Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles sued to overturn that law in 2022, on the grounds that it violated her First Amendment free speech rights.

Colorado therapist Kaley Chiles sued to overturn that law in 2022, on the grounds that it violated her First Amendment free speech rights.

“The First Amendment protects the right of people to speak truthfully about their legal businesses.

“Flag burning as a form of political protest is protected by the First Amendment. That’s nothing new,” said FIRE Chief Counsel Bob Corn-Revere.

Amendment rights in recent years.

The administration made several demands that Burroughs said included changes to activities protected by the First Amendment.

The judge found the lawsuit attempted to undermine protected political speech and therefore violated the First Amendment.

A lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration in September 2025, alleging violations of the First Amendment. In November 2025, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that blocked the administration’s funding cuts.

"This case shows that the First Amendment still provides protection to those people who receive due process," Stinson said.

—A federal judge on Wednesday rejected arguments made by an artificial intelligence company that its chatbots are protected by the First Amendment—at least for now.

Chamber of Commerce, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the California Chamber of Commerce, filed a lawsuit challenging SB 253 and SB 261, alleging a First Amendment violation. At the time, Sen.

Amendment.”

It accused the DOJ of trying to “undermine Americans’ religious freedom and First Amendment rights.”

Kelly sued Hegseth on Jan. 12, arguing the actions violate the First Amendment and Speech or Debate Clause.

The campaign finance restriction here “violates core First Amendment rights,” and should be overturned, it said.

Constitution's First Amendment, unions said in a lawsuit filed on Oct. 16. "The Challenged Surveillance Program is carried out to identify and punish noncitizens who express viewpoints disfavored by the government," the suit states.

The decision was anchored primarily on First Amendment grounds, where the court examined whether the parents would succeed on the merits of the case.

The justices appeared critical of TikTok’s argument that the law violated its First Amendment rights to free speech. 🇺🇸More Breaking News, Special Reports, and Live Coverage on NTD: https://ept.ms/NTD_LIVE

"But in the here and now, the First Amendment bars government officials from shutting down peaceful protests, and the Fourth Amendment (along with the District’s prohibition on false arrest) bars groundless seizures."

“Any burden experienced by adults is therefore only incidental to the statute’s regulation of activity that is not protected by the First Amendment,” he wrote.

"The Defense Department’s attempt to limit how credentialed reporters gather the news and what information they may publish is antithetical to a free and independent press and prohibited by the First Amendment.”

The officers argue that including their names in court records would infringe their First Amendment rights and chill their ability to express political opinions.

Other Cases Colorado has been the launching point for two other highly publicized First Amendment battles that reached the high court.

In a lawsuit filed on June 17, X said the state law would force the disclosure of “highly sensitive and controversial speech” that is fully protected by the First Amendment and “disfavored” by the state.

“This is not about students’ First Amendment rights to protest peacefully.

During the hearing, Roy said: "[We are] not suggesting that we shouldn't have groups that are able to exercise all of their First Amendment rights and speak clearly and freely."

Multiple officials warned that the move was likely outside federal jurisdiction, was unlawful because it implicated the parents’ First Amendment free speech rights, and would be seen as political.

District Judge Fred Biery of San Antonio ruled that Texas Senate Bill 10, set to take effect on Sept. 1, likely violates the "First Amendment respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting free exercise."

The Southeastern Legal Foundation, a nonprofit that represents the plaintiffs, said the decision by the federal appeals court was “a huge victory for the First Amendment.”

First Amendment The plaintiffs argued that using excessive force at protests could make individuals less inclined to exercise their rights out of fear of consequences or reprisal.