‘Tis the book season! Below is a list of 24 forthcoming or new books related to free expression. There should be something there to please or offend everyone . . . at least I hope so! Links to the respective books are set out after each of the three cover photo sets below. Following that is a list of some reviews of a few of the books mentioned.
As I explain in the review, Kasper and Kozma have made a compelling case. However, because Mill offered an expansive defense of freedom of expression, it is not enough to say that the Court's free speech jurisprudence is "Millian," because that could mean many different things. Understanding with greater precision what motivates the justices in free speech cases is crucial for attorneys, advocates, and scholars.
Trump to appeal E. Jean Carroll’s abuse and defamation verdict
President Donald Trump will soon ask the Supreme Court to throw out a jury’s finding in a civil lawsuit that he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll at a Manhattan department store in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, his lawyers said in a recent court filing.
E. Jean Carroll exits the Manhattan Federal Court following the verdict in the civil rape accusation case against former U.S. President Donald Trump, in New York City, May 9, 2023. (Reuters/Brendan McDermid)
Trump’s lawyers previewed the move as they asked the high court to extend its deadline for challenging the $5 million verdict from Sept. 10 to Nov. 11. The president “intends to seek review” of “significant issues” arising from the trial and the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ subsequent decisions upholding the verdict, his lawyers said.
Carroll’s lawyer, Roberta Kaplan, said Wednesday: ‘We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court.’”
What are the limits of presidential power? How many days has it been since President Trump's TikTok ban moratorium went into place? What is the state of the conservative legal movement? And where did former FIRE president David French go on his first date?
French and Sarah Isgur of the popular legal podcast “Advisory Opinions” join the show to answer these questions and discuss the few free speech issues where they disagree with FIRE.
Villarreal v. Alaniz(Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
Netchoice v. Fitch(emergency relief denied with Kavanaugh, J., concurring with separate opinion: “I concur in the Court’s denial of NetChoice’s application for interim relief because NetChoice has not sufficiently demonstrated that the balance of harms and equities favors it at this time. . . . To be clear, NetChoice has, in my view, demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits — namely, that enforcement of the Mississippi law would likely violate its members’ First Amendment rights under this Court’s precedents.”)
Yost v. Ohio Attorney General(Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025, order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned order of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)
Free speech-related
Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito & Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)
This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE.
