An Activist Law Firm
By J. DeVoy In 2007, the United States Supreme Court upheld a Washington law requiring public sector union members to opt-in for their association dues to be used by the
By J. DeVoy Some states have enacted laws and even constitutional provisions that affect public sector labor unions’ political speech and participation. In Colorado, for example, the state’s constitution was
by Charles Platt The National Hispanic Media Coalition, which contains groups with harmless or even benign-sounding names such as Free Press, the Media Access Project, Common Cause, and the Prometheus
by Christopher Harbin Marc was recently quoted in the paper of record regarding Slapp suits. One tidbit of the article stood out as odd to me: “The group Medical Justice, which
by Christopher Harbin My man crush on Judge Kozinksi got kicked up a notch after reading his slammin’ opinion in Rodriguez v. Maricopa County Community College Dist. Here, Kozinksi, joined
by Charles Platt I assume you legally qualified guys have seen this quote: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the
Sleazy company hires scumbag attorney to file SLAPP suit. Moron judge gives an unconstitutional injunction. Okay, not the entire same old story… because Public Citizen jumped in and did a
…No American patriotism allowed on Cinco de Mayo. It might get in the way of Mexicans celebrating their defeat of the French (an unimpressive accomplishment, really, since everyone beats the
Judge William Downes of the U.S. District Court for the District of Wyoming ordered the University of Wyoming allow William Ayers speak on its campus with this explanation: “This court
That’s the holding of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group LLC, No. 08-1743, Op. at 13 (D.N.J. Mar. 31,
by Christopher Harbin The Supreme Court affirmed the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Stevens, 8-1. Big Free Speech Victory today. Prior coverage from Randazza here and
Free speech wins 8-1. The reasons for my joy are pretty clearly laid out here in a prior post on the case. The Government contends that “historical evidence” about the
