Legacy media made another feeble attempt to malign Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the eve of the release of her new book. But contrary to the whispers of palace intrigue surrounding the Court’s Dobbs decision, her book, &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1">Listening to the Law</a>,&#8221; is a window into the careful legal reasoning and conscientious commitment to the law that has defined her career. It reminds us that liberty depends on intellect, conscience, and the steady moral vision women of faith uniquely bring to public life. Barrett embodies these traits, and they are mirrored in women across the country who refuse to be cowed. 
Barrett’s convictions never wavered when she was maligned for her Catholic faith. During her Seventh Circuit confirmation, Senator Dianne Feinstein warned of the “dogma living loudly” in Barrett — a jab she met with intelligence, poise, and unflinching calm. Her Supreme Court confirmation displayed the same razor-sharp clarity. While many American women see in Barrett traits they recognize in themselves — dedication, moral clarity, and attention to conscience — there will only ever be one ACB. I recognized it in small, ordinary ways, too. A friend once gave me a coffee mug that read, “The Dogma Lives Loudly Within Me”—a playful badge of honor. Even when the mug was accidentally shattered by a child unloading the dishwasher, the sentiment remained intact, much like the enduring faith of women who live their convictions quietly but resolutely, holding conscience above convenience.
In &#8220;Listening to the Law,&#8221; Barrett reflects on family, faith, and the role of law in society. She recalls her great-grandmother, a widowed mother of thirteen during the Depression, noting that “No generation starts afresh; each is shaped by its predecessors.”
<div id="attachment_968825" style="width: 394px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-968825" class="size-large wp-image-968825" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-384x576.jpg" alt="Credit: Sentinel Books" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-40-PM-5434-scaled.jpg 1707w" sizes="auto, (max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>Credit: Sentinel Books</div>
She observes that “Law is but one piece of what it takes to make a healthy society, and it (like everything else in life) exists in the midst of relationships.” She underscores that the Constitution commits us to pluralism through protections like those guaranteed by the First Amendment, which “requires the government to tolerate all opinions and all religions.” To critics who “suggest that people of faith have a particularly difficult time following the law rather than their moral views,” Barrett reiterates her understanding that “the guiding principle in every case is what the law requires, not what aligns with the judge’s own concept of justice.” Such resolve, she shows, can be met exactly because of the humility that derives from faith. And her own grounding in a large, loving family shines through — the book is dedicated simply to “Jesse,” her husband — a tribute both understated and profound.
When it comes to safeguarding America’s first freedom, Barrett’s rigor is urgently needed. Sooner rather than later, the Supreme Court will revisit Employment Division v. Smith. Authored by Justice Antonin Scalia, for whom Barrett clerked, Smith held that sincerely held religious objections do not exempt people from complying with “neutral and generally applicable laws.”
In practice, Smith has often crushed religious liberty, particularly regarding anti-discrimination laws tied to sexual orientation and gender identity. Barrett’s careful attention to conscience — the “feminine genius” St. John Paul II celebrated—is precisely what the Court needs to craft a workable framework for protecting the free exercise rights of those whose beliefs are countercultural. The stakes are far from abstract: the religious convictions of real women hang in the judicial balance.
Consider Cathy Miller, a Christian baker from California, fined for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, who has asked the Court to hear her case this term. Or the Little Sisters of the Poor, who still refuse to include abortifacients or contraceptives in their health care plans despite the authoritarian demands of the Affordable Care Act’s “contraceptive mandate,” holding fast to Church teaching. Lori Smith, a Colorado website designer, refused to create speech she did not believe in — and won at the Supreme Court. Jessica Bates, a widowed Oregon mother, was blocked from fostering children because she would not embrace gender ideology — until the Ninth Circuit, of all places, vindicated her. These women were not seeking to impose beliefs on others, but to defend the right of all Americans to live out their faith without government coercion. They stand as sentinels between the state and the citizen’s conscience.
Backing them are brilliant women lawyers and scholars who turn principle into action. Kristen Waggoner, president of Alliance Defending Freedom, has argued multiple Supreme Court cases. Lori Windham of the Becket Fund shields institutions and individuals from government overreach. Legal scholars like Mary Ann Glendon, Nicole Garnett, Helen Alvaré, and Stephanie Barclay provide indispensable intellectual firepower. Protecting religious liberty is neither abstract nor optional. It demands moral clarity, expert advocacy, and strategic rigor.
&#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Listening-Law-Reflections-Court-Constitution/dp/0593421868/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.ILSOy3KahPQkW1N9rrNO_q4yhhX-A5gHnGstjpJkVxIJEAnrRe9w_lF2EUAzY8ASQZ9CZqVDHgKZt8ve0nfVVfwqI92ZVk_q0-xS0_0MvGjhlohklgHmlqVEi16JQXap9StaJ9rMCJYS5c-zfbRU2u7nrMK7Ps-ryfWBC5LGZTDLoJ6JVQxpOU7zm2FeSFITwHaNi6WP9-IfOtCiQoJ3-HjnOJseV05XFTe7FBtb5Jo.5_511Qkt6JuwwSSsSnxDilB7c5pvyEXA08tcA6xNPMM&amp;qid=1757008559&amp;sr=8-1">Listening to the Law</a>&#8221; shows that defending liberty requires both intellect and conscience. Barrett’s reflections illuminate the careful reasoning and moral clarity she brings to public life. Just as the other women highlighted here confront cultural and legal pressures with courage and fidelity, Barrett’s reflections on the law remind us that protecting religious freedom — our First Freedom — depends on women of faith. Through courage, attention to conscience, and steadfast commitment to the common good and the rule of law, they ensure liberty endures for generations to come.
* * *
Andrea Picciotti-Bayer is Director of the <a href="https://conscience-project.org/">Conscience Project.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
Correction: A previous version of this article stated Kristen Waggoner was the former president of Alliance Defending Freedom. She is, in fact, the current president of the ADF.

MixCollage-04-Sep-2025-01-28-PM-1170

The Dogma Still Lives Loudly: Amy Coney Barrett And The Witness Of Women Of Faith

Amy Coney Barrett

Books

Dobbs

First Amendment

Supreme Court

Women

President Trump suggested via executive order that burning the American flag could be punishable by law.
This is good.
But some people are critical of it because they are misreading the executive order.
What President Trump said publicly was a very simplified version of what the executive order actually stated. He said, “If you burn a flag, you get one year in jail. No early exits, no nothing. You get one year in jail. If you burn a flag, what it does is incite to riot. &#8230; You burn a flag, you get one year in jail, you don&#8217;t get ten years. You don&#8217;t get one month, you get one year in jail. And it goes on your record, and you will see flag-burning stopping immediately.&#8221;
People are saying that Trump’s order criminalizes all forms of flag burning. That is not true. The president does not have the authority via executive order to make anything criminal. You can&#8217;t make things criminal via executive order at the federal level. That requires a congressional act. The president can&#8217;t deem an act illegal and then it magically becomes so. He can enforce the current law by directing his DOJ to prosecute certain crimes that are already on the books.
So what exactly did the president sign? The executive order doesn’t say if you burn an American flag in a protest that you&#8217;re going to go to jail, because that would violate Texas v. Johnson.
What it does say is that if you do something that is likely to incite imminent lawless action that is not protected by the First Amendment — if I tell you, “Let&#8217;s go attack that courthouse” — you can be prosecuted.
Why? Because the action is likely to incite imminent lawless action.
Thus, this order doesn&#8217;t do what some critics think it does. It does not say that if you burn a flag under any circumstances, you are going to jail.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-2267-trump-protects-the-american-flag-plus-we-break-a-major-story?elementPosition=3&amp;row=2&amp;rowHeadline=Latest+Episodes&amp;rowType=Horizontal+Show+Episodes+Carousel">WATCH: The Ben Shapiro Show</a></h3>
Two things can be true at the same time. First: According to the Supreme Court, the Constitution of the United States protects flag-burning as a form of expression, so long as it doesn&#8217;t violate other issues such as incitement to violence. Second: The Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson is wrong and a bad decision. That 5-4 decision, which is held in high esteem by libertarians and members of the Left, violated centuries of American precedent. The First Amendment was not designed to protect flag-burning.
So why is the Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson wrong?
By 1932, every single state in America had a flag desecration statute. Even though, according to the Supreme Court, the flag was a federal symbol, states could still criminalize desecration of the American flag. Typically, this was designed not only to prevent marking, mutilating, trampling, defacing, defiling, or defying the flag; in many states, it was meant to ban the use of the American flag in advertisements — a ban that has been jettisoned over the course of time.
In 1943’s West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnett, the Supreme Court started to assert that people could not be compelled to salute the flag because refusing to do so was freedom of speech.
You could say that was a fairly decent argument. Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote, “If there&#8217;s any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.”
That&#8217;s an arguable opinion. I think saying that you should like the country and like the flag is not a horrible prerequisite to being an American citizen. But you can see the counterargument, which is that freedom of speech exists at the federal level, not at the state level. The First Amendment to the Constitution applies to Congress, and Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech. That does not apply to the states. In the early days of our Republic, states routinely made laws abridging freedom of speech.
But then we saw attempts by the Supreme Court to carve back much of the law surrounding the flag. In 1968, Congress passed a federal flag desecration law, which was meant to mirror many of the state laws. The federal law made it illegal to knowingly cast contempt upon any flag of the United States by publicly mutilating, defacing, defiling, burning, or trampling upon it.
Then there were a bunch of Supreme Court cases under the very liberal Warren Court that carved a lot of that back the other way, including in 1969 saying that you could curse the flag, in 1974 saying that you could sew the flag to your pants, or you could sit on it in a way to shame it.
That culminated in the Texas v. Johnson decision, which was written by Justice William Brennan, which found that flag burning was symbolic speech and that the Texas statute was content-based. Justice Scalia, the deciding vote in that case, said, “If it were up to me, I would put in jail every sandal-wearing, scruffy, bearded weirdo who burns the American flag. But I am not king.”
But as Justice William Rehnquist wrote in dissent, “In holding this Texas statute unconstitutional, the court ignores Justice Holmes&#8217;s familiar aphorism that a page of history is worth a volume of logic. For more than 200 years, the American flag has occupied a unique position as the symbol of our nation; the uniqueness that justifies a governmental prohibition against flag burning in the way respondent Johnson did here.”
He pointed out that every single state except for Alaska and Wyoming had statutes at the time prohibiting the burning of the flag. He added that the “American flag, throughout more than 200 years of our history, has come to be the visible symbol embodying our nation. It does not represent the views of any particular political party. It does not represent any particular political philosophy. The flag is not simply another idea or point of view, competing for recognition in the marketplace of ideas. I cannot agree that the First Amendment invalidates the act of Congress, and the laws in 48 of the 50 states which make criminal the public burning of the flag. The government may conscript men into the armed forces where they must fight and perhaps die for the flag but the government may not prohibit the public burning of the banner under which they fight?”
Rehnquist was right about that.
On the merits, President Trump is not wrong. Flag burning is bad. And the executive order does not prohibit flag burning per se, as Trump has no power to do that.
Another reason the order is good is that it is smart politics. You’re now going to see a bunch of lefties going out in the streets burning the American flag, which is precisely what Trump is tempting them to do. He’s baiting them.
President Trump is saying, “You believe that America is all about burning the American flag? That American citizenship is about &#8216;Dissent is patriotic?'&#8221;
Americans don’t like burning the American flag.
The American flag is special. I&#8217;ve backed a constitutional amendment that would criminalize flag burning for my entire political career. That’s because, as our institutions fall apart, we have less and less fealty to anything in common.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=summer&amp;utm_content=editorialsummersale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">End of Summer Sale &#8211; Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
Fealty to the American flag remains, along with fealty to the Constitution of the United States, the basis for being a good American.
You should love the American flag. It&#8217;s the flag of your country. You should love the Constitution of the United States, the organizing founding document of our country.
If you are going to form an Americanism around ideas, loyalty, and love for the country, the American flag is a very good place to start.

President Trump Signs Executive Orders In The Oval Office Of The White House

Trump Protects The American Flag

American Flag

Antonin Scalia

Ben Shapiro

Opinion

President Trump

The Trump administration rolled out new guidance on Monday that makes it clear that federal workers are allowed to invite their co-workers to church and share their religious beliefs with them. 
The <a href="https://www.chcoc.gov/content/reasonable-accommodations-religious-purposes">memo</a> issued by Office of Personnel Management Director Scott Kupor seeks to ensure the protection of religious liberty for federal workers. It provides examples of permitted religious expression in the workplace and specifies that such conversations must remain respectful and not be disruptive. 
“Federal employees should never have to choose between their faith and their career,” Kupor said. “This guidance ensures the federal workplace is not just compliant with the law but welcoming to Americans of all faiths. Under President Trumpʼs leadership, we are restoring constitutional freedoms and making government a place where people of faith are respected, not sidelined.”
The guidance says that federal workers may “engage in conversations regarding religious topics with fellow employees, including attempting to persuade others of the correctness of their own religious views, provided that such efforts are not harassing in nature.”
An example of this kind of religious expression would include one employee trying to persuade another to convert to their faith during a break. 
Federal employees are also free to direct their expressions of faith to members of the public at certain times. Examples given included “a park ranger leading a tour through a national park may join her tour group in prayer,” and “a doctor at a Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital may pray over his patient for her recovery.”
“An employee’s fundamental rights, as a private citizen, of personal religious expression are not limited by the venue or hearer, or merely because the employee is a government employee, and therefore may not be suppressed due to the religious nature of the expression,” the memo said. “However, when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline.”
The guidance also says that federal employees can display personal religious items like Bibles, artwork, jewelry, mezuzahs, and crosses at their workspace.
The Monday memo followed <a href="https://www.chcoc.gov/content/reasonable-accommodations-religious-purposes">guidance</a> from July 16 that allows for telework at certain times for religious reasons. The memo said that workers should be allowed to request to work remotely for purposes like the Sabbath or religious holidays, scheduled prayers, fasting, or other religious obligations. 
In February, Trump <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/12/2025-02635/establishment-of-the-white-house-faith-office">signed</a> an executive order establishing the White House Faith Office to promote religious liberty throughout his administration.

TOPSHOT-US-VOTE-POLITICS-TRUMP

New Trump Guidance Allows Federal Employees To Debate Religion With Co-Workers

Donald Trump

Office of Personnel Management

Politics

Religion

Religious Liberty

Trump Administration

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican challenge to campaign finance regulations that restricts political parties from coordinating campaign spending with political candidates.
The challenge from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) argues that restricting the amount parties can spend in coordination with candidates violates the First Amendment by restricting speech. The court is expected to hear arguments on the case when its fall 2025 term begins.
&#8220;The government should not restrict a party committee&#8217;s support for its own candidates. These coordinated expenditure limits violate the First Amendment, and we appreciate the Court&#8217;s decision to hear our case,&#8221; <a href="https://x.com/NRSC/status/1939735374395232752" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> NRSC Chair Tim Scott and National Republican Congressional Committee Chair Richard Hudson. &#8220;Coordinated spending continues to be a critical part of winning campaigns, and the NRSC and NRCC will ensure we are in the strongest possible position to win in 2026 and beyond.&#8221;
The case was originally brought by the NRSC and now-Vice President J.D. Vance back in 2022 in a challenge to restrictions on coordinated spending introduced by the 1972 Federal Election Campaign Act.
In September 2024, the restrictions were <a href="https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/24a0212p-06.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">upheld</a> by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In its decision, the appeals court said that the NRSC made “fair points” about speech restrictions; it could not side with them because of previous Supreme Court precedent.
The precedent in question was the 2001 FEC vs. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee decision, which ruled that limits on coordinated spending do not violate the First Amendment.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/freedom/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=freedom&amp;utm_content=freedomeditorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-2388">JULY 4 SALE: Get Six Months Of DW+ Free</a>
“The key reality is that the Supreme Court has not overruled the 2001 Colorado decision or the deferential review it applied to these provisions of the Act. In a hierarchical legal system, we must follow that decision and thus must deny the plaintiffs’ First Amendment facial and as applied challenges,” the Sixth Circuit Court wrote in its September decision.
In its December 2024 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-621/333312/20241204134722325_NRSC%20v.%20FEC%20Cert%20Petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">petition</a> to the Supreme Court, the NRSC said that Congress &#8220;has built a wall of separation between party and candidate, forcing party committees to figure out how to get their candidates elected without hearing from them.”
“Should this Court decline to take this case, future litigants will interpret that decision as proof that, whatever the Court has said in more recent campaign-finance cases, it is content to leave the political parties as second-class holders of First Amendment rights,” they wrote.
The Trump administration has signaled support for the challenge, while the Supreme Court allowed the Democratic National Committee to intervene in support of the campaign finance restrictions.

Supreme Court Releases Decisions On Final Day Of Term

Supreme Court To Hear GOP Free Speech Challenge To Campaign Spending Restrictions

campaign donation

Courts

Free Speech

Republicans

Tim Scott

U.S.

A lawyer who defended many of the peaceful pro-life protesters targeted by the Biden administration praised the House Judiciary Committee for voting to repeal the decades-old statute used to put them behind bars. 
Steve Crampton, a lawyer with the Thomas More Society, told The Daily Wire that it was “very encouraging” that the Judiciary Committee passed a <a href="https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/589/all-actions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">bill</a> on Tuesday from Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) to repeal the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act. The FACE Act, first passed in 1994, is a law that makes obstructing access to an abortion facility a federal crime and ostensibly provides the same protections for churches and pregnancy centers.  
In reality, Crampton noted, the law has been used to go after peaceful pro-life demonstrators, while attacks on churches and crisis pregnancy centers are often ignored. Data obtained by Roy show that 97% of all FACE Act prosecutions since 1994 have been against pro-lifers.
“You have ample law under state law and elsewhere to prosecute truly violent undertakings,” Crampton told The Daily Wire. “All the FACE Act adds is the physical obstruction component, which is targeted at peaceful civil disobedience acts that have historically been really cherished and celebrated in our country, rather than singled out for harsh federal prosecutions.”
Throughout multiple federal trials, Crampton defended peaceful pro-life protesters, such as <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/kidnapped-at-gunpoint-pro-life-activist-testifies-about-harrowing-fbi-raid-of-home" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Paul Vaughn</a> in Tennessee and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/pro-life-activist-sentenced-to-over-four-years-in-prison-over-protest-at-d-c-abortion-facility" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Lauren Handy</a> in Washington, D.C., who were convicted under both FACE and conspiracy against rights charges during the Biden administration. Both faced over a decade in prison. Handy was sentenced to over four years in prison, while Vaughn was sentenced to home detention. 
In January, President Donald Trump <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/they-should-not-have-been-prosecuted-trump-pardons-23-pro-lifers-targeted-by-biden-doj" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pardoned</a> the pro-life protesters, freeing Handy and others from federal prison. Trump’s Justice Department also issued a memo saying FACE would only be prosecuted in cases of extreme violence. 
Crampton said he was disappointed to see California Republican Rep. Tom McClintock voice opposition to repealing FACE during Tuesday’s hearing, as he argued that the law was neutral but abused by the Biden administration. Crampton said the law was inherently content-based, noting that you could only be charged under FACE if your intent was to prevent abortion and not just obstruction in general. He also said that the bias of the law &#8220;screams through the statistics&#8221; of the prosecutions. 
Vaughn, a Christian father of 11 whose Tennessee home was raided by armed FBI agents, told The Daily Wire he was happy to see the repeal advance. 
“The reality is it&#8217;s never done anything other than provide a federal hammer to be used against the pro-life community,” he said. “There&#8217;s not a law that it covers, that is not already a state law, or is not an infraction that it covers, it&#8217;s not covered under a state law.”
Vaughn says he would also like to see reforms brought to the conspiracy against rights provision from the 1871 Ku Klux Klan Act, which Biden’s Justice Department paired with FACE in their cases against the pro-lifer protesters. That meant that Vaughn and others — like 89-year-old communist concentration camp survivor Eva Edl — faced over 10 years in prison. 
Crampton agreed, noting that he would like to see the provision heavily revised to ensure First Amendment protections or even done away with altogether. He thinks that FACE should be dealt with first because state attorneys general still bring FACE prosecutions under the law even if the Trump administration is not active. 
FACE “remains a very, very powerful weapon in the hands of these left-wing attorneys general,” Crampton told The Daily Wire, adding that &#8220;protecting fundamental First Amendment rights ought to be of the highest priority in our national debate&#8221; and that pro-life advocates should &#8220;keep charging forward.&#8221; 
A full vote on the repeal has not yet been scheduled for the House, and the legislation would likely have an uphill battle in the Senate. Republican Senators such as Mike Lee of Utah and Josh Hawley of Missouri have been very outspoken about the weaponization of the FACE Act.

US-POLITICS-BIDEN

Lawyer Who Fought Biden’s FACE Act Weaponization Urges GOP To ‘Keep Charging Forward’ On Repeal

Biden Administration

Chip Roy

FACE Act

House Judiciary Committee

Pro-Life Movement

The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Catholic charity that sued Wisconsin after it was mandated to pay certain unemployment taxes while other religious organizations were exempted.
In its <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-154_2b82.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ruling</a>, the court struck down a decision from the Wisconsin Supreme Court that said the Catholic Charities Bureau had to pay taxes on unemployment compensation. The court said that the interpretation of state tax law by Wisconsin&#8217;s Supreme Court violated the First Amendment.
&#8220;The First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religions and subjects any state-sponsored denominational preference to strict scrutiny,&#8221; Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority decision. &#8220;The Wisconsin Supreme Court’s application of [Wisconsin law] imposed a denominational preference by differentiating between religions based on theological lines.&#8221;
Catholic Charities Bureau is an organization that provides services to poor people, the disabled, the elderly, and children with special needs as a ministry of the Catholic Church in the Diocese of Superior. According to its <a href="https://ccbsuperior.org/about-us/">website</a>, it provides around 50 programs to over 10,500 people.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, saying that in addition to violating the First Amendment, the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine, which means that a religious institution is not defined by any corporate entity it may form.
&#8220;I would reverse for an additional reason — that the Wisconsin Supreme Court violated the church autonomy doctrine,&#8221; Thomas wrote. &#8220;However incorporated, Catholic Charities and its subentities are, from a religious perspective, a mere arm of the Diocese of Superior. The Wisconsin Supreme Court should have deferred to that understanding, and its failure to do so amounted to an unlawful attempt by the State to redefine the Diocese’s internal governance.&#8221;
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>
Thomas noted that the government could not use entities created by religious institutions as a backdoor means to regulate their internal governance.
&#8220;In short, the corporation is made for the church, not the church for the corporation. Both the basic principles of church autonomy and the history of religious corporations establish that religious institutions are more than the corporate entities that they form,&#8221; he wrote. &#8220;It follows that the government may not use such entities as a means of regulating the internal governance of religious institutions.&#8221;
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also issued a separate concurring opinion.

DOGE-FED-BUILDINGS

Supreme Court Sides With Christian Charity Targeted By Wisconsin

Catholic Church

Clarence Thomas

Sonia Sotomayor

Wisconsin

North Carolina Congressman Mark Harris is leading a push to protect pastors who make political statements from being punished by the IRS, he told The Daily Wire. 
Harris on Monday will introduce the “Free Speech Fairness Act,” to make it clear in law that religious leaders can make statements about political candidates and not have to worry about their churches losing tax-exempt status. The bill is specifically aimed at countering the 1954 Johnson Amendment, which restricts churches and other non-profits from endorsing or opposing political candidates. 
“The whole idea was in contrast to Americans’ inalienable rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion,” Harris told The Daily Wire. “It currently puts the IRS in a position of judge and jury on comments that are going to be made by ministers from the pulpit and all speech from non-profits.”
Harris, a Baptist minister, said that the Johnson Amendment had been used as a “tool to silence religious leaders and churches.” He said his legislation would restore free speech to religious leaders and non-profits. 
Senator James Lankford (R-OK) will introduce a companion measure co-sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the Senate. 
“The First Amendment protects Americans’ right to freedom of speech and religious freedom without the threat of interference from Congress,&#8221; Lankford told The Daily Wire. &#8220;Fundamental American values must extend to everyone, including pastors, social workers, or non-profit employees and volunteers. Everyone should have their constitutional rights to assembly, free speech, freedom of religion and free press protected.”
The bill would “allow charitable organizations to make statements relating to political campaigns if such statements are made in the ordinary course of carrying out its tax exempt purpose” and if no meaningful expenses are incurred. For example, a pastor could comment on a political candidate during a sermon, or the president of a crisis pregnancy center could point to a candidate&#8217;s record on abortion in a newsletter. 
The legislation would not allow churches or non-profits to become political action committees, Harris said. 
”We’re not looking for churches to become super PACS, that is certainly not the purpose of this,” he told The Daily Wire. “But it is to really restore free speech to the pulpits of America without any threat of our tax code.” 
In the House, the bill has already picked up 14 co-sponsors, including Reps. Michael Guest (MS), Randy Weber (TX), Barry Moore (AL), Clay Higgins (LA), Glenn Grothman (WI), Keith Self (TX), Michael Baumgartner (WA), Mark Messmer (IN), Tim Walberg (MI), Marlin Stutzman (IN), David Rouzer (NC), Doug LaMalfa (CA), Andy Ogles (TN), Abe Hamadeh (AZ), and Mary Miller (IL). 
House Speaker Mike Johnson <a href="https://scalise.house.gov/press-release/scalise-hice-johnson-lankford-reintroduce-free-speech-fairness-act" target="_blank" rel="noopener">introduced</a> similar legislation in 2019 alongside House Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
The proposal is also backed by over a dozen conservative groups including the Alliance Defending Freedom, Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, Catholic Vote, the America First Policy Institute, and others.
Back in 2017, President Donald Trump promised to &#8220;destroy&#8221; the Johnson Amendment to &#8220;allow our representatives of faith to speak freely and without fear of retribution.&#8221; To that effect, Trump signed an <a href="https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/05/09/2017-09574/promoting-free-speech-and-religious-liberty" target="_blank" rel="noopener">executive order</a> in May 2017 to explicitly protect religious leaders speaking out on politics.

Mark Harris wont face state charges in N.C. 9th District ballot fraud case

EXCLUSIVE: North Carolina Republican Leads Effort To ‘Restore’ Free Speech For Pastors, Churches

James Lankford

North Carolina

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a Democrat-backed bill on Tuesday that advocates say would have been used to target peaceful pro-life protesters and sidewalk counselors outside of abortion facilities. 
The bill would have sharply restricted the activities of pro-life advocates around abortion facilities, including imposing penalties for “impeding” access to an abortion provider. In his veto message, the Republican governor said that the legislation was an unconstitutional attack on free speech. 
“This legislation is an unconstitutional time, place, and manner restriction on the God-given, constitutionally protected right to the freedom of speech,” Youngkin <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1324/text/SB1324VG" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a>. “It creates new criminal penalties for what one might say or where they stand when they say it. If this bill were to become law, a citizen of the Commonwealth, the crucible of our representative democracy, could be jailed simply for carrying a sign.”
The legislation, <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20251/SB1324/text/SB1324ER" target="_blank" rel="noopener">SB 1324</a>, would create penalties for anyone “who knowingly obstructs, detains, hinders, impedes, blocks, or delays another person&#8217;s entry to or exit” from a health care facility. 
It would also block anyone from approaching “another person within eight feet of such person in the public way or sidewalk area within a radius of 40 feet from any entrance door to a health care facility, unless such other person consents to the approach, for the purpose of giving, tendering, or exhibiting any material to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person.”
That provision would have restricted the work of pro-life sidewalk counselors who gather outside abortion facilities to urge women not to end the life of their unborn child and frequently offer help with their pregnancies. 
The Democrat-backed legislation <a href="https://legiscan.com/VA/votes/SB1324/2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">passed</a> the House of Delegates 51-45 and Senate 21-19 in party-line votes. 
Pro-life advocates said that SB 1324 was meant to chill their speech.
“This bill is part of a concerted effort to stifle efforts to provide oversight of abortion providers and prevent individuals and groups from counseling women away from abortion,” Victoria Cobb of the Virginia-based Family Foundation <a href="https://www.lifenews.com/2025/01/29/trump-pardoned-pro-life-americans-now-virginia-democrats-want-to-lock-them-up/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> as the measure worked its way through the legislature. “SB 1324 represents a clear attack on the ability to peacefully voice opposition to abortion, criminalizing the very act of offering alternatives and support to women visiting these facilities.”
The law would have been similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, which makes it a federal offense to sit or stand in front of the entrances to abortion facilities. During the Biden administration, FACE was used to lock up peaceful pro-life protesters. 
President Donald Trump has taken a drastically different approach, pardoning the pro-lifers targeted by Biden, and directing his Justice Department to only prosecute FACE cases in instances of extreme violence. 
Youngkin on Tuesday also vetoed a number of other Democrat backed-bills, including legislation on gun control, pushing so-called green energy, and expanding recreational marijuana.

planecrash

Youngkin Vetoes Democrat Bill Allowing Pro-Lifers To Be ‘Jailed Simply For Carrying A Sign’

Abortion

Glenn Youngkin

Virginia

The Supreme Court will hear a challenge to a Colorado law that has been called the state&#8217;s so-called &#8220;conversion therapy&#8221; ban. 
The case was brought by the Alliance Defending Freedom on behalf of private Colorado Springs counselor Kaley Chiles, who says the law violates her First Amendment rights to free speech. Passed in 2019, the law <a href="https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2019a_1129_signed.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prohibits</a> counseling that “attempts or purports to change an individual’s sexual orientation or gender identity.”
“Many of my clients chose to work with me because we share a similar perspective on faith and values,” Chiles said during a press call on Wednesday morning. “However, I&#8217;m facing a serious challenge. Colorado’s counseling censorship law threatens my ability to engage in private, professional conversations with my clients.” 
Chiles added that the law pushes children with gender dysphoria “toward harmful medical interventions” while not allowing counselors to help those who may want to detransition. 
Penalties for violating the law include a fine of up to $5000 and professional disciplinary action that could include loss of one’s counseling license. 
“We’re very grateful that the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear this very important case. It’s essential that children and parents have access to safe and effective counseling that meets their needs and that avoids dangerous and experimental medical interventions,” ADF lawyer Jim Campbell said. 
Campbell added that Chiles has been forced to turn away multiple clients over the law. 
“Colorado censors Kaley from speaking words her clients want to hear because the government does not like the views she expresses,” he added. “Government officials may not impose their ideology on private conversations between counselors and their clients.”
Colorado’s law was previously upheld by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals while the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals struck down similar laws implemented by cities in Florida. The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the Colorado law in October. 
The Supreme Court is also poised to rule this summer on another transgender-related case. In December, the court heard a challenge to a Tennessee law banning transgender medical procedures on children. Analysts believe that the justices will uphold that law after the conservative-leaning court appeared largely skeptical of the challenge.

8th Anniversary Of Supreme Court’s Obergefell Decision Legalizing Gay Marriage In The United States

SCOTUS To Hear Challenge To Colorado’s Gender Identity ‘Censorship Law’

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Colorado

Gender Transition

Transgender

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a challenge to restrictions that had been placed on pro-life speech and protest activity within 100 feet of an abortion-providing facility. 
The case arose after the pro-life group Coalition Life challenged a Carbondale, Illinois, <a href="https://go.boarddocs.com/il/coc/Board.nsf/files/D73HT549FC54/$file/2023-03%20Ordinance%20Amending%20Title%20Fourteen%2C%20Chapter%20Four%2C%20Section%20Two%20of%20the%20Carbondale%20Revised%20Code%20as%20it%20Relates%20to%20Disorderly%20Conduct.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordinance</a> that restricted pro-life sidewalk counseling within 100 feet of an abortion facility. The policy, which was first implemented in response to the overturning of Roe v. Wade, was repealed by the city as Coalition Life prepared its appeal to the Supreme Court. 
Both Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito said that they would have heard the challenge. 
In a <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-57_21p3.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">dissent</a>, Thomas wrote that he would have ruled to overturn the Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Hill v. Colorado, which upheld a Colorado law that required a pro-life protester or counselor to obtain consent to approach within eight feet of a person in a 100-foot radius around an abortion facility. 
“Hill has been seriously undermined, if not completely eroded, and our refusal to provide clarity is an abdication of our judicial duty,” Thomas wrote in his dissent. “I would have taken this opportunity to explicitly overrule Hill.”
Thomas wrote that the majority in Hill minimized the restrictions it placed on free speech and said the majority erroneously decided that buffer zone laws were content-neutral. 
“Hill’s abortion exceptionalism turned the First Amendment upside down,” Thomas wrote, saying that “constitutional rights hang in the balance” while the Supreme Court doesn’t reevaluate the Hill decision. 
<a href="https://coalitionlife.com/?_sm_nck=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Coalition Life</a>, which trains sidewalk counselors to urge women not to get abortions and provide them information about other options, was represented by lawyers with the Thomas More Society and former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement. 
Peter Breen, the head of litigation for the Thomas More Society, said that the only reason Carbondale repealed its ordinance was to escape Supreme Court scrutiny. 
“On the eve of our petition deadline, Carbondale quietly repealed its bubble zone ordinance in a shadowy, four-minute, weekend meeting, knowing full well their bubble zone would fail constitutional scrutiny if it came before the Supreme Court,” Breen <a href="https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/after-last-minute-gamesmanship-city-avoids-supreme-court-scrutiny-for-silencing-pro-life-advocates">said</a>. “While our clients are now able to sidewalk counsel freely in Carbondale, the city flagrantly violated their Free Speech rights for eighteen months, without penalty.”
Coalition Life Executive Director Brian Westbrook said that his group would continue its work despite the court&#8217;s decision. 
“Our appeal may have been denied but across this nation, at hundreds of abortion facilities, a different sort of tragic ‘denial’ continues,” he said. “Cities and states across America are denying sidewalk counselors and law-abiding citizens their rights to inform women about their options&#8230; Women are being denied true choice as they are bullied into the only option that is offered by the abortion advocates.”

Washington-DC-March-for-Life-2025

Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Law Restricting Pro-Life Speech Outside Abortion Facilities

Illinois

The Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the TikTok ban passed by Congress could go into effect this weekend, saying it did not violate the First Amendment. 
In an unassigned opinion, the court ruled that Congress was justified in passing the ban because of concerns about the Chinese government using TikTok to harvest the private data of millions of Americans. If China-based ByteDance does not sell the social media platform, the ban will go into effect on Sunday, January 19. 
“There is no doubt that, for more than 170 million Americans, TikTok offers a distinctive and expansive outlet for expression, means of engagement, and source of community,” the court wrote. “But Congress has determined that divestiture is necessary to address its well-supported national security concerns regarding TikTok’s data collection practices and relationship with a foreign adversary.”
While the main opinion was not signed, two concurring opinions were attached from Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The court said that those challenging the ban, including a group of TikTok users, did not provide any examples of the law actually curtailing their speech.
&#8220;It is not clear that the Act itself directly regulates protected expressive activity, or conduct with an expressive component. Indeed, the Act does not regulate the creator petitioners at all. And it directly regulates ByteDance Ltd. and TikTok Inc. only through the divestiture requirement,&#8221; the court wrote. 
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl=1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA.." target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?_gl%3D1*1lail3r*_gcl_aw*R0NMLjE3MzIyMDEyNDkuQ2owS0NRaUEwZnU1QmhEUUFSSXNBTVhVQk9JSkM0VnNsMFVreURxYXUxVWVEVWdOdjZkNzR2Y1pEeEZQeHVBcGl2R3BLaTdBMjVzT1p5TWFBdG1nRUFMd193Y0I.*_gcl_au*NDUxNDQ0NzYwLjE3MzY3ODI2NDY.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczNjk1NzYwMy4zNDAuMS4xNzM2OTU3NzE2LjYwLjAuMA..&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1737044212122000&amp;usg=AOvVaw3mp2MZNwEXBk00lKmCtOss">CELEBRATE #47 WITH 47% OFF DAILYWIRE+ MEMBERSHIPS + A FREE $20 GIFT</a>
The court added that the regulations imposed by the law, which was signed by President Joe Biden in April, were content neutral.
&#8220;They impose TikTok-specific prohibitions due to a foreign adversary’s control over the platform and make divestiture a prerequisite for the platform’s continued operation in the United States,&#8221; the court wrote. &#8220;The Government also supports the challenged provisions with a content-neutral justification: preventing China from collecting vast amounts of sensitive data from 170 million U. S. TikTok users.&#8221;
The law from Congress says that TikTok will be banned as long as it is owned by the Chinese company ByteDance. If it is sold to an American company, it will no longer be banned. There have been various proposals floated to save TikTok, including from &#8220;Shark Tank&#8221; investor Kevin O’Leary, who has partnered with a group called &#8220;The People&#8217;s Bid for TikTok.&#8221; 
This is a breaking story. Refresh for updates.

TikTok

Supreme Court Upholds TikTok Ban

China

Communist China

Kevin O'Leary

SCOTUS

In a world of mounting censorship, it’s never been more important to protect every person’s right to speak. Freedom of speech is indispensable to a free society—there’s little meaning to an electoral system if we can’t speak our mind to one another and to our representatives. It’s also a fundamental human right, guaranteed by the First Amendment and every major human rights treaty around the world.
Responding to this rising threat, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), where I serve as legal counsel, recently launched a new litigation team, the <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/introducing-the-adf-center-for-free-speech/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Center for Free Speech</a>. ADF’s mission in creating this dedicated team of attorneys is to defend every person’s right to free speech and to hold the government and powerful corporations accountable when they unlawfully censor or punish speech.
This new era of censorship calls for innovative strategies. A complex international web of shadowy government actors, nonprofit groups, and for-profit corporations are colluding to stop speech they don’t like, invoking buzzwords like “misinformation” and “disinformation” as their pretext for viewpoint-based restrictions. We will stop unlawful censorship while preserving the fundamental rights of individuals and organizations.
My team’s efforts will include suing private-sector censors who are working with the government or abusing their power to suppress or deplatform disfavored speech. There must be consequences for governments and government proxies that participate in the corrupt Censorship Industrial Complex (CIC).
The coordinated push of government, universities, think tanks, NGOs, and private businesses bleeds into almost every major industry and part of life. When entities or people are deplatformed, debanked, blacklisted, or refused business for their speech because the government has enlisted private sector participation in engaging in unlawful censorship, that is government corruption and must be stopped.
In Brazil, a justice on the country’s Supreme Court <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/brazil-elon-musk-x-and-censorship-what-you-need-know/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suspended the social media platform X</a> across the country after the company declined to censor certain voices. The justice’s order spoke of the “real danger” posed by X of influencing the electorate with “massive misinformation.” Once a government begins using such vague criteria to censor messages, it opens the door to widespread suppression of speech.
But it’s not just happening in Brazil. The U.S. Department of Justice <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/adf-scotus-govt-cant-coerce-social-media-companies-act-speech-police/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pressured</a> Facebook, Twitter, and Google into silencing dissenting voices on a wide range of hot-button cultural issues, including climate change, abortion, economic policy, gender identity, and COVID-19 policies. Big tech companies collude with the government to censor viewpoints they don’t like.
We’ve already begun to litigate several cases under the umbrella of the Center for Free Speech including a pair of cases where we’re suing the state of California.
In <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/humor-trial-babylon-bee-challenges-california-laws-censoring-political-satire/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The Babylon Bee v. Bonta</a> and <a href="https://adflegal.org/article/rumble-joins-the-babylon-bee-in-challenging-californias-censorship/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Rumble v. Bonta</a>, ADF represents popular satire website The Babylon Bee, attorney and blogger Kelly Chang Rickert, and video platform Rumble. One of the laws our clients are challenging is AB 2655, passed by the California legislature earlier this year. The law requires large online platforms to become state censors by sometimes labeling and other times taking down posts with “materially deceptive content” about elections.
And in <a href="https://adflegal.org/case/studnicki-v-sage-publications/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Studnicki v. Sage Publications</a>, we represent several doctors who published multiple papers in a peer-reviewed medical journal on the dangers of abortion drugs. After the publisher received complaints about the authors’ pro-life affiliations, Sage retracted these articles and even removed one of the authors from the journal’s board of directors.
Defending free speech is nothing new to ADF. We’ve won landmark free speech victories before the U.S. Supreme Court and have been especially prolific on public university campuses as its Center for Academic Freedom has <a href="https://adflegal.org/issues/free-speech/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">secured</a> more than 400 victories protecting students’ free speech rights.
Government agencies and powerful private actors – or worse yet, a combination of the two – are using vague buzzwords as an excuse for censorship. The outgoing administration spent the past four years relentlessly attacking our constitutionally protected freedoms and unlawfully extending executive power.
But we cannot expect the entrenched censorship apparatus to unilaterally disarm. And we must insist that the new administration dismantle the CIC instead of trying to wield it for its own purposes.
That means calling balls and strikes, especially when President-elect Trump hangs a curve with a nominee like <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14154833/donald-trump-surgeon-general-dr-janette-nesheiwat-maga-fury-covid.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Janette Nesheiwat for Surgeon General</a>, who previously “commend[ed] Mark Zuckerberg for taking action” against so-called vaccine misinformation on Facebook.
It’s critical that the Republican party keeps its avowed commitment to free speech. The new administration has a great opportunity to lead the defense of our First Amendment rights. If the majority of current nominees do what they claim they want to do, there is reason to be hopeful.
Through pioneering legal strategy, ADF will tear down the Censorship Industrial Complex and preserve free speech in the new frontier of our digital age. We will ensure that ordinary people worldwide have full clarity on their free speech rights and are empowered, without fear, to expose any government or its agents attempting to undermine them.
* * *
Logan Spena serves as legal counsel at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=dailywire&amp;utm_medium=oped">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu