Fired librarian Patty Hector gets payday from Saline County. (August 29, 2026). Arkansas Times

Byron Tate, Arkansas Times; Fired librarian Patty Hector gets payday from Saline County 

"Patty Hector, the Saline County librarian — eventually the fired Saline County librarian — who wouldn’t bend the knee to Republican demands to hide books they didn’t like, came out $275,000 to the good in a lawsuit she filed against the county.

In October 2023, after months of controversy and harassment over the placement of books on gender and race, Hector was fired by Saline County Judge Matt Brumley after the all-Republican Quorum Court stripped the power to hire and fire library directors from the county’s Library Board, which had declined to take action, and gave it to the county judge.

The American Civil Liberties Union took up her case in February 2025, filing a federal lawsuit against the county, alleging Hector’s First Amendment rights had been trampled when she was retaliated against because of her public stance against the censorship efforts."

Colleges weigh whether to sign onto Trump plan or forgo federal benefits; The Washington Post, October 3, 2025

 

Susan Svrluga

, 

Danielle Douglas-Gabriel

 and 

Emily Davies

, The Washington Post; Colleges weigh whether to sign onto Trump plan or forgo federal benefits

"The Trump administration this week offered a select group of universities the opportunity to score priority access for federal funding, prompting an enthusiastic and swift response from a university leader in Texas, who called it “an honor.”

But the other schools that received the 10-page proposal Wednesday night were largely silent Thursday, as they considered the wide-ranging conservative terms that some experts warned would trample on free-speech rights and threaten finances and academic freedom at top universities.

The Washington Post first reported this week that the White House intended to launch a campaign to bring colleges into compliance with Trump’s ideological priorities by offering a competitive advantage to those that sign on...

California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) threatened Thursday to yank billions of dollars’ worth of funding from any school in the state that signed onto the agreement, writing on social media that the state would not “BANKROLL SCHOOLS THAT SELL OUT THEIR STUDENTS, PROFESSORS, RESEARCHERS, AND SURRENDER ACADEMIC FREEDOM.”...

White House officials signaled last week that they intended to launch a campaign to bring colleges into compliance with Trump’s ideological priorities."

Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law; Iowa Public Radio, December 29, 2023

 Grant Gerlock, Iowa Public Radio ; Federal judge blocks enforcement of Iowa’s book ban law

"A federal judge has blocked the state of Iowa from enforcing major portions of an education law, SF 496, which has caused school districts to pull hundreds of books from library shelves.

The temporary injunction prevents enforcement of a ban on books with sexually explicit content, which the judge in the case said likely violates the First Amendment. It also blocks a section barring instruction relating to sexual orientation and gender identity in elementary school, which he called “void for vagueness.”

The decision follows a hearing last week that combined arguments from two separate challenges against the law signed by Gov. Kim Reynolds in May. A lawsuit brought by LGBTQ students calls the law discriminatory while another from a group of educators and the publisher Penguin Random House claims it violates their freedom of speech.

Enforcement provisions in the law that apply to book removals were set to take effect January 1...

Judge Stephen Locher said in his ruling released late Friday afternoon that the court was unable to find another school library book restriction “even remotely similar to Senate File 496.” Where lawmakers should use a scalpel, he said, SF 496 is a “bulldozer” that has pulled books out of schools that are widely regarded as important works.

“The underlying message is that there is no redeeming value to any such book even if it is a work of history, self-help guide, award-winning novel, or other piece of serious literature,” Locher wrote. “In effect, the Legislature has imposed a puritanical ‘pall of orthodoxy’ over school libraries.”"

Anti-harassment policy raises First Amendment questions; University of Pittsburgh University Times, November 18, 2019

Marty Levine, University of Pittsburgh University Times; Anti-harassment policy raises First Amendment questions

"Members of the University Senate’s Faculty Affairs committee say they have met with University officials and voiced concerns that a proposed new anti-harassment measure may potentially stifle classroom discussion and require the entire Pitt community to report suspicious speech to University authorities.

After the meeting, the policy was pulled from a vote before Faculty Assembly."

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: what sports have taught me about race in America; The Guardian, August 28, 2018

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, The Guardian;

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar: what sports have taught me about race in America

"Athletes who speak out are proclaiming their loyalty to a constitution that demands equality and inclusiveness, not to the government officials who try to undermine those ideals by silencing its critics."

The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does; CNN, August 8, 2017

A.J. Willingham, CNN; The First Amendment doesn't guarantee you the rights you think it does

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

That's it. That's the entirety of our Constitution's First Amendment, the central animus of our American way of life that gets dragged out every time someone's banned from Twitter.

There's a lot going on in those few sentences, and it's important to know when and how it applies to common situations -- and, equally as important, when it doesn't.

Let's look at some common First Amendment arguments; illuminated and debunked by a constitutional expert."

Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Affect Redskins Trademark; NPR, 9/29/16

Eyder Peralta, NPR; Supreme Court Takes Up Case That Could Affect Redskins Trademark:

"The Supreme Court has decided to hear a case that might decide whether the government can deny Washington's NFL team a trademark because it has deemed the team name is offensive.

The court granted certiorari on Lee V. Tam. If you remember, The Slants, an Asian-American rock band, sued the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office because it refused to trademark their name saying it proved offensive.

In December of last year, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the band's name was private speech and therefore protected by the First Amendment."

USPTO appeals to Supreme Court for ruling on racially tinged trademarks; Ars Technica, 4/22/16

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; USPTO appeals to Supreme Court for ruling on racially tinged trademarks:

"In December, a court case brought by Portland-based Asian American rock band "The Slants" led to what could be a major change in US trademark law. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overruled the US Patent and Trademark Office, which had refused to give the band a trademark, citing a law barring "disparaging" marks.

The battle isn't quite over, though. Patent Office lawyers have appealed to the Supreme Court, asking them to consider the case. If the Supreme Court takes up the case and reverses the Federal Circuit—something the high court has not hesitated to do in recent patent cases—the USPTO will retain its ability to quash disparaging trademarks.

Either way, the results of the case will have repercussions for other owners of controversial trademarks—most notably, the Washington Redskins. The football team was stripped of its trademark rights after years of litigation but is continuing its fight at the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit."

Georgia Governor Vetoes North Carolina-Style “Religious Liberty” Bill; Slate.com, 3/28/16

Mark Joseph Stern, Slate.com; Georgia Governor Vetoes North Carolina-Style “Religious Liberty” Bill:

"In his Monday address, Deal sent a very clear message to the legislature’s anti-LGBT agitators: Your prejudice does not belong in our state’s laws. “HB757 doesn't reflect the character of our state or the character of our people,” Deal declared, explaining that the law is also completely unnecessary: “We do not have to discriminate against anyone to protect the faith-based community in Georgia.” Denouncing the hypocrisy of the bill’s advocates, Deal noted wryly, “I find it ironic that some in the religious community look to government to secure religious rights.” He also explained that “it’s difficult to legislate on something that’s best left to the First Amendment”—music to the ears of civil libertarians, who have long pointed out that the Free Exercise Clause already guarantees religious liberty for all.

“This is about the character of our state and our people,” Deal concluded. “Georgia is a welcoming state full of kind and generous people.” By vetoing HB757, Deal will help to maintain those values of tolerance."