courts

The interactions at the heart of Missouri v. Biden implicate many speech interests: those of the platforms, independent entities researching misinformation, the government, and…

The Biden administration's willingness to open itself up to difficult external scrutiny should be commended, but the UN Special Rapporteur's findings should also be a wakeup call…

To unpack the initial decision in Missouri v. Biden, and what it means for the First Amendment, we have Knight Institute Fellow Mayze Teitler.

Invoking the First Amendment, a single district court judge effectively issued a prior restraint on large swaths of speech, cutting short an essential dialogue between the government…

The United States should make good on its commitment to follow through on the Special Rapporteur's Guantanamo report.

The charging of Cop City protestors as domestic terrorists highlights the dangerous manner in which the federal government’s DVE policies are playing out on the ground – interacting…

Homeland security organizations are injecting federal spy agencies into local political matters, often without meaningful restrictions.

The new realignment of the DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis fails to address the agency's fundamental problems.

The current debate's failure to engage a complex reality serves neither the interests of national security nor freedom of expression.

To help us understand judicial ethics and what can be done to keep the Justices accountable, we have Caroline Fredrickson and Alan Neff.

A jury finding Fox News liable for defamation would be both a fair outcome and a victory for democracy and the First Amendment.

Linkages in the Israeli debates of an independent judiciary to the protection of democracy suggests a cautionary note for the United States.