Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs v. City of Fort Lauderdale (2021)
Fort Lauderdale Food Not Bombs regularly shared food in a public park as part of a political message about poverty, hunger, and the use of public resources. The city argued that its park rule was intended to regulate social service food-sharing events to address concerns about sanitation, safety, and park use. The organization argued that its events were not just food distribution, but expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court agreed that, in this context, the food-sharing events were expressive and therefore received constitutional protection. It then ruled that the city’s rule was unconstitutional as applied because it gave officials too much unguided discretion to decide when to allow or deny the activity. The court emphasized that public parks are traditional public forums where First Amendment protections are especially strong. As a result, the city could not rely on a vague permission system to control this kind of expressive activity.
Groff v. DeJoy (2023)
Gerald Groff worked for the United States Postal Service and requested an exemption from working on Sundays because of his Christian religious beliefs. At first, that arrangement worked, but later USPS began requiring more Sunday deliveries, and Groff was scheduled to work on those days. He asked for a full exemption from Sunday shifts, but USPS instead offered partial alternatives, such as shift swapping. Groff argued that the employer failed to reasonably accommodate his religion. USPS argued that fully excusing him from Sunday work would burden coworkers and disrupt operations. The Supreme Court ruled that employers must show a much more serious burden than a minor inconvenience in order to deny a religious accommodation. The Court said that an employer must show a substantial increase in costs related to its business, and it sent the case back to the lower court to apply that standard.
Molina v. Book (2023 filing)
This case concerns whether police officers were protected by qualified immunity after force was used against protesters and observers during a public demonstration. A central issue is whether people have a clearly established First Amendment right to observe or record police officers performing their duties in public. The argument supporting Molina emphasizes that observing police activity is part of gathering information about government conduct, which lies at the core of First Amendment protection. It also argues that multiple federal courts have recognized a right to record or observe police officers in public without interference. Critics of the lower court’s decision argue that no reasonable officer could believe it is lawful to retaliate against someone simply for watching police from a distance without interfering. The dispute, therefore, focuses on whether that right was clearly established at the time of the incident. The case also raises broader questions about qualified immunity and public oversight of law enforcement.
Murthy v. Missouri (2024)
This case asked whether federal officials violated the First Amendment by pressuring social media companies to remove or reduce certain online content. The plaintiffs argued that government officials effectively encouraged or coerced private companies to censor speech, especially on controversial public issues. The federal government argued that it was allowed to communicate with platforms about matters of public concern and that the plaintiffs could not show a direct constitutional injury. The Supreme Court first addressed the issue of standing, which determines whether a plaintiff may bring a case in federal court. The Court held that the plaintiffs had not shown that their alleged injuries were directly traceable to the government defendants in a way that satisfied Article III. Because of that, the Court ultimately did not decide the broader First Amendment question of government influence over platform moderation. The case, therefore, ended on standing grounds rather than on the merits of the free speech claim.
Lindke v. Freed (2024)
This case addressed whether a public official’s use of social media counts as government action under the First Amendment. James Freed, a city manager, blocked a critic from his Facebook page, and the question was whether that blocking was done in a personal or official capacity. The Supreme Court said that a public official’s social media activity counts as state action only if the official had actual authority to speak for the government and was using that authority in the posts at issue. The Court made clear that being a government employee does not automatically render all of one's online activity official action. At the same time, an account can become subject to constitutional limits if it is used to carry out official responsibilities or communicate official decisions. The Court did not fully resolve the dispute itself but instead sent the case back for the lower court to apply the new test. The decision provides guidance about when blocking users on a social media page may violate the First Amendment.
National Rifle Association v. Vullo (2024)
The NRA argued that a New York state financial regulator pressured insurance companies and financial institutions to cut ties with the organization because of its advocacy supporting gun rights. According to the NRA, the regulator used the authority of her office to encourage companies to sever their relationships with the group. The regulator argued that her actions were lawful and related to legitimate regulatory concerns. The Supreme Court held that the NRA had plausibly alleged a First Amendment violation at the pleading stage. The Court explained that government officials may speak out and attempt to persuade others, but they may not use the threat of government power to coerce private parties into suppressing disfavored speech. The key constitutional issue was the line between persuasion and coercion. The Court allowed the NRA’s First Amendment claim to move forward.
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024)
This case involved state laws in Florida and Texas that restricted how large online platforms could moderate user content. Technology companies argued that their decisions about what content to remove, prioritize, or label constitute editorial judgment protected by the First Amendment. The states argued that the laws were meant to prevent unfair censorship and protect the free exchange of ideas online. The Supreme Court did not issue a final ruling on whether the laws were constitutional in all applications. Instead, it held that the lower courts had not properly analyzed the full scope of the laws in the way required for a facial constitutional challenge. The Court noted that some platform moderation decisions, especially those involving major content feeds, may involve protected expressive activity. The cases were sent back to the lower courts for further analysis under the proper framework.
Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Fontes (2025)
This case involved Arizona’s process for verifying signatures on early mail-in ballots. The Arizona Free Enterprise Club argued that election officials should only be allowed to compare a voter’s ballot signature with a limited set of documents. State officials argued that using a broader range of signatures makes the verification process more accurate and better reflects Arizona law. Supporters of the state’s policy also argued that limiting the comparison pool could create more mismatches and make it harder to count lawful votes. The dispute, therefore, centered on election administration, ballot verification, and how the law should be interpreted. The Arizona Court of Appeals ultimately did not resolve the broader constitutional or policy arguments on the merits. Instead, it ruled that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That decision left the state’s signature-matching policy in place.