//  6/14/18  //  Quick Reactions

By Ilya Shapiro |  Cross-posted from CATO at Liberty

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a Minnesota law banning “political” apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment. This was ultimately an easy case, as it should have been all along, and this decision was predictable after oral argument.

Obviously voters shouldn’t be allowed to harass, intimidate, misdirect, or otherwise interfere with other voters – and politicking or electioneering can be disruptive, so there’s nothing wrong with restricting that. But merely wearing a “political” hat or T-shirt doesn’t do any of those things, which are covered by other laws anyway. As Cato argued in our amicus brief, a complete ban on political expression should be met with the most searching judicial inquiry, regardless of the setting.

In this time when the freedom of speech is becoming an increasingly controversial idea, the Supreme Court did well to remind us that the First Amendment protects expression even and especially when Americans go to vote.


No, Presidential Elector Litigation Will Not Lead To Chaos

9/4/19  //  Commentary

In Slate, Rick Hasen claims that litigation over the independence of presidential electors could "backfire spectacularly." I respectfully disagree.

Jason Harrow

Equal Citizens

Free Speech Warriors Or Police

8/27/19  //  Quick Reactions

It's hard to take seriously the free speech concerns of people who routinely try to censor others.

Leah Litman

Michigan Law School

Communications Infrastructure as Public Utility

8/5/19  //  In-Depth Analysis

The Second Circuit's ruling against President Trump for banning critics on Twitter invites a broader discussion about how legally to structure and regulate our increasingly digital public sphere.

K. Sabeel Rahman

Demos & Brooklyn Law School