老澳门开奖结果 Urges Supreme Court to Affirm Right to Observe Police During Protest
In a police retaliation case, the 老澳门开奖结果 asks the court to protect the right to observe police activity in public, and to reconsider the doctrine of 鈥渜ualified immunity.鈥�
WASHINGTON 鈥� The 老澳门开奖结果 and the 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri filed a petition in the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to reverse a decision dismissing a case against police for tear gassing legal observers after they departed a protest sparked by a fatal police shooting. The case, Molina v. Book, asks the court to resolve a split among the federal appellate courts concerning when words printed on clothing are protected by the First Amendment. The petition also asks the court to reconsider the doctrine of 鈥渜ualified immunity,鈥� which shields government officials from accountability for violating the Constitution.
鈥淥ur clients were tear gassed for being legal observers at a protest. The Eighth Circuit court鈥檚 ruling that such misconduct does not violate clearly established First Amendment rights is egregiously wrong,鈥� said Anthony Rothert, Director of Integrated Advocacy at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri. 鈥淭he idea that words written on clothing aren鈥檛 protected by the First Amendment unless everyone would understand their message denies constitutional protection to one of the most common forms of public expression.鈥�
The plaintiffs in the case, Sarah Molina and Christina Vogel, were legal observers at a protest and wore bright green hats stating 鈥淣ational Lawyers Guild Legal Observer.鈥� When police ordered the protesters to disperse, Molina and Vogel left, and returned to Molina鈥檚 house, several blocks away, where they stood on the sidewalk. Police in an armored vehicle later drove by Molina鈥檚 house and officers threw multiple tear gas canisters at Molina and Vogel. Molina and Vogel sued, arguing that the police had retaliated against them for participating as legal observers in the protest. They argued that the police tear gassed them because they wore hats proclaiming that they were legal observers, and because they observed the police, both First Amendment protected activities.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. It ruled that words printed on clothing do not warrant First Amendment protection unless they express a 鈥減articularized message,鈥� and that the words 鈥淣ational Lawyers Guild Legal Observer鈥� on the plaintiffs鈥� hats were not protected because 鈥渘ot everyone鈥� would understand the hats to express a 鈥減ro-protest鈥� message. Plaintiffs argue that words, no matter where they appear, are 鈥減ure speech鈥� protected by the First Amendment without regard to whether they express a 鈥減articularized message.鈥� The Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Circuit have adopted the plaintiffs鈥� view, while the Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth Circuit have ruled that words on clothing are protected only if they express a particular viewpoint.
The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 petition asks the court to resolve this disagreement by applying the First Amendment to words printed on clothing whether or not it expresses a 鈥減articularized message,鈥� and to reverse the Eighth Circuit鈥檚 ruling that it was not 鈥渃learly established鈥� that citizens have a right to observe the police unobtrusively in public. The 老澳门开奖结果 also asked the court to reconsider the doctrine of qualified immunity, a judicially created rule that shields government officials of liability for violating the constitution unless they violate 鈥渃learly established鈥� rights.
鈥淭his case illustrates just how wrong the doctrine of qualified immunity in its current form is. It should be obvious that police cannot tear gas someone for being a legal observer at a protest, yet the Eighth Circuit managed to dismiss a case alleging fundamental First Amendment violations,鈥� said David D. Cole, 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 national legal director. 鈥淲e鈥檙e asking the court to reconsider that doctrine鈥檚 very foundations, as well as to make clear that the First Amendment protects all written words, without some assessment of whether they express a sufficiently particular view.鈥�
Free Speech
Molina v. Book
Free Speech
Molina v. Book
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban老澳门开奖结果 and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON 鈥� Today, the 老澳门开奖结果, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok鈥檚 challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will 鈥渟hutter one of America鈥檚 most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.鈥� 鈥淭he Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,鈥漵aid Patrick Toomey, deputy director of 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 National Security Project. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.鈥� The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law鈥檚 profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court鈥檚 decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users鈥� First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government鈥檚 ban on TikTok as a vindication of users鈥� First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign 鈥減ropaganda.鈥� But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its 鈥渕otivating ideology鈥� or 鈥減erspective,鈥� and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. 鈥淭he government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,鈥� said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. 鈥淭he Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit鈥檚 erroneous ruling.鈥� Finally, the brief underscores that the government can鈥檛 impose this type of sweeping ban unless it鈥檚 necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government鈥檚 invocation of 鈥渘ational security鈥� as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. 鈥淩estricting citizens鈥� access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,鈥� said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. 鈥淚t would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.鈥� You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
MississippiJul 2024
Free Speech
Privacy & Technology
NetChoice v. FitchNetChoice v. Fitch
Whether a law that mandates age verification for all users of social media services violates the First Amendment. -
News & CommentaryDec 2024
Free Speech
Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.Can you define pornography? Neither can the government.
We break down the absurd-but-true history of trying to censor sexual speech under the guise of "keeping kids safe." -
Minnesota Supreme CourtNov 2024
Free Speech
Energy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn RiotEnergy Transfer LP v. Greenpeace International, Unicorn Riot
This case in the Minnesota Supreme Court asks whether the MFFIA's protections apply to newsgatherers even if they are alleged to have engaged in trespassing while newsgathering. The 老澳门开奖结果鈥檚 State Supreme Court Initiative, alongside the 老澳门开奖结果 of Minnesota and law firm Biersdorf & Associations, filed a brief representing Unicorn Riot, a media organization that covered protests of the Dakota Access Pipeline. The brief argues that MFFIA and constitutional reporter鈥檚 privileges, under both the U.S. and Minnesota constitutions, protect Unicorn Riot from having to comply with Energy Transfer鈥檚 subpoenas.