VIDEO RICH EDITION: Harvard bucks Trump, AdGo & I contribute to ‘The Free Inquiry Papers,’ & more!
Bringing you the latest free speech news (4/20/25)
Story of the week
Harvard’s resistance to Trump is a model for US universities (UnHerd) by FIRE Senior Writer/Editor & ERI’s own
The principle is clear: the government cannot condition a school’s federal funding on giving up First Amendment rights. When the Obama and Biden administrations demanded universities restrict student free speech and due process rights under Title IX — the law prohibiting sex discrimination in federally funded educational programmes or activities — this was clearly unlawful. The same argument applies now.
This week in FIRE’s blog
Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands
FIRE comment to FCC calls for review of regulations that may violate the First Amendment
Grandpa’s advice for the new wave of American censors by FIRE Senior Attorney
Revoking Harvard’s tax-exempt status will threaten all nonprofits
This week in ERI
On Tuesday, the American Enterprise Institute will release The Free Inquiry Papers, an edited volume that looks at the ways restraints on free speech have harmed the search for truth in higher education and in research institutions. It’s edited by Robert Maranto, Catherine Salmon, Lee Jussim, and Sally Satel.
My ERI co-conspirator Adam Goldstein and I contributed a chapter. In it, we walk you (the reader) through three days at a fictional university, asking you to put yourself in the shoes of the college president. Then we pose a number of questions, such asHow should an administrator react to campus unrest?andHow can a college meet its anti-discrimination obligations without resorting to censorship?
This week on ‘So to Speak’
On Monday’s episode of
, FIRE Executive Vice President hosted a “flash” webinar alongside FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley & FIRE Director of Campus Advocacy Lindsie Rank to discuss the Trump administration’s unprecedented letter to Harvard as well as Harvard’s response and answer viewers’ questions.
FIRE in the press!
First Amendment Prevails in Trump vs. the AP (The Wall Street Journal) by FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr
Radio Silence: Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty helped win the Cold War. It still has an important role to play (The Dispatch) by FIRE Senior Fellow
It’s always a pleasure talking with Mona Charen on The Bulwark’s The Mona Charen Show, and this episode was no exception. We talked all things free speech — including why the impulse to censor is not exclusive to one side of the political spectrum.
Check out FIRE Legal Director Will Creeley on CBCNN this week!
Will also made an appearance on the BBC this week:
Also check out FIRE Executive Vice President
with Audie Cornish on CNN this week:
And don’t miss Nico’s interview on
’s !
London Calling: Ronnie’s First Amendment Roundup
With thanks to FIRE Director of Public Advocacy Aaron Terr.
A federal judge ruled that Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk presented strong evidence that her detention by ICE was a retaliatory act for her political speech, potentially violating her First and Fifth Amendment rights, and denied the government’s motion to dismiss her habeas petition while ordering her return to Vermont for further proceedings.
Finding she “raised significant constitutional concerns with her arrest and detention which merit full and fair consideration in this forum,” a Vermont federal judge denied a government motion to dismiss the habeas petition of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, who had co-authored an op-ed criticizing the university’s refusal to label the war in Gaza a “genocide” and divest from companies tied to Israel, leading to her seizure last month by ICE agents and her subsequent move to immigration detention in Louisiana.
In a now-deleted X post, Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin had claimed Öztürk, a Turkish national and doctoral candidate in the U.S. on a validly issued student visa, “engaged in activities in support of Hamas.” An internal government memo shows DHS and ICE describing Öztürk as “involved in associations that may undermine U.S. foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization.” Their evidence? Ozturk’s op-ed, which the government claims “found common cause” with Tufts Students for Justice in Palestine, “an organization that was later temporarily banned from campus.” But there was no claim she was a member of that group, broke any law, or violated any campus policy.
In its decision, the court “finds that Ms. Ozturk has presented significant evidence” that “her detention is in retaliation for her political speech, thus violating her rights under the First and Fifth Amendments.” It notes evidence that “supports her argument that the government’s motivation or purpose for her detention is to punish her for co-authoring an op-ed” and “to chill the political speech of others,” while the government “has so far offered no evidence to support an alternative, lawful motivation or purpose.”
This, the court held, implicates the First Amendment, whose “protection of the right to free speech is often considered the cornerstone of our vibrant American democracy,” especially as it “protects individuals from government action that is based on improper motives, namely silencing disfavored speech.” In doing so, the court notes these “First Amendment protections have long extended to noncitizens residing within the country.”
But while the court suggests that if it “were evaluating the question of motivation for Ms. Öztürk’s visa revocation, this inquiry could likely conclude now,” it ultimately holds that “while Ms. Öztürk has raised serious claims and provided evidence that merit further review, the Court does not yet have enough evidence to make a determination on pre-disposition release.” It did, however, order her return from Louisiana to Vermont, where habeas proceedings will continue, on which the court “plans to move expeditiously.”
Check out the similar First Amendment arguments FIRE made in its amicus brief in the Mahmoud Khalil case.
Also check out Garcia v. Noem, which is not a First Amendment case but is nonetheless a timely reminder by the Fourth Circuit that respecting duly issued federal court decisions is central to our enjoyment of liberty, and NetChoice v. Yost, the second permanent injunction against a state social media age-verification/parental-consent law (this one from Ohio), following the decision flagged here two weeks ago in NetChoice v. Griffin (re: Arkansas’ similar law).
International free speech stories of the week
Can a Pop Song Violate Children’s Rights? (Reason) by
Iranian lawyers who defended 2022 protesters sentenced to prison (Iran International)
Four Russian journalists linked to late Kremlin critic Navalny sentenced at Moscow court (CNN) by Sana Noor Haq & Anna Chernova
Trailer of the week
The new Fantastic Four trailer just dropped this week!
I think it's absolutely brilliant that they decided to portray Marvel’s first family as the sole superhero group of an alternate universe’s 1960s. Many years ago, I took on the project of reading every single frame of every single issue of the original Fantastic Four series from 1961, and it was really worthwhile. The story of the Fantastic Four is the story of the creation of an entirely new creative universe, and the sheer imaginative power that came out of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby during his 100-issue run included everything from Galactus to Black Panther to the Inhumans to Doctor Doom and Molecule Man — while also writing a weirdly and wonderfully human story about superheroes.
Here's hoping the movie doesn't disappoint.
Here's a counterargument regarding the federal government's apparently heavy hand on free speech: Harvard's DEI/antiracism/wokism is a religion. NOT 'like a religion', but an actual faith with all the elements typical of religious dogma. [This is from John McWorter, liberal NYTimes columnist.]
The federal government has no place supporting a religion; hence, it is obligated to withhold funds until the institution disavows all of its religious activities.
Moreover, Harvard's own heavy hand on restricting free speech doesn't go away just because it is fighting the Trump's administration's demands. Two wrongs don't make a right. Harvard's crushing anti-free speech policies need a full tooth and nail fight.
As a taxpayer I fully endorse the administration's efforts to discipline Harvard and all like-minded institutions. I don't want my tax dollars supporting their frankly evil belief system.
I acknowledge some of the Trump admin's demands go to far, are non-constitutional, and are not practicable. But Harvard is not a knight in polished armor galloping on its white steed to rescue free speech.
Just a reminder that students went beyond free speech in their protests. Students need to be taught the limits of free speech and the consequences. Those consequences need to be vigorously adhered to by the universities. This should help avoid more problems in the future. Then it doesn't matter what anyone says as long as it remains speech as is legally allowed. This has been clearly spelled out in the Supreme Court.
One easy measure is what is considered abuse of black students. Then apply to all students.
I agree that the Trump administration is often going beyond legal limits.