Free Speech Arguments

Episode 46: Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. 
Utah Political Watch, et al. v. Musselman, et al. argued before Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, Senior Judge Michael R. Murphy, and Judge Robert E. Bacharach of the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit on March 17, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Charles “Chip” Miller (on behalf of Utah Political Watch) and Daniel Vitagliano (on behalf of Utah legislative officials).   
Case Summary, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: 
Bryan Schott, a journalist with 25 years of experience covering Utah politics, is fighting back after being denied press credentials under a newly revised policy that appears designed to silence independent reporting. Institute for Free Speech attorneys filed suit on behalf of Schott and his outlet, Utah Political Watch (UPW), against Utah legislative officials who denied Schott’s application for press credentials. The denial came after the Utah Legislature changed its credentialing rules in November 2024 to exclude “blogs, independent media outlets or freelance media,” a change made just weeks after Schott inquired about obtaining credentials for the 2025 session.  
Despite receiving press credentials every year they were offered since at least 2013, Schott, a recipient of the National Press Foundation’s Election Journalism Fellowship and Utah’s Best Newspaper Reporter award, was denied access for the 2025 legislative session. The denial followed Schott’s hard-hitting coverage of Senate President Stuart Adams. Schott was blocked from covering key events, including the House GOP’s legislative priorities announcement and the governor’s monthly press conference. Additionally, without credentials, he cannot attend the legislative session itself or daily leadership meetings, participate in Friday media availabilities with the Speaker, or access areas of the Capitol reserved for press coverage. 
Statement of the Issues, from the Appellants’ Opening Brief: 
Are any of the following allegations sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss a complaint alleging First Amendment violations for viewpoint discrimination, retaliation, prior restraint and unconstitutional vagueness?  
A government media credentialing policy that expressly excludes “independent media” from receiving media credentials constitutes viewpoint discrimination against independent voices;  
A media credentialing policy that uses subjective and vague terms such as “established reputable news organization,” and “blogs, independent media and other freelance media” affords too much discretion to government officials issuing credentials;  
Government officials apply criteria not included in the written credentialing policy, including requiring institutional ownership and editorial control; or,   
A media credentialing policy was revised and applied inconsistently to deny credentials and access to a single reporter who had gotten under the skin of elected officials. 
Should a preliminary injunction issue to prevent the defendants from denying media credentials based on the viewpoint expressed? 
Resources:    
Appellants’ Opening Brief 
Appellees’ Response Brief 
Our Client’s Story blog 
Institute for Free Speech case page (includes all filings) 
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

Episode 45: The Enduring Legacy of Buckley v. Valeo
January 30, 2026, marked the 50th anniversary of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo. To commemorate the anniversary, the Institute for Free Speech convened a virtual panel to reflect on the history of the case and its enduring legacy. Moderated by Kim Strassel of the Wall Street Journal, the panel discussion featured the insights of Bradley A. Smith, Joel Gora, and Eugene Volokh.
About the panel: 
Brad Smith is the Founder & Chairman of the Institute for Free Speech and a former Chairman of the Federal Election Commission. He is one of the nation’s foremost experts on campaign finance law and the First Amendment. 
Joel Gora is a Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School and a former attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. While at the ACLU, Joel was one of three advocates that argued against the law challenged in Buckley v. Valeo before the Supreme Court. 
Eugene Volokh is a legal scholar who is the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the co-founder of the popular legal blog the Volokh Conspiracy. 
Kim Strassel is a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board. She writes the  All Things with Kim Strassel  newsletter and hosts the associated podcast by the same name. 
Resources: 
⁠Buckley v. Valeo blog series ⁠
⁠Original Buckley v. Valeo oral argument audio⁠ 
⁠Expert panel transcript⁠ (Note: The transcript was automatically generated. Please excuse any typos or transcription inaccuracies.) 
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

January 30, 2026 marks the 50th anniversary of Buckley v. Valeo, a landmark First Amendment speech clause case. While the podcast normally airs current oral arguments, we thought that it would be interesting to spotlight the oral arguments in this landmark case during month of its anniversary.
Episode 44: Buckley v. Valeo
James L. Buckley, et al. v. Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the United States Senate, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on November 10, 1975 and decided on January 30, 1976. Argued by Ralph K. Winter, Joel M. Gora, Brice M. Claggett, and  (on behalf of James L. Buckley) and Daniel M. Friedman, Archibald Cox, Lloyd N. Cutler, and Ralph S. Spritzer (on behalf of Francis R. Valeo).   
Case Background [from the Federal Election Commission]:
On January 2, 1975, the suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by Senator James L. Buckley of New York, Eugene McCarthy, Presidential candidate and former Senator from Minnesota, and several others. The defendants included Francis R. Valeo, Secretary of the Senate and Ex officio member of the newly formed Federal Election Commission, and the Commission itself. The plaintiffs charged that the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), under which the Commission was formed, and the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act were unconstitutional on a number of grounds.
On January 24, 1975, pursuant to Section 437h(a) of the FECA, the district court certified the constitutional questions in the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On August 15, 1975, the appeals court rendered a decision upholding almost all of the substantive provisions of the FECA with respect to contributions, expenditures and disclosure. The court also sustained the constitutionality of the method of appointing the Commission.
On September 19, 1975, the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which reached its decision on January 30, 1976. 
Questions Presented, from the Appellants' Brief: 
1. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on expenditures by political candidates and organizations are constitutional?
2. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitation imposed by FECA on expenditures by any person relative to a clearly identified candidate are constitutional?
3. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the limitations imposed by FECA on contributions to political candidates and organizations are constitutional?
4. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the disclosure requirements imposed on political candidates, organizations and individuals by FECA are constitutional?
5. Did the courts below correctly conclude that the public financing provisions of FECA and Subtitle H of the Internal Revenue Code are constitutional?
6. Did the Court of Appeals correctly conclude that the method provided by FECA for appointing members of the Federal Election Commission is constitutional?
7. Did the Court of Appeals properly decline to decide whether certain powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA are constitutional?
8. Are the powers conferred upon the Federal Election Commission by FECA constitutional?
Resources:   
Supreme Court Opinion
Institute for Free Speech Analysis
C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 1
C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 2
C-SPAN Buckley v. Valeo Panel 3
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

Episode 43: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al.
National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al. argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 9, 2025. Argued by Noel Francisco (on behalf of National Republican Senatorial Committee), Sarah M. Harris (on behalf of the federal respondents in support of petitioners), Roman Martinez (Court-Appointed Amicus Curiae defending the law), and Marc Elias (Counsel for Intervenor-Respondents DNC, DSCC, and DCCC).  
Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: 
A political party exists to get its candidates elected. Yet Congress has severely restricted how much parties can spend on their own campaign advertising if done in cooperation with those very candidates. 52 U.S.C. § 30116(d).  
In an opinion by Chief Judge Sutton, a 10-judge majority of the en banc Sixth Circuit agreed that these so-called “coordinated party expenditure limits” stand in serious tension with recent First Amendment doctrine. App.10a-15a. It nevertheless upheld them as constitutional, both on their face and as applied to coordinated political advertising (“party coordinated communications”), believing the case to be controlled by FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee, 533 U.S. 431 (2001) (Colorado II). In doing so, the majority acknowledged that in the 23 years since Colorado II, this Court “has tightened the free-speech restrictions on campaign finance regulation,” that “tension has emerged between the reasoning of Colorado II and the reasoning of later decisions of the Court,” and that relevant facts have “changed, most notably with 2014 amendments” to the limits and “the rise of unlimited spending by political action committees.” App.3a-4a, 11a. But it thought “any new assessment of the validity of the limits” remained the Supreme Court’s “province, not ours.” App.14a-15a.  
The question presented is:  
Whether the limits on coordinated party expenditures in 52 U.S.C. § 30116 violate the First Amendment, either on their face or as applied to party spending in connection with “party coordinated communications” as defined in 11 C.F.R. § 109.37. 
Resources:   
Brief for the Petitioners NRSC 
Brief for the Respondents FEC 
Supreme Court Docket 
Sixth Circuit Oral Argument Audio 
Institute for Free Speech SCOTUS Amicus Brief 
Campaign Regulations Are Unconstitutional, by Bradley A. Smith, The Wall Street Journal 
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

Episode 42: First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on December 2, 2025. Argued by Erin Morrow Hawley, Alliance Defending Freedom, and Vivek Suri, Assistant Solicitor General (on behalf of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers), and Sundeep Subramanian Iyer, Chief Counsel to the Attorney General of New Jersey (on behalf of the state of New Jersey).  
Case Background, from the Institute for Free Speech case page: 
First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is a Christian medical nonprofit serving pregnant women, new mothers, and fathers. The Attorney General of New Jersey has specifically singled out this organization due to its religious beliefs and pro-life stance. New Jersey thus issued a sweeping and unjustified subpoena, demanding extensive documentation from the nonprofit. This places a heavy burden on the organization, forcing it to allocate its limited resources to comply or face legal consequences. Despite this, the Attorney General has not provided any concrete evidence of wrongdoing to warrant such intrusive measures. 
Question Presented, from the Supreme Court docket: 
New Jersey's Attorney General served an investigatory subpoena on First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc., a faith-based pregnancy center, demanding that it turn over most of its donors' names. First Choice challenged the Subpoena under 42 U.S.C. 1983 in federal court, and the Attorney General filed a subsequent suit to enforce it in state court. The state court granted the Attorney General's motion to enforce the Subpoena but expressly did not decide First Choice's federal constitutional challenges. The Attorney General then moved in state court to sanction First Choice. Meanwhile, the district court held that First Choice's constitutional claims were not ripe in federal court.
The Third Circuit affirmed in a divided per curiam decision. Judge Bibas would have held the action ripe as indistinguishable from. Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Banta, 594 U.S. 595, 618-19 (2021). But the majority concluded First Choice's claims were not yet ripe because First Choice could litigate its constitutional claims in state court. In doing so, the majority followed the rule of the Fifth Circuit and split from the Ninth Circuit. It did not address the likely loss of a federal forum once the state court rules on the federal constitutional issues.
The question presented is: Where the subject of a state investigatory demand has established a reasonably objective chill of its First Amendment rights, is a federal court in a first-filed action deprived of jurisdiction because those rights must be adjudicated in state court?
Resources:   
Brief for Petitioner First Choice Women’s Resource Center 
Brief for Respondent Matthew Platkin 
Institute for Free Speech Amicus Brief 
Supreme Court 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. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org