The law forcing TikTok to be sold or banned is meant to protect Americans from Chinese government influence and privacy intrusions. But does it undermine a bedrock American principle?
These cases have asked the justices to consider how to apply some of the most sweeping constitutional protections – those of free speech – to an extremely complex online communication environment.
A college junior who has gained a following by sharing high-profile people’s private flight information says that he is sharing public information. Others, like Taylor Swift, say that he is stalking.
University codes of conduct support their mission to educate. But it’s not easy to balance those codes with the values of free speech, as the resignation of a prominent university president shows.
The first female justice on the Supreme Court was also the last justice to have served as an elected official. And her contributions to the court reflected her political experience and pragmatism.
Does Louisiana’s requirement for public schools to post ‘In God We Trust’ in all classrooms violate the doctrine of separation of church and state? A legal scholar weighs in.
Using the rhetoric of the First Amendment, a string of US Supreme Court cases has allowed members of some religious groups to limit the freedoms of other Americans.
Current precedent relies on a 1982 case in which five justices generally agreed there were limits on a school’s power to ban books, but they didn’t agree on why.
Trump has not been silenced. The limits on his speech protect fundamental rights − including his right to a fair trial by an unbiased jury and the public’s right to a working justice system.
What can President Trump and his lawyers say about documents and witness statements used as evidence in his upcoming trial over his alleged attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election?
Distinct from civil disobedience, this legal strategy demands complete compliance with the law – even when there are loopholes that the laws’ creators didn’t intend.
A number of judges who considered challenges to anti-LGBTQ legislation passed by state lawmakers in 2023 had strong words for how the laws violated the First Amendment.