My local newspaper told its readers a politician’s criticisms of Israel were unprotected hate speech. But it’s the freedom to express “bad” speech that protects us all. — I’ve practiced First Amendment law for more than a decade — first in Washington, D.C. and now in New York. I’ve represented newspapers from New York to Australia. I teach media law at Fordham Law School and regularly publish scholarship on the history of the First Amendment.

What one federal judge’s war on queer college students tells us about the future of free speech. (Spoiler: it’s nothing good.) — This week, District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in favor of University President Walter Wendell who banished a student group’s drag show fundraiser from campus. According to Kacsmaryk, plaintiff in the case, the student group, failed to “establish a First Amendment right to conduct a ‘PG-13' drag show.”

Courts and scholars have long debated the meaning of the Constitution’s Press Clause. One popular theory — that it only protects access to the press as a technology — fails to tell the whole story. — The First Amendment protects both freedom of speech and freedom of the press. While the Supreme Court has spent generations unpacking the meaning of freedom of speech, it has remained mostly silent on what, if any, independent protections the Press Clause provides in addition to the Speech Clause.

A website creator that doesn’t want to build websites for gay people is resorting to a Second Amendment case to win. Will the Court bite? — In June, the Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, a Second Amendment case. The Court held that New York’s restrictions on open carry were unconstitutional. With the exception of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overruled Roe, Bruen was a term-ending blockbuster.

Dear Chief Justice Roberts: I was unnerved to see your disappointingly naive comments at the Bench & Bar Conference for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. You suggested that it is a mistake for the public to judge the Court’s legitimacy based on a disagreement with one…

The Court says formerly fundamental rights, like abortion, should be sent back to the States’ elected representatives while at the same time doing its best to erode that very democratic process. — In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In doing so, it claimed the mantle of democracy: “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

Litigants are going to court with a once rare request: an order to stop news organizations from reporting the news — On June 26, 1971, Alexander Bickel, the famed lawyer, appeared before the Supreme Court. The last two weeks were something of a blur. On June 13, The New York Times began publishing portions of a classified history on the war in Vietnam — the Pentagon Papers. Within days, in the…

In a new article, I analyze eleven nineteenth century legal commentators for hints how these young Americans understood Blackstone’s idea of liberty of the press in England relative to the idea of freedom of the press in the United States. — “It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was laid down in the reign of Henry IV. …

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a defamation case brought by Devin Nunes, held that the lawsuit could proceed based on a single tweet. It got it all wrong. — Devin Nunes loves to sue his critics. He’s filed ten defamation lawsuits against media organizations and others. Some are jokes — literally. Nunes, who’s apparently incapable of taking a joke, sued a satirical Twitter account called @DevinCow — an anthropomorphic cow with a proclivity for making fun of the Congressman.