Legal scholars contend that when the Supreme Court ruled to protect the religious from compelled speech, their rulings may have unwelcome consequences. The scholars write, “The range of ‘speakers’ protected by this expansive jurisprudence will include information technology companies that generate algorithms and artificial intelligence – speech producers with no conscience at all, much less the kind of sincere religious conviction that the Roberts Court has seen fit to protect against government regulation. As we

A Texas district court judge ruled that an18-year-old Black high school student could not wear his hair in locs curled around his head since if let fall, it would be below his shirt collar, eyebrows or head in violation of the district dress code policy. The judge found that the dress code did not violate Texas’ CROWN Act that district policies “may not discriminate against a hair texture or protective hairstyle commonly or historically associated

A federal appeals court ruled that the First Amendment does allow Oregon state senators who walked out of the senate to avoid a recently passed constitutional provision that disqualifies lawmakers from running for reelection if they miss 10 or more days of work. (Oregon Capital Chronicle, February 29, 2024, by Juliia Shumway) A unanimous panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal agreed with a lower court decision that the walkout was “‘an exercise

The U.S. Supreme Court justices showed scant enthusiasm for Florida and Texas laws preventing social media companies from moderating content from users on their sites. In oral arguments, several justices made distinctions between unconstitutional government censorship and decisions by private companies to allow certain types of speech on their sites. (The New York Times, February 26, 2024, by Adam Liptak) Responding to comments from fellow justices that social media moderation was censorship,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh

Scholar Alexander Volokh of the Emery University School of Law, February 15, 2024, writes that the nation’s private universities have a strong First Amendment argument in defense of affirmative action. Given Boy Scouts of America v. Dale and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Volokh finds that almost all of a university’s activities are pure speech so given a right against compelled speech and a commitment to diversity, “The university’s expressive-association right can include the ability