here.

ALEXANDRIA, Va. — In a victory for free speech, the Department of Defense (DOD) must stop censoring classroom and library materials pertaining to race and gender in DOD-run schools, a judge ruled today. On behalf of six military families with students enrolled in Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA) schools, the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Kentucky, and the ACLU of Virginia filed a motion for preliminary injunction in May seeking to declare DoDEA’s enforcement of executive orders resulting in classroom censorship unconstitutional. DoDEA, whose students lead the United States in math and reading proficiency scores, operates 161 schools across 11 countries, seven states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. “This is an important victory for students in DoDEA schools and anyone who values full libraries and vibrant classrooms,” said Emerson Sykes, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project. “The censorship taking place in DoDEA schools as a result of these executive orders was astonishing in its scope and scale, and we couldn’t be more pleased that the court has vindicated the First Amendment rights of the students this has impacted.” The demand for an injunction was filed on behalf of 12 students and their families, ranging from pre-K to 11th grade, who attend DoDEA schools as children of active duty servicemembers stationed in Virginia, Kentucky, Italy, and Japan. Since January, the plaintiffs’ schools have removed books, altered curricula, and canceled events that the Trump administration has accused of promoting “gender ideology” or “divisive equity ideology.” Censored items include materials about slavery, Native American history, women’s history, LGBTQ identities and history, and preventing sexual harassment and abuse, as well as portions of the Advanced Placement (AP) Psychology curriculum. The judge recently ordered the full list of 596 censored book titles to be filed publicly, and it can be viewed here. “We are pleased to see the court agrees with our clients,” said Corey Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU of Kentucky. “Removing books from school libraries just because this administration doesn’t like the content is censorship, plain and simple. The materials removed are clearly age-appropriate and are only offensive to those who are afraid of a free-thinking population.” The injunction is limited to the five schools attended by plaintiffs, but the message is clear: DoDEA’s censorship of books and curriculum materials is unconstitutional. “By quarantining library books and whitewashing curricula in its civilian schools, the Department of Defense Education Activity violated students’ First Amendment rights,” said Matt Callahan, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Virginia. “Today’s ruling affirms that government can’t scrub references to race and gender from public school libraries and classrooms just because the Trump administration doesn’t like certain viewpoints on those topics.” The ACLU, the ACLU of Kentucky, and the ACLU of Virginia filed suit in April, arguing that DoDEA enforcement of three executive orders signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 led to widespread violations of students’ First Amendment rights. The suit, and the motion for preliminary injunction, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.