//  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.


The Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019

3/1/19  //  Commentary

With the introduction of the new VRAA, the House is undertaking the long overdue task of responding to Shelby County.

Travis Crum

University of Chicago

Laws Aimed at Silencing Political Boycotts of Israel Are Categorically Different Than Public Accommodations Laws

2/21/19  //  Commentary

Some argue that both anti-BDS and public accommodations laws protect against discrimination, and so the First Amendment should treat them the same. But the laws are nothing alike.

Amanda Shanor

The Wharton School

A Lone Star Bail-in?

2/14/19  //  Commentary

Key takeaways from the briefs in the ongoing litigation to "bail-in" Texas under Section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act

Travis Crum

University of Chicago