Four Summer Wins for Free Speech

This summer, CIR won four First Amendment victories—against a state National Guard, a U.S. naval base, a state licensing board, and a public university. Different defendants, different facts, same lesson: When the government tries to control or punish speech—online, in a business, or in a medical journal—CIR has other plans.

Free speech has been at the heart of CIR’s work for more than three decades. Now, we’re building on that legacy with a growing First Amendment practice.

The Government Can’t Silence Its Online Critics

Tim Stanhope served in the North Carolina National Guard for 23 years. When he criticized unit leaders on the Guard’s official Facebook page, the Guard pushed him toward retirement. Then it deleted his comments and blocked him outright.

After CIR sued on Tim’s behalf, the Guard agreed to restore his access, restore his deleted comments, and rewrite its social media policies. Officials can no longer delete comments they call “inappropriate” simply because they don’t like them.

Sergio Rodriguez is an Army veteran and military family advocate. When a summer power outage left families at a Georgia naval base without electricity for more than 12 hours, Sergio went to the base’s Facebook page to criticize the response and ask how families could get help. Within hours, he was banned. Officials deleted years of his posts.

Officials first tried a shortcut. Once CIR filed suit, the base quietly restored Sergio’s access and asked the court to throw out the case. Problem solved, they argued; nothing left to decide. In March, a federal judge refused to go along. The government can’t silence a critic and then end a lawsuit without proving it won’t do the same thing again.

The judge’s ruling brought the naval base to the settlement table. Five months later, it surrendered, admitting in writing that banning Sergio violated his First Amendment rights. It agreed never to block a member of the public or hide their comments based on viewpoint. And it posted a notice on its social media pages telling the public exactly what their rights are.

A government webpage doesn’t have to open a comment section. But once it invites the public in, it can’t throw out the guests it doesn’t like.

A Word Off the Door

Louisiana-licensed therapists Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett specialize in treating trauma victims, so they opened the appropriately named Psychological Wellness Institute in 2020. Four years later, the state’s psychology licensing board sent them a cease-and-desist letter, warning that they could face criminal charges for using the word “psychological” in their name.

Neither Julie nor Juliet ever claimed to be a psychologist. They used “psychological” simply to describe the wellness services they provide. But the board’s threat forced them to change their name to “P. Wellness Institute” and describe their services without using the most accurate word.

In July, a federal judge ruled for our clients. Louisiana cannot hand an ordinary English word to one profession and threaten everyone else who uses it. And talking with a client is speech, even in a state-regulated profession.

For now, Julie and Juliet can put their business’s real name back on the door. But Louisiana has appealed, and six other states—Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, and Texas—have similar laws. So CIR’s fight continues.

Our fourth win was in Pennsylvania. After a smear campaign by officials at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School, a professional journal retracted Dr. Norman Wang’s peer-reviewed article on racial preferences in medical education. In July, a federal appeals court reversed a district court decision and revived his lawsuit, finally giving Dr. Wang the chance to hold Pitt accountable. His full story is on page 7.

Government Censors Don’t Know Best

Tim Stanhope knows his unit. Sergio Rodriguez knows what military families need. Julie Alleman and Juliet Catrett know their clients. Dr. Wang knows medical education. In each case, government officials tried to silence the very people who knew what they were talking about.

CIR has long litigated these kinds of cases. In 1995, we won Rosenberger v. UVA at the Supreme Court. In that case, university officials unlawfully denied funding to a student magazine because they objected to its religious viewpoint. The Supreme Court has relied on Rosenberger 58 times since then—most recently this year. Yes, the technology for self-expression has changed. But the principle hasn’t. And as government finds new ways to burden speech, CIR’s First Amendment work is expanding into new territory.

New Free-Speech Challenges

One frontier involves government-mandated donor disclosure that threatens privacy and the freedom to associate. People may think twice about supporting a cause if it means identifying themselves to the government.

Alaska requires any nonprofit that speaks about a ballot measure to publicly name its three largest donors. After publishing guides on ranked-choice voting, the Alaska Policy Forum refused to name its donors. This August, CIR joined a friend-of-the-court brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case and protect the freedoms of speech and association.

In 1958, Alabama demanded the NAACP’s membership list, and the Supreme Court said no. Yet nearly 70 years later, governments still insist on donor disclosure. When people fear their names will land on a government list, they quietly stop giving—or never join at all. That’s how government silences speech before it ever happens.

This summer’s four wins are now part of CIR’s long legacy of defending the First Amendment. Governments will keep finding new ways to silence speakers, punish dissent, or chill support for causes they dislike. CIR will keep pushing back.

This article originally appeared in the Fall 2026 edition of CIR’s Docket Report. Read the full publication here.