President Donald Trump's reelection campaign sued the local broadcast station in April for running an ad that made it seem like the President had called the coronavirus a hoax. The settlement does not include an apology from Trump, but one of the TV station's attorney framed it as a win for local news.
Two students who were prohibited from wearing pro-gun t-shirts in school can now move forward with their First Amendment claims after a federal judge found that the shirts were protected speech.
To satisfy the standard for defamation, Ms. Trump and Kushner would have to prove that the Lincoln Project made false and defamatory statements knowingly, a standard few commentators think the couple is going to meet. Instead, multiple experts see their actions as an attempt to weaponize the law to intimidate critics for protected expression.
The lawsuit says that the President continues to exclude users who were blocked before his inaguration or cannot specify the tweet that provoked the block. According to the complaint, the President’s staff told the Knight Institute as recently as July 20nd that the President “does not intend to unblock persons who were blocked prior to his inauguration or who cannot identify a tweet that proceeded and allegedly precipitated the blocking.”
The lawsuit claims that the filming of demonstrators violates a state law that prohibits collecting information about the political, religious, or social views of an individual or group who are not suspected of criminal activity. The practice could also discourage protesters from attending demonstrations to avoid state surveillance.
Mary Trump is now free to speak publicly about her memoir “Too Much and Never Enough: How My Family Created the World’s Most Dangerous Man.” The ruling is a blow to the Trump family who sued to stop the book's publication arguing that it violates an old nondisclosure agreement.
The case was brought by an association of political consultants who argued that a 2015 exception for calls to collect government debt violated the First Amendment. While the majority of justices agreed with the consultants that the 2015 exception was unconstitutional (6-3), an even greater majority disagreed with their argument for striking down the law in its entirety (7-2).
The U.S. Supreme Court considers a challenge to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a law passed in 1991 that prohibits the use of automated calls to cell phones. The plaintiffs, a group of political consultants, argue that the law and its exceptions discriminate based on the content of the caller's message.