Ed. note: The Daily Media Update will return Monday, January 3, 2022.

In the News

Reason (Volokh Conspiracy): The Institute for Free Speech is Hiring

By Josh Blackman

I am happy to pass along announcements from the Institute for Free Speech, which is hiring.

• The Institute for Free Speech is hiring a Senior Attorney with a minimum of seven years of experience.
• The Institute for Free Speech’s First Amendment Fellowship allows recent law school graduates, judicial clerks, and mid-career attorneys the chance to gain practical experience litigating constitutional challenges. Fellows will work alongside the Institute’s attorneys to tackle all aspects of trial and appellate practice in cases challenging restrictions on Americans’ rights to freely speak, publish, assemble, and petition.
• The Institute for Free Speech (IFS) seeks winter interns to aid our External Relations, Research, and Communications Departments. Please note that, due to the ongoing pandemic, all internships may be conducted remotely.
• The 2022 Institute for Free Speech Summer Associate Legal Fellowship is a unique opportunity for current law school students to explore a career in public interest and First Amendment law. The program is open to students who will finish their first or second year of law school by the summer of 2022. Fellows are expected to work full time for 10 weeks in our Washington, D.C. headquarters, but other arrangements may be available to especially outstanding candidates.

You can find more details here.

ICYMI

Free Speech for Christmas? Hearing on Brevard County School Board’s Censorship Set for December 21

By Tiffany Donnelly

The Institute for Free Speech represents the Brevard County, Florida Chapter of Moms for Liberty in a challenge to the Brevard County School Board’s censorship of public comments. In a federal lawsuit filed last month, Moms for Liberty detailed how the Board repeatedly violated its members’ right to speak at public meetings…

The Board’s response to the First Amendment seems to be, “Bah-humbug.” But while the Board may want every public meeting to be a Silent Night, the Institute is fighting for citizens’ right to be heard. On Tuesday, December 21, that fight will continue as the Institute’s attorneys argue for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Board from enforcing its unconstitutional policies while the case proceeds. The hearing presents another opportunity for a federal court to rule that bans on “personally directed” or offensive comments are unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Philanthropy

City Journal: In Defense of Donor Privacy

By James Piereson and Naomi Schaefer Riley

Campaigns to make private giving public often turn into efforts to pressure or even cancel donors who don’t give to progressively approved causes. Donations sent to conservative charitable organizations or causes often provoke retaliation against philanthropists, their businesses, or their families. In any case, private foundations must disclose donations on their federal tax returns, which are then made available to the public. It is thus farfetched to claim that such donations are “secret.”

Last year, the Supreme Court struck down a California law that would have required charitable organizations to disclose their donors on state tax returns in order to make such lists available to the state’s attorney general. The Court ruled, against progressive claims to the contrary, that California’s regulation was overly broad and would threaten freedom of association for charities that may be unpopular among some political groups. Indeed, the plaintiffs in that case, Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta, noted that they had suffered retaliation and harassment, a point that proved persuasive to a majority on the Court.

Supreme Court

Public Policy Legal Institute: On January 19, 2022, U.S. Supreme Court to hear case asking if speech can be restricted because it is unpopular

About an hour into the lengthy oral argument in a case involving Mississippi’s “heartbeat” abortion law, Supreme Court of the United States Chief Justice John Roberts said: ” It is certainly true that we cannot base our decisions on whether they’re popular or not with the people. … we shouldn’t base our decisions not only on that but whether they’re going to — whether they’re going to seem popular.” Moments later, Justice Stephen Breyer agreed: ” We use reason. We don’t look to just what’s popular.”

But there is just such an instance in which the Supreme Court does just that: the long-standing “appearance of corruption” test decides whether political expression and association can be limited on the basis of whether it is popular. The Court decided not to hear the two cases on the “appearance of corruption” that PPLI and other organizations requested it review in 2018, but on January 19, 2022, the Court will hear exactly that issue in a surprising case.

The Courts

Springfield News-Leader: Former Lake Ozark lawmaker sues to overturn Missouri law that bans lobbying for two years

By Galen Bacharier

A former state lawmaker from the Lake of the Ozarks is suing the Missouri Ethics Commission over the state’s two-year ban on lawmakers becoming lobbyists, arguing the law prohibits his freedom of speech and requesting that it be blocked.

In a lawsuit filed in the U.S. Court for the Western District of Missouri on Thursday, former Rep. Rocky Miller, a Republican from Lake Ozark, alleges that his inability to register as a lobbyist to serve a prospective client was denying him income. He also argues that because the two-year restriction “bans (him) from saying certain things, backed by the threat of criminal prosecution,” it is unconstitutional.

Missouri’s requirement that lawmakers wait at least two years between leaving the General Assembly and registering as a lobbyist stems from a 2018 ballot initiative (often called “Clean Missouri”), which was approved by voters and imposed several regulations on lobbying and campaign finance. Miller is asking the court to stop the Missouri Ethics Commission from enforcing the ban.

Congress

The Hill: Schumer vows to bring up voting rights legislation, Senate rules changes

By Jordain Carney

Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said that Democrats will take up voting rights legislation once they return in January, warning that they will also bring up changes to the Senate’s rules if Republicans block the bill, as they have done previously.

“The Senate will consider voting rights legislation, as early as the first week back,” Schumer wrote in a letter to his Democratic colleagues on Monday.

“If Senate Republicans continue to abuse the filibuster and prevent the body from considering this bill, the Senate will then consider changes to any rules which prevent us from debating and reaching final conclusion on important legislation,” he added.

Schumer’s announcement comes after Senate Democrats left for the year without taking up voting rights legislation, despite pressure from within the caucus to quickly figure out a path forward…

Schumer’s decision to force a debate on changing the rules could put him at odds with moderate Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), both of whom have said they support the 60-vote threshold currently required for most legislation to pass the Senate.

The States

Baltimore Sun: Appeals court opinion favors Clipper Mill residents sued by developer after they objected to housing plans

By Lorraine Mirabella

Condominium and townhouse owners in Clipper Mill have the right to publicly oppose future development in their Baltimore community and are protected against lawsuits that aim to censor or intimidate critics, a state appeals court ruled.

A Maryland Court of Special Appeals judge Thursday affirmed a lower court’s decision dismissing a $25 million lawsuit that Clipper Mill’s developer filed against residents who spoke out against more housing…

The project’s former developer, VS Clipper Mill LLC, filed suit in June 2020 after residents opposed a proposal before city planners seeking a revision to allow 30 townhouses on a parking lot and 98 apartments in an old mill building.

In December 2020, a Baltimore Circuit Court judge dismissed what he called a “bad faith” lawsuit and questioned whether it was filed in retaliation for residents opposing development plans.

That judge, John S. Nugent, found the complaint violates Maryland’s anti-SLAPP statute, which protects individuals or groups against Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. The law defines such lawsuits as brought in bad faith against those exercising First Amendment rights to challenge or oppose public matters, often before a government body.