Free Speech Arguments

Presented by the Institute for Free SpeechThe Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.

Free Speech Arguments is a government podcast hosted by Institute for Free Speech, with 52 episodes on record and a Required Pod Score of 80. PitchCentric scores this show on Booking Probability, Listen Score, and live audience signals refreshed every 24 hours.

Institute for Free Speech hosts Free Speech Arguments, a government show with 52 episodes published.

Our AI reads these to draft pitches. Use them as grounding for a pitch that cites a real guest and a specific topic.

• 

  Free Speech Arguments

  Does Delaware’s Disclosure Law Violate the First Amendment? (Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence)

  Aug 10, 202658 min

  Episode 53 : Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Anthony Albence, argued before Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Marjorie O. Rendell of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on August 10, 2026. Argued by Allen Dickerson (on behalf of Americans for Prosperity Foundation) and Emily Burton (on behalf of the state of Delaware). Case Summary, from the Opening Brief for Appellants : …Delaware administers perhaps the most staggeringly overbroad donor disclosure regime in the nation. It reaches any mention of a candidate for office—including an incumbent officeholder—in a public communication made sixty days before a general election. A mere $500.01 in aggregate spending triggers the reporting requirement. Once triggered, any speaker that falls into Delaware’s regulatory maw must publish the name and address of every one of its donors giving more than $100, in aggregate, over a period of up to four years. Delaware makes no effort to connect the dots between an organization’s donor and a reporting organization’s often much later speech. There is no requirement that a donor earmark a contribution for a particular advertisement, for activity in Delaware, or even for ostensibly political purposes generally. There is no opportunity to opt out of funding regulated speech and thereby, through an act of unlikely prescience, proactively safeguard one’s privacy. There is not even a requirement that a contribution be given with knowledge that an organization might engage in a paltry amount of political speech in Delaware at some point in the future. Delaware simply asserts that its voters need to know every donor to an organization that dips a toe into advocacy within its borders—in this case, thousands of individuals, across the nation and across multiple years… Statement of Issues, from the Opening Brief for Appellants : Whether Appellants are likely to show that Delaware violates the First Amendment by requiring that any entity sponsoring any public communication that references a Delaware candidate near a Delaware election disclose all persons everywhere who donated more than $100 to that entity during a period up to four years; and Whether the equitable factors governing injunction requests favor First Amendment rights over First Amendment deprivations. Resources: Opening Brief for Appellants Brief for Appellees Reply Brief for Appellants District Court ruling Third Circuit docket The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform.

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Free Speech Arguments

  Are the Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms and Lawyers Constitutional? (Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ)

  May 14, 20263h 6m

  Episode 51 : Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice Perkins Coie LLP v. Department of Justice , argued before Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Cornelia T.L. Pillard, and Judge Neomi Rao of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on May 14, 2026. Argued by Paul Clement (on behalf of the Law Firm Appellees), Abbe Lowell (on behalf of Appellee Mark Zaid), and Abhishek Kambli (on behalf of the federal government). Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP : One year ago, the President did something no other president had done before: issue an executive order declaring a law firm whose clients and representations he dislikes “dishonest and dangerous” and deploying the levers of federal power to try to put the firm out of business. That was a perilous moment for appellee Perkins, the legal profession, and the rule of law. Nine law firms, cowed by the threat of firm-ending sanctions, “settled” with the President. But Perkins, followed by Jenner, WilmerHale, and Susman, sued to defend themselves and their clients. Four different district judges recognized the President’s executive orders for what they are: shocking abuses of power that trample the constitutional rights of the law firms and their clients. This Court should recognize the same. The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Yet here, the President did not hide his intent to punish Perkins for its expression and that of its clients. He openly declared that he targeted Perkins because it represented his “failed” opponent in the 2016 election, challenged election laws alongside so-called “activist donors,” and brought purportedly “partisan lawsuits,” including “against the Trump Administration.” The President designed the Order to do more than just damage Perkins; he intended to intimidate the bar into submission. Case Summary, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid : The government cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo. This case concerns an unconstitutional policy enacted to do just that. Shortly after taking office, the President issued a memorandum (the Presidential Memorandum) targeting the security clearances of a sprawling group of his perceived enemies, their lawyers, and their family members. As interpreted by the relevant agencies, the Presidential Memorandum constituted a directive to disregard then-existing procedures and institute a blanket revocation of the security clearances of those it named. Appellant Mark S. Zaid, an attorney who has represented government whistleblowers, is among those whose clearances were revoked... Rather than contesting whether they retaliated against Mr. Zaid or deprived him of the processes to which he was entitled under the applicable regulations, Appellants double down on the extraordinary position that their unlawful actions are entirely insulated from judicial review. Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP : Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment Whether Perkins is entitled to summary judgment on the additional ground (raised but not reached below) that Sections 1, 3, and 5 violate the separation of powers. Statement of Issues, From the Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid : Whether a court may review a policy providing for the revocation of a group of security clearances without process or individualized review. Whether the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction. Resources: Brief of Appellee Perkins Coie LLP Brief for the Government Appellants CourtListener Docket (includes all filings for the law firms’ cases) Brief of Appellee Mark Zaid Brief for the Government Appellants CourtListener Docket (includes all filings in the appeal of Mark Zaid v. Executive Office of the President )

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Free Speech Arguments

  IRS Donor Disclosure Law: What First Amendment Standard of Review Applies? (The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service)

  Apr 29, 202650 min

  Episode 50 : The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service , argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the federal government). Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech website : The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye’s lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association. The IRS has admitted that it does not need these donor records, and it issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in similar contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires doing so for 501(c)(3)s. The lawsuit claims that Buckeye’s work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye’s supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause... A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That’s the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson’s ruling that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review. Statement of Issues, from the Appellee’s Brief : Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.” Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development. Resources: Institute for Free Speech case page (contains all documents) Opening Brief for the Appellant Appellee’s Brief Sixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory Review Institute for Free Speech Blog Post , “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny” The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Free Speech Arguments

  Can Government Retaliate Against Critics by Launching an Investigation and Demanding Documents? (Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission)

  Apr 13, 20261h 31m

  Episode 48 : Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission , argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission). Case Summary, adapted from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee Media Matters: When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged. MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters’ articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content. The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA. Musk’s company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X’s terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA. The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed. Statement of the Issues, from the Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee MMFA: Whether the district court had jurisdiction. Whether Media Matters has a cause of action. Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation. Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking. Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities. Resources: Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for America Brief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al. CourtListener Docket District Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

  ListenShow Notes
• 

  Free Speech Arguments

  Can Government Punish Nondisruptive Private Speech of Its Employees? (Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al.)

  Apr 8, 20261h 38m

  Episode 47 : Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. Hussey v. City of Cambridge, et al. argued en banc before the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2026. Argued by Jack Bartholet (on behalf of Brian Hussey) and Robert M. Loeb (on behalf of the City of Cambridge officials). Case Summary, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief : “This case raises fundamental questions about a state employee’s right as a citizen to speak out on pending federal legislation — on his own time, at home, via his own private Facebook page, and in a manner that caused no disruption in the eight days before the post came to the attention of his superiors and two months before his suspension — under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution…Plaintiff Brian Hussey is a veteran police officer (and now Sergeant) who is a lifelong resident of the City of Cambridge… “In February 2021, Hussey re-posted a WHDH news article on his private Facebook page. The article, entitled “House Democrats reintroduce police reform bill named in honor of George Floyd,” referenced proposed federal legislation on police reform —H.R. 7120, titled the “George Floyd Justice in Policing Act of 2020.” Hussey, believing that naming this landmark legislation after someone who had a long criminal and drug history was inappropriate, posted a comment along with the article’s link (featuring a preview that included its headline), writing, “This is what its come to ‘honoring’ a career criminal, a thief and druggie … the future of this country is bleak at best.” “Hussey did not identify himself as a Cambridge police officer on his Facebook page or in the post, nor did the post in any way reference his position with the police department…The Department then placed Officer Hussey on administrative leave for approximately two months while they investigated…and ultimately issued him a four-day suspension.” Statement of the Issue, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief : Whether the District Court incorrectly applied the balancing test set out in Pickering v. Bd. of Ed. of Tp. High Sch. Dist. 205, Will Cnty., Illinois, 391 U.S. 563 (1968) by determining that the City of Cambridge’s interest in suppressing plaintiff`s speech on a clear matter of public concern based on its distaste for the speech without any evidence of disruption in operations outweighed the interest of Plaintiff and the public at large in free expression and robust public debate. Resources: Plaintiff-Appellant’s Opening Brief Defendants-Appellees’ Brief Appellees’ En Banc Brief Appellants’ En Banc Supplemental Brief The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

  ListenShow Notes

Based on semantic analysis of episode topics and host coverage, this show is a strong guest fit for executives in:

Industry fit is computed by PitchCentric using vector embeddings of the show's episode catalog.