When Congress legislates in broad strokes, constitutional trouble sometimes follows. This case presents the opposite problem: Congress legislated with precision, and an agency treated that precision as optional. In the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA), Congress provided a detailed framework with nine prescribed warning statements that must appear on cigarette packages and advertising, while granting the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) only limited, conditional authority to adjust it. The FDA's rule, however, requires the display of eleven warnings, prompting multiple cigarette manufacturers and retailers (Plaintiffs) to challenge it.

At this preliminary stage, the statutory text points one way: the FDA may require the nine warnings Congress prescribed—no more. The district court agreed and temporarily postponed the Rule's effective date after finding that Plaintiffs had shown a substantial likelihood of success on their claim that the FDA exceeded its statutory authority. Because that interim relief was no abuse of discretion, we AFFIRM….

Relevant here, the TCA made it "unlawful for any person to manufacture, package, sell, offer to sell, distribute, or import for sale or distribution" cigarettes if the package "fails to bear … one of the following labels[.]" The statute then enumerates nine warning labels addressing specific health risks associated with smoking:

• WARNING: Cigarettes are addictive.
• WARNING: Tobacco smoke can harm your children.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause fatal lung disease.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause cancer.
• WARNING: Cigarettes cause strokes and heart disease.
• WARNING: Smoking during pregnancy can harm your baby.
• WARNING: Smoking can kill you.
• WARNING: Tobacco smoke causes fatal lung disease in nonsmokers.
• WARNING: Quitting smoking now greatly reduces serious risks to your health….

Congress further directed the FDA to "issue regulations that require color graphics depicting the negative health consequences of smoking to accompany the label statements specified in subsection (a)(1)." These text-and-graphic pairings must appear on the top 50 percent of the front and rear panels of cigarette packages and at least 20 percent of cigarette advertisements. The warning statements must also comply with detailed placement, rotation, and formatting requirements. Despite the TCA's intricate specifications, it grants the FDA modest authority to adjust the warnings in two limited ways….

[A later FDA Rule] discarded all but two of Congress's nine statutory warnings and substituted statements of the FDA's own drafting. As a result, the Rule requires cigarette manufacturers and retailers to display a rotating total of eleven warning statements—rather than the nine enumerated in § 1333(a)(1)—each paired with a graphic image depicting a smoking-related health harm … [:]

… As always, we begin with the statutory text—"the alpha and the omega of the interpretive process." The operative provision here, § 1333(a)(1), makes it unlawful to sell or distribute cigarettes whose package "fails to bear, in accordance with the requirements of this section, one of the following labels." It then immediately prescribes the labels to use. Rarely is statutory text this crisp. The command requires a package to bear "one of the following labels," and then lists nine of them—yet the FDA would read nine as eleven. Nine is not a placeholder for eleven….

Consider a familiar analogy: If a restaurant menu says a customer may choose "one of the following sides" followed by a list of nine choices, no ordinary diner reads that as license to order an unlisted tenth. Trendy eateries may keep a secret menu; the United States Code does not. Congress supplied a list of nine labels and required sellers and manufacturers to use one of them on rotation. But the Rule departs from that command. It instead requires packages and advertisements to rotate among eleven warnings—two more than Congress listed. A package bearing one of the extra labels is thus not bearing "one of the following labels" Congress enumerated. That straightforward reading suffices here….

Congress sometimes speaks in gauzy generalities. But Congress steered clear of any concerns attendant to doing so in the TCA. And when Congress opts for precision, agencies must respect that choice, not revise it. Precision in legislation leaves no room for improvisation in execution….

Amelia DeGory, Christian George Vergonis, and Ryan Jeffrey Watson (Jones Day) represent plaintiffs.

The post "Trendy Eateries May Keep a Secret Menu; the United States Code Does Not" appeared first on Reason.com.

East Plano Islamic Center ("EPIC") brings this action to vindicate its right to conduct religious funeral and burial rites in accordance with Islamic faith and tradition. EPIC is a nonprofit Islamic organization in Plano, Texas, formed to "provide religious, social, and educational services to inspire the Muslim community to fulfill its responsibility and contribute to the betterment of society by following the principles of Quran and the noble life of Prophet Muhammed (peace be upon him)."

One of the sincerely held religious beliefs of EPIC and its Muslim membership is the collective obligation held by the religious community to perform proper Islamic funeral rites for the deceased. Islamic religious law calls for prompt ritual cleansing, shrouding, prayer, and burial in which the integrity and dignity of the decedent's remains are scrupulously maintained throughout. To that end, EPIC offers traditional, non-commercial, Muslim funeral services and burials; especially for Muslim families unable to afford the services. EPIC assists Muslim families by arranging and facilitating religious funeral services (washing, shrouding, and performing the Janaza prayer) in partnership with licensed funeral providers. …

Chapter 651 of the Texas Occupations Code regulates the funeral industry in Texas, requiring licensure for persons or entities that engage in the business of funeral directing or operating a funeral establishment. The Texas Funeral Services Commission ("TFSC") is tasked with enforcing these provisions ….

On March 26, 2025, TFSC issued a cease-and-desist letter (the "C&D Letter") to EPIC, ordering it to immediately halt what the Commission alleged were unlicensed funeral service operations. Specifically, the C&D Letter accused EPIC of operating as a funeral home without an establishment license, in violation of Texas Occupations Code § 651.351…. The C&D Letter did not include which specific practices EPIC was engaging in that were alleged to be in violation of the Occupation Code…. EPIC alleges it was not running a place of business and was not in the business of embalming or funeral directing….

EPIC contends that the TFSC's action violates both state and federal constitutional and statutory protections for religious exercise, as well as exceeds its statutory authority. EPIC points to TFSC's prior affirmations that religious organizations could perform burial-related rites so long as they were not doing so for profit….

The court concluded that, if the facts are as plaintiff has plausibly alleged them to be, the conduct of defendants TFSC and its then-Chair Kristin Tips would be unconstitutional:

[T]he Court finds that targeting an organization's religious funeral rites for prohibition while allowing similar rites by others and departing from long-standing TFSC practice violates EPIC's [clearly established] Free Exercise and Equal Protection rights ….

First, EPIC alleges that TFSC has historically recognized, as far back as 1987, that Texas law "allows a family or friends to prepare and bury a body so long as they do not receive compensation for services, file a death certificate and obtain a burial transit permit." EPIC attaches a letter written in 1987 from the TFSC to the Islamic Center of Greater Austin confirming that it "may prepare and bury members of [its] mosque without being licensed by this agency so long as they follow the guidelines listed above." In 2014, TFSC's staff attorney again confirmed the same in a letter regarding the Texas Islamic Center of Houston.

EPIC alleges that for the past decade it has offered non-commercial Muslim funeral services and burials that have complied with the guidelines provided in Texas Occupations Code Chapter 651 and the guidelines provided by the TFSC itself. However, in March of 2025, TFSC allegedly changed course and issued the C&D Letter to EPIC "after years of EPIC performing the Janaza prayer without protest …."

Lastly, EPIC discusses the alleged series of events leading up to and surrounding the C&D Letter as well as Tips's actions around the same period, which EPIC contends demonstrate Tips's hostility toward Islam. After EPIC began planning a development that would include housing, a mosque, a school, a senior living center, and a retail center; EPIC allegedly came under fire by "misguided activists" who saw the planned development as an "Islamic separatist agenda" that would promote "Sharia law."

Texan politicians, including Governor Greg [Abbott] and Attorney General Ken Paxton, got involved and publicly announced that a dozen state agencies were investigating EPIC and its project. EPIC attaches several Tweets from Attorney General Paxton, Governor Abbott, and the RAIR {"Rise Align Ignite Reclaim"} Foundation founder raising the alarm about EPIC, its planned development, and the alleged rise of "Sharia law" in Texas.

To demonstrate the blatant Islamophobia of the RAIR Foundation founder, Amy Mek, EPIC highlights one of her Tweets from June 2025 which states, "At this point, if you're not being called 'Islamophobic,' you're doing something very wrong." {As alleged, Amy Mek sparked the hysteria about Sharia law and EPIC with her 222-word Tweet in February of 2025, calling the planned development an "Islamic stronghold … pushing an Islamic separatist agenda right in the heart of Texas." RAIR Foundation USA ("Rise Align Ignite Reclaim") describes itself as a "grassroots activist organization comprised of everyday Americans leading a movement to reclaim our Republic from the network of individuals and organizations waging war on Americans, our Constitution, our borders and our Judeo-Christian values."}

EPIC alleges that Tips herself "circulated and endorsed materials expressing hostility toward Islam" during the same period, "including content asserting that Muslims are 'taught hate' and that Islam promotes violence and inferiority compared to other religions." She also allegedly shared a link to a Youtube video criticizing EPIC's planned development and stating it would breed "terrorists."

Although the text messages were sent in May of 2025, weeks after the Bingaman issued the C&D Letter, the Court agrees with EPIC that it is reasonable to infer that an official, or any individual, who expresses anti-Muslim views in May held those same views in March. Additionally, this inference is strengthened by the context of the political backlash surrounding the influx of Muslim communities and alleged "Sharia law" in North Texas, as well as Tips's alleged communications with the Governor's office regarding enforcement activity.

Taking the pleadings as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of EPIC, the Court finds that the provided context illustrates plausible bias Tips's alleged targeting of EPIC. When considered against the backdrop of TFSC permitting the same religious funeral rites for 38 years, the recent political backlash against EPIC's planned development and the perceived threat accompanying the rise in the Texan Muslim population, combined with the lack of explanation in the C&D Letter identifying what specific guidelines EPIC violated, it can be reasonably inferred that the C&D Letter and Tips's role therein was the result of religious discrimination. Therefore, considering the series of events and historical context surrounding the issuance of the C&D Letter, as the courts have done in the above cases, the Court finds that Tips's alleged conduct and involvement in the C&D Letter violated EPIC's clearly established right "that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion." …

[T]he Court finds the most support in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civ. Rts. Comm'n (2018), which similarly involved discriminatory conduct by a government body in applying and enforcing its laws in a manner that reflected religious hostility and ultimately resulted in a cease-and-desist order. The Supreme Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated the plaintiff's case in a manner that was "neither tolerant nor respectful of [the plaintiff's] religious beliefs." In reaching that conclusion, the Court considered the Commission's disparate consideration of the plaintiff's case compared to similarly situated cases and comments from commissioners in discussing the plaintiff's case that reflected "clear and impermissible hostility" towards the plaintiff's religious beliefs….

The Court has likewise considered the historical background of TSFC's failure to enforce the law at issue against religious rites, the sequence of events and resulting political backlash against EPIC that culminated in the C&D Letter, and the alleged statements and shared content by Tips demonstrating animus toward Islam. This binding precedent should have made clear to Tips and TSFC that targeting a religious organization for differential treatment violates the Constitution….

For the foregoing reasons, the Court also finds that Tips's alleged conduct also violates the clearly established law of the Equal Protection clause….

{Whether EPIC has, in fact, disregarded Texas or federal law in favor or "Sharia law" is not a question before the Court at this stage of the litigation. In resolving the present Order, and without purporting to be an expert in Islamic teachings, the Court simply notes the absence of any evidence or allegation that Islamic burial rites qualify as "Sharia law" of the sort that threaten Texas law, and that the C&D Letter does not identify any specific aspect of EPIC's burial services that allegedly violates Texas law.}

Eric A. Hudson and Benjamin L. Dower (Terrazas, PLLC) represent EPIC.

The post Islamic Center's Allegation of Religious Targeting by Texas Funeral Services Commission Can Go Forward appeared first on Reason.com.

From yesterday's Complaint in Republic of Azerbaijan v. CNN, Inc. (D. Del.):

… Azerbaijan … brings this defamation complaint against [CNN] … for intentionally falsely reporting that Azerbaijan permitted Israel to use its territory to launch attacks against Iran, causing immeasurable reputational harm to Azerbaijan and endangering Azerbaijani civilians….

On March 5, 2026, four drones penetrated Azerbaijani airspace and struck several targets. One of the drones exploded near a secondary school, injuring two civilians. Another damaged a terminal at the nearby Nakhchivan Airport.

Five days earlier, war had broken out between Iran, on the one hand, and the United States and Israel, on the other (the "Iran War"). Azerbaijan, which shares a border with Iran to the south, is not and has never been a participant in the Iran War. Azerbaijan has not supported military operations by any of the warring nations.

Azerbaijan maintains a policy of neutrality and independence. Azerbaijan does not host any foreign military bases on its territory and, as a non-aligned state, maintains a strict official policy and legislative framework against foreign military footprints.

But, on June 5, 2026, CNN's reckless reporting threatened to drag Azerbaijan into war. In a CNN World post titled "Exclusive: Israel sent troops to Azerbaijan during Iran war, sources say," CNN falsely claimed that Azerbaijan had allowed Israel to use its territory to launch attacks against Iran.

CNN's claims in this regard are demonstrably and knowingly false and recklessly exacerbate geopolitical tensions in an already volatile region. Iran has previously justified attacks against its neighbors as retaliation on the grounds that its neighbors have provided material support to American and Israeli offensive operations.

For instance, Ali Larijani, a senior Iranian official, threatened: "The countries of the region must either prevent the use of their soil by America against Iran themselves, or we will." Similarly, Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps ("IRGC") has issued a press release unambiguously stating that "Countries that host the aggressor American military and have placed their land at the disposal of the aggressor criminals for attacks on Iran should be prepared to receive a corresponding response, and should activate their civil defence [sic] units to safeguard the lives of their citizens and move them away from likely targets."

As the war has progressed, Ebrahim Rezaei, the Iranian Parliament's Spokesman for National Security and Foreign Policy, has similarly made clear that "[t]he Gulf states that have stood alongside Trump in the Iran-America regime conflict should watch over their oil and gas wells. In defense of the security of the great Iranian nation, we have no red lines." Iran has followed through on these statements and claimed responsibility for offensive operations against U.S. military targets in Gulf states.

Against this backdrop, CNN's June 5, 2026 post (the "Defamatory Post") is far more than irresponsible reporting. Instead, CNN's false claims are precisely calibrated to draw Azerbaijan into a regional war.

Azerbaijan does not seek relief from the U.S. judiciary lightly. It has, in fact, made multiple efforts to set the record straight, efforts repeatedly ignored by CNN.

First, in early June, Azerbaijani government officials participated in an "on the record" email exchange with CNN, and expressly denied that any staging of Israeli operations took place on Azerbaijani territory.

On June 6, 2026, immediately after the Defamatory Post was published, Azerbaijan's Ambassador to the United States wrote to CNN reiterating that no staging of Israeli forces in Azerbaijani territory was authorized or occurred and demanding a formal retraction. Subsequent retraction requests have since been made through counsel.

CNN's response: a promise to investigate, followed by radio silence. Ultimately, CNN has simply ignored Azerbaijan's multiple attempts to resolve this matter by retracting, thereby recklessly endangering Azerbaijan and its people….

CNN published the Defamatory Post to third parties. The Defamatory Post is of and concerning Azerbaijan: it names Azerbaijan as the state that allowed Israel to use its territory to launch attacks against Iran. A reasonable reader would understand the Defamatory Post's statements as defamatory of Azerbaijan because they assert that Azerbaijan secretly facilitated military operations against a neighboring state in breach of its declared neutrality.

False statements of fact in the Defamatory Post include that Israeli forces "operated out of several locations in southern Azerbaijan," "deployed to the location [in Azerbaijan]" and conducted intelligence and drone operations against Iran from there, and that one of the key operations "launched from Azerbaijan" was the March 4 killing of an IRGC intelligence chief.

The Defamatory Post was made with actual malice, i.e., with knowledge that its statements were false or with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity…. Before publication, Azerbaijan government officials expressly denied that any Israeli operations occurred on Azerbaijani territory. CNN knew that Mr. Lister {one of the authors of the Defamatory Post} had previously authored reporting about Azerbaijan that was demonstrably false and sourced solely to unnamed sources. Independent experts identified that the Defamatory Post rested entirely on undisclosed anonymous sources whose reliability could not be verified. Taken together, these facts establish that those responsible for publishing the Defamatory Post did so with knowledge of, or reckless disregard for, its falsity.

CNN's false reporting caused reputational harm to Azerbaijan and threatens tenuous international relations….

I very much doubt that CNN knew the statements it published were false or likely to be false (the "actual malice" standard that would apply to public figure defamation lawsuits). But beyond that, there's a good chance that Azerbaijan, as a governmental entity, can't maintain a defamation claim at all, whether or not it can show "actual malice."

That's because of a lesser-known holding of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan (1964):

For good reason, "no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence."

That was said about libel on American governments. But the few cases that consider the question suggest that foreign governments, like domestic ones (including Indian tribes), can't prevail in defamation suits, either. Sharon v. Time, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 1984), for instance, allowed a defamation claim by Ariel Sharon (then a former Israeli Defense Minister) to go forward, but noted that "The statement which plaintiff claims is offensive names him personally, without attributing his alleged discussion about revenge to his government. Likewise, Air Zimbabwe v. Chicago Tribune Co. (Cal. Super. Ct. 2000), rejected Air Zimbabwe's lawsuit because Air Zimbabwe, "as a government entity, is precluded under the First Amendment from pursuing a defamation claim." That's not a large body of precedent, but, combined with the logic of N.Y. Times v. Sullivan, it portends an uphill battle for Azerbaijan.

The post Azerbaijan Suing CNN for Libel: Can They Do That? appeared first on Reason.com.

An NBC News report raises some serious First Amendment concerns for potentially prosecuting someone for having dishonest motives in running for office:

The federal investigation related to the dueling Republican Senate candidates in Alaska with the same name has entered a new phase.

A grand jury last week issued subpoenas to compel information from witnesses linked to the campaign of Dan J. Sullivan, a law enforcement official told NBC News.

The former schoolteacher who recently registered as a Republican is under investigation for potentially being part of a conspiracy to confuse voters and steal votes away from the incumbent, Dan S. Sullivan, who has been in office since 2015….

As to the potential charges, NBC reports:

The federal investigation is looking for possible wire fraud or a conspiracy to deprive Alaska voters of a free and fair elections process, which could be a civil rights violation, two people familiar with the probe previously told NBC News.

As I understand it, the core complaint here is that Dan J. Sullivan ran for office hoping to confuse voters into voting for him for U.S. Senate, and thereby helping the Democratic Senate candidate, Mary Peltola, win in Alaska's top-four primary over Republican incumbent Dan S. Sullivan.

Now we cannot be sure what J.'s motivations are (see this NY Times report with lots of reasons but no ironclad evidence to think J. is actually running to help the Democrat). But let's assume he's running to help Peltola.

If J. ultimately is charged with violating the Ku Klux Klan Act (18 U.S.C. s 241), which punishes a conspiracy to "injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State … in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States," I think J. would have a very strong First Amendment defense (and likely for the wire fraud claims too, but I don't know enough about what the basis for those charges might be)….

I don't see how the government could criminalize his running for office for having impure motives. And if it could do so, then it could be a crime every time that the Republican Party backs a Green Party candidate, or Democrats support a MAGA candidate in a primary in the hopes that the candidate would be weaker against a Democrat in the general election….

The post Prof. Rick Hasen on Too Many Dan Sullivans appeared first on Reason.com.

The post Today in Supreme Court History: August 19, 1937 appeared first on Reason.com.

Plaintiff, a student at the University of Michigan, was disciplined for providing an "assertedly 'fake' telehealth medical note" to obtain an accommodation for her coursework. The University treated this as academic dishonesty, resulting in Plaintiff's suspension for the Winter 2026 semester and the inclusion of a disciplinary notation on her transcript. Plaintiff maintains that the note is genuine and filed this lawsuit against numerous University of Michigan officials and Academic Affairs employees alleging due process violations.

At the same time, Plaintiff filed a motion to proceed under the "Jane Doe" pseudonym. According to Plaintiff, "[t]his case challenges discipline imposed by a public university that is based on, and would necessarily litigate, Plaintiff's private medical information and education records." Moreover, continues Plaintiff, "[p]ublic disclosure of [her] identity would cause concrete and irreparable harm, including stigma associated with an 'academic dishonesty' finding and enduring damage to Plaintiff's educational and professional prospects due to disclosure of protected health information, including her pending graduate and professional school applications."

But cases raising "stigma-plus" due process claims, like this one, involve the disclosure of sensitive or stigmatizing information. Plaintiffs' discomfort with that fact is not sufficient to permit her to proceed anonymously, even absent any opposition from the defense….

"Lawsuits are public events." Generally, "a complaint must state the names of the parties." But the Court "may excuse [parties] from identifying themselves in certain circumstances." "In exercising its discretion, a court must balance the public's common law right of access to court proceedings against the interests of litigants in nondisclosure." … "The burden rests with Plaintiff to establish that it is appropriate to permit [her] to proceed under a pseudonym." Plaintiff fails to carry that burden here….

Plaintiff simply asserts, in conclusory fashion, that "the case necessarily involves information of the utmost intimacy, including Plaintiff's private medical circumstances, treatment, and documentation, as well as education records protected by law and custom." But not all medical or educational information is "of the utmost intimacy." Plaintiff does not provide any authority to support that insomnia and a finding of academic dishonesty are of the utmost intimacy. In fact, there is substantial case law to support that they are not…. [M]ost "college students challenging disciplinary procedures are required to proceed in their own name" ….

Nor is it obvious that Plaintiff's case will, as she suggests, "necessarily litigate, Plaintiff's private medical information." The heart of this case is whether Plaintiff submitted a forged medical accommodation letter—not whether Plaintiff does or does not have legitimate medical needs.

Similarly, Plaintiff's argument that an "academic dishonesty finding" threatens her professional future is not a legally cognizable consideration …. See Doe v. Univ. of Akron (N.D. Ohio 2016) (collecting cases where courts denied requests by plaintiffs faced with academic dishonesty allegations who claim "damage to [their] reputation" and concerns about "career opportunities")….

This conclusion is not altered by Plaintiff's contention that Defendants will not be prejudiced if the Court allowed her to proceed under a pseudonym. "[T]hat consideration alone is insufficient to outweigh compliance with the civil rules of procedure and preference for open judicial proceedings."

The Court appreciates Plaintiff's situation. But many federal court plaintiffs, especially those asserting stigma-plus due process claims, must face disclosure of sensitive or personal information that they would likely prefer to keep private. Plaintiff fails to carry her burden to show that her case is otherwise exceptional….

The post No Pseudonymity for U Michigan Student Challenging Discipline for Using "Assertedly 'Fake' … Medical Note" "to Obtain an Accommodation" appeared first on Reason.com.

Government censorship is deeply un-American. That fundamental principle predates the Republic, with our Founders recognizing that "the freedom of the press is one of the great[est] bulwarks of liberty." And it is no less true today, as the Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed only two years ago: the government may not "use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression." NRA v. Vullo (2024).

This case concerns the Administration's sustained effort to do just that. Acting through the Federal Communications Commission, the Administration has waged a retaliatory campaign against ABC for a single reason: it disapproves of what ABC broadcasts.

That campaign began in this Administration's earliest days and has only intensified since. Again and again, the Administration has attacked ABC's speech—the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air. Over time, those attacks have escalated into express demands that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses because of its speech.

In prosecuting the Administration's campaign against free speech on network television, the Commission fights on several fronts using its expansive regulatory powers. What has unfolded, in the words of sitting FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, is "a sustained, coordinated campaign of censorship and control, carried out through the weaponization of the FCC's authority as a federal regulator and aimed at pressuring a free and independent press and all media into submission."

The Administration has not been shy about openly coercing ABC into changing its programming. For example, in response to on-air comments by ABC's late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, the FCC's Chairman issued an ultimatum to Plaintiffs: "We can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways … to take action … on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead."

For months, the Administration has steadily increased the pressure on ABC, culminating in the present threat to the broadcasting licenses of the eight ABC Owned Stations ("the Stations"). The day after the President objected to additional on-air comments by Mr. Kimmel, the Commission issued an unprecedented order requiring the Stations to file early applications to renew their licenses—years before any of their licenses would have come up for renewal in the ordinary course and allowing only thirty days to file applications which ordinarily take months to prepare. Until the day before that order issued, the Commission had not called for a renewal application ahead of schedule in more than half a century. Nor had it ever demanded simultaneous early renewal applications from a group of stations commonly owned with a single broadcast network—much less stations with the record of public service and award-winning journalism like these Stations. In a contemporaneous interview, the Chairman did not mince words when explaining the Commission's decision to ramp up its pressure on ABC: "If you didn't take us seriously, now you should."

The Commission has demanded a review of the Stations' licenses extraordinarily early. For all but two of the Stations, this early review comes before their current license terms have even reached the halfway point, and years before the Commission is statutorily authorized to grant renewal. That timing underscores the Commission's true purpose: coercing and retaliating against a network that refuses to bow to the Administration's demands…. With the threat of non-renewal or revocation of its Stations' broadcast licenses on the line, ABC cannot ignore the consequences of any decision that might anger the Administration or the FCC Chairman. On July 16, 2026, the President made a primetime address. ABC made the editorial judgment not to broadcast the address live. ABC was aware that the President wanted the address to be broadcast live, and considered the risk of resulting Administration retaliation. ABC ultimately decided to livestream the speech on ABC News LIVE, which it ordinarily would not have done.

In direct response to ABC's decision not to broadcast his address—and during the address itself—the President called for the revocation of the ABC Owned Stations' broadcast licenses, as well as those of NBC, which had similarly chosen not to broadcast the address: "NBC and ABC fake news have both said that they would not cover this speech …. [T]his should mean a revocation of their licenses."6

The Administration's threats to ABC's licenses were not new. But this threat landed with unusual force, because the Commission had just called those very licenses up for early review. And the Commission promptly confirmed the connection: following the President's demand, the Chairman stated that the Commission would consider ABC's decision not to broadcast the July 16 address as part of its review of the Stations' renewal applications.

The Commission is poised to make good on its threat any day now: the public comment period on the renewal applications has closed, and the Commission may, at any moment, issue an unprecedented Hearing Designation Order for all eight Stations, which would kick off a formal agency adjudication to determine the fate of ABC's licenses. On July 15, 2026, Bloomberg reported that the FCC was "expected to take action against [ABC] … as soon as next month." According to individuals "who asked not to be identified because the discussions are private," the FCC was planning to take action "likely timed before the Labor Day holiday."

Any FCC adjudication would be a charade. The Commission cannot lawfully grant renewal this early in the license terms—the only outcomes on the table are adverse to Plaintiffs. At one extreme, the Commission may intentionally prolong the adjudicative process, miring ABC in years of costly litigation, with the threat of adverse action ever present and with every editorial judgment shadowed by the prospect of provoking the Administration into further retaliation. After all, "the value of a sword of Damocles is that it hangs—not that it drops."

At another extreme, the Commission may use the hearing to deny license renewal or immediately revoke the Stations' licenses, forcing Plaintiffs off the air entirely, as the President has repeatedly demanded. In either scenario, the Administration accomplishes its goal of eliminating a perceived media critic: either it gets Plaintiffs to fall in line, or it silences them if they refuse.

The Commission's retaliatory campaign against ABC has drawn condemnation from across the political spectrum. Senator Ted Cruz has warned that the Commission's attempted censorship of ABC is "dangerous as hell." Likewise, Senator John Kennedy recently commented that "the FCC scares me right now" as it is "getting into the foothills of violating the First Amendment." He explained further that he "do[esn't] like some of the stuff that is said on television, but what business is it of the FCC?" Less than two months ago, Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch cited the Commission's threats in response to Mr. Kimmel's late-night comments as a cautionary tale of what might be done by a too-powerful executive agency to "[a] business out of favor with the party in control of the White House." Trump v. Slaughter (Gorsuch, J., concurring). And in a public comment in the Stations' renewal proceeding, a bipartisan group of former FCC Commissioners and senior officials condemned the Commission's early review of ABC's broadcast licenses as "an assault on free speech disguised as regulatory process."

The consequences of the Administration's campaign against free speech reach well beyond ABC. If the Administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the Administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government. In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.

The FCC Chairman has left little doubt that this is his goal. He has publicly touted the Administration's success in extracting speech-related concessions from other media companies, boasting that it has "t[aken] on the fake news media" and is "winning," cataloguing with evident pride the perceived critical voices that have been taken off the air.

Facing this existential threat, Plaintiffs have no choice but to seek redress from the judicial branch for the Administration's blatant retaliation for their First Amendment speech. Plaintiffs come to this Court reluctantly with no alternative means to eliminate these ongoing and immediate threats other than total capitulation to the Administration's demands. This Court should immediately enjoin Defendants from taking or threatening to take any action against Plaintiffs in relation to the early license renewal applications, including issuing a Hearing Designation Order in connection with Plaintiffs' renewal applications.

I'm not an administrative law expert, so I can't speak to whether there are procedural barriers to this sort of request for an injunction against the FCC. But the substantive First Amendment objections that ABC raises strike me as very serious.

For more on the special First Amendment rules dealing with broadcast regulation, see Stuart Benjamin's Making Broadcast Content Regulation Aggressive Again.

The post ABC's First Amendment Lawsuit Against FCC appeared first on Reason.com.

James Patterson ("Plaintiff") filed this action on July 10, 2026 . Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction and a Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") on July 16, 2026. Plaintiff requests the following relief (1) to enjoin Defendant Cindy Patterson ("Defendant") from publishing defamatory statements about Plaintiff to any third party; and (2) to require Defendant to remove alleged defamatory comments posted on the internet….

Plaintiff has served as a longtime clinician, chaplain, ordained minister, military officer, VA Chaplain, and owner of a Counseling Service Business in Montana…. Plaintiff and Defendant (collectively the "Parties") met in Montana in 2014 when Plaintiff became Defendant's professional counselor. Defendant attended counseling sessions with Plaintiff over the course of 5 years. Plaintiff and Defendant communicated off and on every couple of months following the end of their professional relationship. Plaintiff contends that the Parties typically limited these communications to short discussions regarding Defendant's well-being. Plaintiff alleges, however, that Defendant began to "aggressively pursue" him for a romantic relationship around August 2020.

Plaintiff knew Montana had enacted ethical rules prohibiting therapists from entering romantic relationships with their former clients. Upon investigation into the Montana Administrative rules, Plaintiff found it reasonable to believe he could pursue a romantic relationship with Defendant. Plaintiff alleges to have consulted with an approved supervisor with the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy in October of 2020. Plaintiff further alleges the supervisor informed him that a romantic relationship with a former client, such as Defendant, would not violate applicable ethical standards.

The Parties began a romantic relationship and ultimately married on February 12, 2021. The marriage began to deteriorate shortly thereafter in March of 2021. The Parties remain legally married while currently going through divorce proceedings. Plaintiff asserts that Defendant started to make statements concerning Plaintiff on social media and to third parties outside the divorce proceedings.

Plaintiff alleges Defendant has published defamatory statements to churches, pastors, prayer networks, Christian media outlets, counseling clients and professionals, licensing boards, Plaintiff's ordination sponsor and religious endorser, military leadership, Montana public bodies, and social media. Plaintiff alleges Defendant demonstrates her intent to continue posting defamatory statements regarding Plaintiff, as evidenced by her X posts on July 2, 2026….

Defendant's statements regarding the Parties' relationship and her thoughts on how Plaintiff treated her may or may not be true. The alleged future statements have not been proven as defamatory. Additionally, if the Court were to enjoin Defendant from publishing her statements regarding their relationship, it would impose an impermissible prior restraint of her speech. For these reasons, the Court declines to enjoin Defendant from publishing statements to third parties regarding their relationship and her thoughts on Plaintiff's personality. Further, a TRO or preliminary injunction prohibiting Defendant from "publishing further defamatory statements" would be both ineffective and overly burdensome. The Court would be placed in a role of having to determine continually what Defendant should be allowed to say.

Plaintiff may prove some of Defendant's statements to be defamatory in future proceedings. Plaintiff has not yet met this burden. As a result, a TRO or preliminary injunction ordering Defendant to be enjoined from speaking "defamatory statements" would be ineffective, overly burdensome on the Court, and a prior restraint on Defendant's speech….

Plaintiff asks the Court to order Defendant to remove three comments she posted on X on May 20, 2026, and July 2, 2026. On May 20, 2026, Defendant posted: "Professionals told me [the Plaintiff] groomed me in therapy" and "believe I'm not [the Plaintiff's] only victim." Defendant described Plaintiff in another X post as a "communal narcissist," and claimed that "[the Plaintiff] groomed and abused her."

Plaintiff has not yet proven false Defendant's comment concerning Plaintiff's alleged grooming of her. Defendant labeling Plaintiff as a "communal narcissist" represents her opinion which merely accuses Plaintiff of being a bad person. Plaintiff has not yet proven the statements to be defamatory.

Plaintiff included in the Complaint an exhibit of text messages between the Parties. The text messages included Defendant assuring Plaintiff he did not "exploit" their professional relationship. Additionally, the Montana Board of Behavioral Health ("MBBH") allegedly dismissed Defendant's complaint against Plaintiff.

The text messages and the MBBH's findings do not prove conclusory of whether Plaintiff exploited the Parties' professional relationship. Defendant's allegations differ materially. Now, Defendant alleges she had been "groomed" by Plaintiff. Plaintiff has not provided evidence to disprove the claim. Plaintiff has not yet shown a likelihood of success on the merits of this claim when Plaintiff has not demonstrated the statements to be false.

Defendant also posted on X, "Wyoming revoked [Plaintiff's] license," and mentioned the Parties' marriage. The Parties agree they got married in February of 2021. Whether the state of Wyoming revoked Plaintiff's license remains currently unknown. Plaintiff claims he "voluntarily surrendered" his Wyoming license. Defendant alleges the Wyoming Mental Health Professions Licensing Board (the "Board") recommended revocation of Plaintiff's license because of the Parties' relationship. Defendant asserts that the Board offered an alternative of the voluntarily surrender of Plaintiff' license in lieu of the Board formally revoking Plaintiff's license.

The Court recognizes Defendant's statements may harm Plaintiff in his occupation. Plaintiff has not yet introduced ample evidence showing the statements to be false. Plaintiff has not shown a likelihood of success on merits of the claims of his libel and slander for Defendant's posts on X….

Michael Doggett (Doggett Law Offices, PLLC) represents defendant.

The post No Preliminary Injunction Against Alleged Defamation of Counselor by Estranged Wife/Ex-Client appeared first on Reason.com.

A string of bogus copyright infringement claims have been filed to Google over the course of several weeks, demanding that the search engine giant de-list articles about Carbonara's data center connections from search results. The complaints, filed by different entities with little information online, fraudulently claim that the articles are using copyrighted material.

WLRN has found that the effort largely paid off, making it nearly impossible for the public to find information about Carbonara's data center connections or other critical coverage of the candidate through a basic Google search….

The takedown efforts are allowed through the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), passed by Congress in 1998. Social media companies, search engines and web hosts simply comply with all complaints as soon as they are filed, out of fear of being held liable for legitimate copyright violations….

Two days after WLRN published an article last month entitled "Candidate running for Project Tango district is embroiled in Michigan data center controversy," a company allegedly called Reynolds Media Group, based in the United Kingdom, sent a complaint to Google falsely claiming that the article was stolen from the Times of India. No information about the UK-based Reynolds Media Group can be found online, but it alleged that it represented the Indian newspaper in the complaint sent to Google. The company that owns the Times of India is The Times Group.

"We demand the immediate removal of this infringing material from Google search results to safeguard our intellectual property," reads the complaint.

The article was immediately removed from Google search results, WLRN found….

The WLRN article has many more examples and other details. See also South Florida Sun Sentinel (Susannah Bryan) and Miami Herald (Claire Heddles), which discuss the story; the latter notes that "Carbonara insisted his campaign had no role filing those complaints."

For more on various schemes for vanishing material from search engine results, see Shenanigans (Internet Takedown Edition); I briefly discuss the DMCA takedown schemes at pp. 300-01.

The post Vanishing of Stories Mentioning Congressional Candidate Michael Carbonara, Due to "Bogus Copyright Complaints" appeared first on Reason.com.