From Butler v. Lipscy, decided Monday by Minnesota Court of Appeals Judge Keala Ede, joined by Judges Diane Bratvold and Jon Schmidt:

Butler alleged that Lipscy engaged in acts of harassment targeting Butler and her children, including: following, monitoring, or pursuing Butler; making unwanted visits to Butler; frightening Butler with threatening behavior; taking pictures of Butler without permission; and using social media to harass Butler….

The facts, according to the appellate court's summary of the trial court findings, were this:

At the time the district court issued the HRO, Butler was a licensed marriage and family therapist who served "historically marginalized communities." This included members of "the Queer community," which Butler defined as "the Two Spirit (2S)/Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender/Intersex/etc. community as a whole and individually." Butler was also "active in her local Itasca Pride board and community as a volunteer and current board member." She has three children, one of whom is "non-binary."

Lipscy held "Christian beliefs" that she posted about on the internet. And Lipscy administered a webpage called "Grand Rapids Rant."

Itasca Pride held a festival on June 23, 2024. Before that event, Lipscy posted on the internet about a public gathering called, "Protect the children from Pride/Drag show and Walk with Prayer," which Lipscy scheduled for the same date, time, and location as the Itasca Pride Festival. Before the events occurred, Lipscy wrote on the internet: "But if you cause one of these who trust in me to fall into sin, it would be better for you to have a large millstone tied around your neck and drowned in the depths of the sea. #BeTheirVoice Matthew 18:6." Lipscy also used the internet to encourage people to attend and to wear white shirts in opposition to Itasca Pride and in celebration of "traditional family values." At the June 23 Itasca Pride event, Lipscy took pictures of Butler's children, and Butler's husband told Lipscy to stop.

On September 28, Lipscy posted images from an Itasca Pride webpage on her Grand Rapids Rant internet site, with her own captions. These images included Butler's children with captions such as "Sickening," "Poor children," and "Those poor poor kids." Lipscy also identified Butler by name, listed Butler's title as "local therapist"—which "insinuate[ed] … [that] Butler was not a real therapist"—and referred to an event coordinated by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and Itasca Pride as having "influence over … children."

On October 20, Lipscy attended an event led by a school-board candidate who was advocating for a prohibition on transgender females in female sports. Lipscy broadcast the event on her Grand Rapids Rant webpage, identified Butler's husband, and described him as "pushing for boys to be in girls' bathrooms and supporting bringing kids to drag events." More specifically, Lipscy stated that Butler's husband "wasn't truly interested [on the day of the event] …, he just wanted to report back. Silly boy, [he] could've just watched live with [Butler]." In addition, "Butler's children attend the same school as … Lipscy's niece," and "Lipscy ha[d] been at the school since the above-described incidents … occurred."

Butler was "generally fearful for the safety of herself and children following the incidents involving … Lipscy." She "installed [four] cameras on her property and [two] cameras on her vehicle," "spent sessions with her clients discussing concerns the clients ha[d] about their safety given … Lipscy's social media posts referring to … Butler," "removed signage from her office, met with clients in a place other than her office, and met via tele-health to address concerns about client safety."

Her children became "afraid to go out in public without a parent and [had] an increased fear when out in the community." One of Butler's children "changed the way they dress[ed] because they [did] not want to get physically or emotionally hurt." Butler's children were "fearful that their photos [would] be put online to shame their family," "ask[ed] in public if they [were] safe," and "question[ed] whether people around them [were] 'people that hate Queer people.'"

The court issued a harassment restraining order that provided, in relevant part, that Lipscy

• "shall not harass … [Butler] or her minor children included in the Petition";
• "shall have no direct or indirect contact with … [Butler] or her minor children including any visits, phone calls, contact via electronic means such as email or social networking sites, threats or assaultive behavior to the protected persons, damaging or stealing property belonging to the protected persons, breaking into and entering the protected persons' residence, and/or taking pictures of the protected persons without permission from … [Butler]";
• "is prohibited from being within 500 feet of … [Butler's] home" or "job site"; …
• "is restrained from harassing, stalking, or threatening the protected persons, or engaging in other conduct that would place the protected persons in reasonable fear of bodily injury to that person"; and "is prohibited from the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the protected persons that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury."

Given that the court had found that Lipscy's social media posts referring to Butler were "harassment," and then restrained Lipscy from "harassing" Butler, the order thus forbade Lipscy from continuing to mention Butler. And indeed the appellate court acknowledged this, stating (emphases added) that the HRO

• "allows Lipscy to express her religious views, provided that she does not mention Butler and her children and does not approach Butler, her home, and her workplace," and
• "merely prohibits [Lipscy] from directing harassing conduct toward Butler and her children—such as photographing them, repeatedly naming them, and targeting them."

The appellate court upheld the order, reasoning that Lipscy's actions could indeed be found to be harassment, defined by the Minnesota HRO statute as "repeated incidents of intrusive or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that have a substantial adverse effect or are intended to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, security, or privacy of another":

The district court determined that Lipscy "engaged in harassment," reasoning that Lipscy had: followed, monitored, or pursued Butler and her children; frightened Butler and her children; taken pictures of Butler's children without permission; and used social media to harass Butler on multiple occasions. In making this determination, the district court relied on evidence in the record that Lipscy had reposted pictures of Butler's children from the Itasca Pride webpage to the Grand Rapids Rant internet site with her own captions including: "Sickening," "Poor children," and "Those poor poor kids."

The district court also based its decision on evidence that Lipscy had reposted pictures from the Itasca Pride event while referring to Butler in a manner that questioned Butler's credentials as a therapist and had shared a video of Butler's husband while referring to Butler by name. And the district court made specific findings about how Butler was "generally fearful for the safety of herself and children following the incidents involving … Lipscy." …

And the court held that this doesn't violate Lipscy's free speech or religious freedom rights, because it is directed only at "speech or conduct that … is in violation of one's right to privacy," which Minnesota courts had held is constitutionally unprotected.

I think such an injunction is unconstitutional, at least as to the prohibition on repeatedly naming Butler in posts; for more on such orders, and the appellate decisions that mostly set them aside, see my Overbroad Injunctions Against Speech (Especially in Libel and Harassment and Cases) article. And while I'm sympathetic to the argument that adults should keep the children out of this, I'm not sure it's constitutional even as to that. But in any event, the Minnesota Court of Appeals thought the injunction was permissible, and I thought it worthwhile to note that.

Sara Jane Baldwin (Gender Justice) represents plaintiff.

The post Anti-Transgenderism/Anti-Homosexuality Activist Ordered to Stop Talking About Local Therapist/Pride Activist appeared first on Reason Magazine.

10/22/1915: Hadacheck v. Sebastian argued.

The post Today in Supreme Court History: October 22, 1915 appeared first on Reason Magazine.

One month after Washington, D.C., celebrated America's 250th anniversary, it marked a more ignominious milestone: a full year since President Donald Trump deployed thousands of National Guard soldiers to the capital.

The approximately 4,600 National Guard members have been an unavoidable presence in D.C., wandering the National Mall and downtown streets in groups of three or four, or standing idly in Metro stations chatting. Occasionally, they're tasked with picking up trash at parks. Tourists take selfies with them by the now-fenced-off Lafayette Square in front of the White House.

They're not going anywhere. The Trump administration is moving forward with plans to acquire up to 2,000 housing units to support long-term National Guard deployments. The Department of Defense has estimated that extending the mission from October 2026 through to the end of the Trump administration in January 2029 will cost about $1.4 billion.

According to the Trump administration, all of this has been necessary to transform D.C. "from a crime-ridden city into a safe and beautiful haven for residents and visitors alike."

Crime in D.C. is down 20 percent from 2025, according to the Metropolitan Police Department, but an August Reuters investigation found National Guard soldiers were involved in only a tiny fraction of arrests in the safer parts of the city, mostly for minor offenses such as shoplifting and turnstile jumping. Crime has been dropping nationwide, a trend that started before Trump took office and includes cities that aren't occupied by federal law enforcement and soldiers.

Even if the Guard presence has contributed to a drop in crime, it's a civil liberties nightmare. It puts untrained military in the role of policing civilians. It usurps local police departments that are ostensibly answerable to the communities they police, and it normalizes the deployment of military forces domestically—a red line for a free society.

"There's a deep irony that here we are in the capital of the free world, and our president is treating it like a police state," Scott Michelman, legal director of the ACLU of the District of Columbia, told PBS in August. "D.C. residents have lived with our National Guard troops in our neighborhoods for about a year, despite the absence of any genuine emergency and really any reason for them to be here."

Last November, a federal court preliminarily ruled that the deployment was illegal. However, an appeals court allowed the Trump administration to keep troops deployed in D.C. while it considers the administration's appeal of that ruling.

The appeals court decision is absurd. The appellate panel is fully aware that every day the case drags on is another day that D.C. residents are being subjected to a potentially illegal military occupation, and another day that taxpayers will foot the bill for a wasteful fit of presidential hubris.

The damages are compounding. The first anniversary of Trump's deployment of National Guard soldiers to D.C. should be the last.

The post Crime Is Down in D.C., but Trump's National Guard Deployment Probably Isn't the Cause appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority's board voted 7–2 to strip CEO Ian Choudri of his authority to independently approve and manage contracts worth less than $25 million after an investigation uncovered questionable taxpayer-funded expenses by four consulting firms. An audit found that $593,000 in travel expenses lacked proper justification or violated state rules, including premium airline tickets and rideshare trips to places like a cigar lounge and an escape room. Consultants also billed taxpayers for rides to and from Choudri's home, sometimes late at night. The authority paid the four consulting firms roughly $2 million in travel costs; the inspector general reviewed about $1.15 million of that total and found $680,500 had no prior approval.

The post Brickbat: Perks of the Job appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The post Open Thread appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss worrisome remarks from Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and journalist Kara Swisher, suggesting retribution for those in the Trump Administration if and when Democrats regain control of Congress.

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here. 

The post Elissa Slotkin and Kara Swisher Want Democrats To Go After MAGA if They Win appeared first on Reason Magazine.

From Berenson v. Gottlieb, decided yesterday by Judges Pierre Leval, Richard Wesley, and Joseph Bianco:

Plaintiff-Appellant Alex Berenson … is an independent journalist and author of a book about the COVID-19 pandemic. Berenson was an active Twitter user during the COVID-19 pandemic, posting about, inter alia, "the public policy response to COVID-19 and the vaccines." See also Appellant's Brief (describing Berenson as "a vocal critic of the public policy response to COVID-19, questioning the underlying evidentiary basis for business and school closures"). Berenson's Twitter follower count rose from approximately 7,000 in January 2020 to more than 229,000 by March 2021. Berenson alleges the existence of a conspiracy by the Biden Administration and Pfizer executives "to pressure Twitter to suspend [his] account and mute his voice as a leading COVID-19 vaccine skeptic." …

In May 2020, Twitter announced that it may append labels or warning messages to tweets related to COVID-19 misinformation. Berenson tweeted that he was "concern[ed] about what the new rules might mean for free speech on [Twitter]." In response, Twitter's Vice President of Global Communications Brandon Borrman contacted Berenson to discuss the new policy.

In December 2020, Twitter announced a new policy with respect to COVID-19 vaccine misinformation, stating that it would start to "remove Tweets which advance harmful or misleading narratives about COVID-19 vaccinations." Berenson contacted Borrman, "looking for assurances that Twitter would continue to allow his reporting on COVID-19 vaccines." Borrman allegedly responded that the "points [Berenson was] raising should not be an issue at all," and that Berenson should reach out if he "r[an] into any issues."

On March 1, 2021, Twitter announced a "five-strike policy" to combat COVID-19 misinformation. Accounts that received strikes were subject to increasing levels of discipline: the first strike resulted in a warning, the second and third strikes each in a 12-hour account lock, the fourth strike in a 7-day account lock, and the fifth or successive strike in permanent suspension. The policy provided that, if a user "believe[s] that [their] account was locked or suspended in error, [the user] can submit an appeal."

The next day, Berenson spoke with Borrman, who allegedly reported that "[Berenson's] name has never come up in the discussions around these policies," and that Borrman would "try to ensure [that Berenson would be] given a heads up before an action is taken, but [that Borrman was] not always made aware of them before they're executed."

Berenson alleges that members of the Biden Administration, [Pfizer Board of Directors member and former FDA Commissioner  Scott] Gottlieb, and [Chief Executive Officer of Pfizer Albert] Bourla repeatedly pressured Twitter to suspend his account, citing tweets that Twitter executives, including CEO Jack Dorsey and general counsel Vijaya Gadde, did not believe constituted violations of Twitter's five-strike policy. Berenson received strikes from Twitter in March, July, and August 2021. His Twitter account was permanently suspended with the fifth strike on August 28, 2021.

Berenson sued, but the court rejected his federal civil rights conspiracy claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 claim:

[Section] 1985(3) imposes liability on "two or more persons … [who] conspire … for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws." A plaintiff must "show that some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [lay] behind the conspirators' action." The Supreme Court has cautioned that Section 1985(3) should not be "interpreted as providing a federal remedy for 'all tortious, conspiratorial interferences with the rights of others.'" …

The Supreme Court has explained that the term "class":

unquestionably connotes something more than a group of individuals who share a desire to engage in conduct that the [Section] 1985(3) defendant disfavors. Otherwise, innumerable tort plaintiffs would be able to assert causes of action under [Section] 1985(3) by simply defining the aggrieved class as those seeking to engage in the activity the defendant has interfered with. This definitional ploy would convert the statute into the "general federal tort law" it was the very purpose of the animus requirement to avoid.

Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic (1993). Religious, gender, and racial discrimination "certainly fulfill[ ] the 'class-based animus' requirement of [Section] 1985(3)." In Keating v. Carey (2d Cir. 1983), we held that political parties are also protected groups under Section 1985(3). More recently, however, we have noted that, "after our decision in Keating, the Supreme Court [in United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 610 v. Scott (1983),] suggested that the scope of [S]ection 1985 might not extend to include discrimination against political groups except where that discrimination was based on racial animus." In any event, apart from political parties, we have made clear that protected classes under Section 1985(3) need to possess "the type of inherited or immutable characteristics sufficient to satisfy the class-based animus requirement."

Here, Berenson asserts that the relevant class here is a "class of Americans who had chosen not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine, a class of which [ ] Berenson is apart [sic]." See also id. (describing the class as "Americans who either had questions about the [COVID-19] vaccine or did not want to be forced to take a shot"). The district court correctly held that Berenson's proposed class does not constitute a class for Section 1985(3) purposes. Instead, this is precisely the kind of class that the Supreme Court cautioned against in Bray—a class composed of individuals who share a desire to engage in conduct, i.e., to forgo COVID-19 vaccination, that the defendants allegedly disfavor. To the extent Berenson suggests that the class falls within the ambit of Section 1985 because it "includes a disproportionate number of African-Americans, political conservatives, and evangelical Christians," we are unpersuaded. Even if the composition of the alleged class is accepted as true, we have held that "plaintiffs cannot proceed under a disparate impact theory of liability in … claims brought pursuant to [Section 1985]."

The district court also correctly determined in the alternative that, assuming arguendo that persons not vaccinated against COVID-19 constituted a protected category, Berenson did not sufficiently allege "that the defendants acted with class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus." … In Gleason v. McBride (2d Cir. 1989), we affirmed the dismissal of a Section 1985 claim because the plaintiff "[did] not claim discrimination based on his political party affiliation," but rather "alleged only that he was discriminated against because he was a political opponent of the defendants and was extremely vocal in his opposition to [them]."

Here, Berenson alleges that he was "a highly visible obstacle to [the Biden Administration's] efforts," and that "the White House had targeted [him] specifically" as "ground zero for COVID-19 misinformation." Indeed, the FAC is replete with allegations that Berenson, and not a general class of unvaccinated Americans, was specifically targeted. The FAC also indicates that Berenson was a vocal critic of the Biden Administration. Thus, as in Gleason, Berenson's Section 1985 claim must be dismissed because he failed to plausibly allege "that the defendants acted with class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus."

And the court also rejected Berenson's tortious interference with contract claim:

Under New York law, a claim for tortious interference requires "(1) the existence of a valid contract between the plaintiff and a third party; (2) the defendant's knowledge of that contract; (3) the defendant's intentional procurement of the third-party's breach of the contract without justification; (4) actual breach of the contract; and (5) damages resulting therefrom." A claim for tortious interference will not lie if the plaintiff fails to plead an actual breach of the contract.

Here, there was a valid contract between Berenson and Twitter, i.e., Twitter's Terms of Service, which provides that Twitter "may suspend or terminate [a user's] account or cease providing [the user] with all or part of the [contractually defined] Services at any time for any or no reason." Berenson argues that the Terms of Service were modified by Twitter's five-strike policy and by Borrman's "assurances to [Berenson] regarding his posts pursuant to [the five-strike] policy." … [But] neither the five-strike policy nor Borrman's statements to Berenson modified the Terms of Service….

The relevant provision of the Terms of Service is located in the section entitled "Ending These Terms," and provides the means by which a user may terminate the agreement, i.e., "by deactivating [a user's] accounts and discontinuing [a user's] use of [Twitter's] Services," and the circumstances under which Twitter

may suspend or terminate [a user's] account … at any time for any or no reason, including, but not limited to, if [Twitter] reasonably believe[s]: (i) you have violated these Terms or the Twitter Rules and Policies or Periscope Community Guidelines, (ii) you create risk or possible legal exposure for us; (iii) your account should be removed due to unlawful conduct[;] (iv) your account should be removed due to prolonged inactivity; or (v) our provision of the Services to you is no longer commercially viable.

The five-strike policy is clearly among the "Rules and Policies" that the Terms of Service contemplates. However, the provision makes clear that suspension or termination of an account is not limited to violations of that policy; rather, as noted above, such suspension or termination could be "at any time for any or no reason." …

We reach the same conclusion with respect to Borrman's alleged remarks, which are too vague to modify the Terms of Service. The alleged remarks are: (1) "I think you have some nuanced points that could be helpful as [sic] try to move ahead" and "[w]e're trying to make sure that factual debate finds a way through the emotion, but we're obviously not successful all the time"; (2) "The points you're raising should not be an issue at all…. The policy is designed to allow debate and discussion, but to discourage conspiracy theories, etc. Please let me know if you run into any issues"; and (3) "I will say that your name has never come up in the discussions around these policies…. If it does I will try to ensure you're given a heads up before an action is taken, but I am not always made aware of them before they're executed. If something happens, please let me know," Collectively, even drawing all inferences in Berenson's favor, these remarks suggest at most that Borrman would attempt to notify Berenson of action taken against him—not that no action would be taken against Berenson or that Berenson would necessarily receive advance notice of any action.

At bottom, Twitter's Terms of Service provided that Twitter could suspend Berenson for "any or no reason," and it did so. There was no modification of that contract and Berenson has failed to allege an actual breach of contract. Therefore, the district court correctly determined that Berenson failed to state a tortious interference claim.

{Before the district court and now on appeal, Berenson relies heavily on Berenson v. Twitter, Inc (N.D. Cal. 2022), a decision in a case Berenson initiated against Twitter in December 2021. There, the district court granted in part and denied in part Twitter's motion to dismiss, holding that the five-strike policy and Borrman's "specific and direct assurances to [Berenson] regarding his posts pursuant to that policy" "amount[ed] to a modification of the [Terms of Service]" and that Berenson had plausibly alleged that "Twitter's conduct … modified its contract with [him] and then breached that contract by failing to abide by its own five-strike policy and its specific commitments set forth through [Borrman]." Id. at (emphasis in original). We find that analysis unpersuasive for the reasons stated above.}

The analysis seems correct to me.

James P. Rouhandeh, Michael S. Scheinkman, David B. Toscano, and Luca Marzorati (Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP) represent defendants.

The post COVID Vaccine Skeptic Alex Berenson's Lawsuit over Termination of His Twitter Account Thrown Out appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss the ongoing violent protests in France. 

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post France's Protests Descend Into Looting and Property Destruction appeared first on Reason Magazine.

In this segment of Free Media, Reason Senior Editor Robby Soave and Daily Caller Editor in Chief Amber Duke discuss Vivek Ramaswamy's controversial attack ad against his opponent Amy Acton in Ohio's gubernatorial race. 

If you enjoy Free Media, come watch Robby debate at our upcoming Reason Versus in Washington, D.C. Tickets are available here.

The post Vivek Ramaswamy Is Defending Controversial Ad With Amy Acton's Mother appeared first on Reason Magazine.

U.S. v. Santiago, decided Monday by Judge Chad Meredith (E.D. Ky.), involves this Instagram post:

Santiago is being prosecuted for making threatening interstate communications, in two counts, "one regarding the threat to the President, and one regarding the threat to law enforcement officers." The court allowed the prosecution to go forward:

[T]he question of whether Santiago's speech was a "true threat" or political hyperbole is one that must be determined by a jury, not the Court.

Of course, "courts retain the power to remove a true-threat question from the jury's consideration … if the evidence shows that the speech was protected as a matter of law." But the implication to be drawn from the evidence here is disputed and it is not so clear-cut that the Court can decide it as a matter of law. A reasonable jury could find Santiago's statements to be true threats, and so the matter must be presented to a jury. The First Amendment does not say otherwise because it does not even apply if a jury concludes that the statements were true threats….

For most context, see the FBI agent's affidavit accompanying the criminal complaint; an excerpt:

Between January 27, 2026, and March 27, 2026, kadi_skating [allegedly one of Santiago's user ids] sent the following messages to an unidentified user: …

• kadi_skating: "im filled with political violence now." [January 8, 2026]….

• kadi_skating: "death to trump." [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skating: "death to the American nazi regime." [March 2, 2026].

• kadi_skating: "and the american people NEED to start shooting at the necks, legs, and arms of ICE agents." [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skatlng: "STUFF A GRENADE IN THEIR AHH AND BLOW IT UP." [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skating: "LETS GOOOO no one is spared all of ice is going to die by my hands [March 2, 2026]

• kadi_skating: "I wanna kill n*zis bad." [March 23, 2026]

Emily K. Greenfield and James T. Chapman represent the federal government.

The post Prosecution for Threatening to Cut President's Face Off and Feed It to Stray Dogs Can Go to Jury appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Questioning the prevailing narrative about the "Cornell seven" case is bound to create controversy. And at Columbia University, two student journalists drew condemnation for their views on the case from the unlikeliest of places: a college free speech group. 

On October 13, Barnard junior Christina Ma and Columbia junior Nikos Mohammadi published an article called "The 'Cornell Seven' Is Really About Liberalism" in the Columbia Sundial, an independent student publication. The piece argued that the discourse surrounding the alleged rape at Cornell University infantilizes women by omitting the possibility that in a post–sexual revolution, liberal society, women may make regrettable but consensual choices.

"In the world that, for better or worse, follows from it, we cannot claim to stand for sexual freedom and then recoil in disgust when there's a possibility that a young woman simply chose to exercise it," Mohammadi and Ma wrote. 

The piece also argues that the "collective frenzy" over the Cornell case has created a climate on campus that makes it "difficult to disagree with the maximalist position on what happened" the night of the alleged rape.

As Mohammadi wrote in UnHerd, the piece caused immense backlash. He said he received an onslaught of messages urging him to commit suicide and demanding that his "career and life be destroyed." But the criticism went beyond threatening DMs and comments. 

The day after the article's publication, the Columbia Open Discourse Alliance (CODA) canceled an event about press freedom because the Sundial's editor in chief, Nick Baum, had been slated to speak at the event. Although Baum did not author the piece, CODA wrote in an Instagram post that the free speech group "refused" to be affiliated with the Sundial's article "in any way." 

CODA also claimed that the event, ironically called "Who Gets to Tell the Story? Press Freedom and the Public Square," could not take place at a time when "many survivors in our community feel that their stories are under attack and are not being believed."

The group added that the Sundial's article "promotes rape culture and works to silence survivors of sexual assault." 

The group's president, Aum Desai, told Columbia's student newspaper, the Columbia Daily Spectator, that the group canceled the event "not in spite of, but because of [CODA's] commitment to free expression." 

Columbia graduate Clayton Smith, who founded CODA in 2025, quickly commented that he was "shocked" by CODA's statements on Instagram. Smith started the organization to create a central hub for groups hosting events promoting free speech and open discourse, including the Sundial and Columbia's Heterodox Academy chapter.

He tells Reason that CODA's rationale for canceling the event was "ironic" and "hypocritical," and he believes the group should have collaborated with the Sundial if there were legitimate safety concerns at the event. He says he was particularly disturbed by the group's condemnation of the article and CODA's claim that it promotes "rape culture."

"They don't argue or explain how it works to silence survivors of sexual assault. It is a baseless slander that they use to condemn the article because it promoted an opinion they do not like," Smith says. 

Smith says he spoke to Desai on the phone after CODA posted the statements, and Desai tried to reassure him that CODA would uphold the principle of free speech. But Smith says he did not leave the phone call feeling "very confident at all" in Desai's commitment. 

Desai did not respond to Reason's requests for comment.

CODA faculty adviser and Columbia Business School professor emeritus Eli Noam was traveling in China during the fallout from the Sundial article and was not involved in CODA's decision.

After speaking with members of both CODA and the Sundial, Noam tells Reason that he thinks CODA "made some proper decisions, some correct decisions, and some mistakes."

"I think we're dealing here with…a group of college students who kind of were confronted with a crisis at 2 a.m.," Noam says. "And kind of [made] some judgments that they now regret, and they do." 

He tells Reason that it was not "unreasonable to assume there would be a disruption" at the event, given the climate at Columbia and "about this rape allegation." He says the group suddenly "had an event where they needed college security" and could not organize in time. CODA, Noam says, is not yet recognized by the university, and he thinks the group was likely fearful of jeopardizing its recognition.  

Still, Noam says CODA's statements condemning the article were "unreasonable," and it was "disappointing that they kind of lost their nerve here."

Although he was not involved in planning the panel, Mohammadi says, to his knowledge, there were no credible threats of violence to the panel. He understood there may have been "disgruntled students" and an "environment CODA did not want to deal with." But instead of simply canceling the event or working with the Sundial to find a solution, Mohammadi says CODA overstepped by condemning the Sundial piece. 

James Applegate, an astronomy professor who serves on Columbia's Academic Freedom Council (CAFC) alongside Noam, tells Reason that he disagreed with CODA's decision to cancel the event.

Applegate tells Reason he was considering attending the event, and he was "rather surprised and disappointed" when it was canceled.

He recalled that when he was a professor in 2000, he objected to changes to the school's sexual misconduct policy on the University Senate floor. He says his statements were "similar to what was said in the Sundial article" and there was a "level of emotion in this debate." 

"Nonetheless, we had the debate. I was in it, and the degree to which it was civil is shocking when you look at where we are now. And it's sad." 

Applegate said he does not condemn CODA, however, "for the simple reason that the atmosphere on college campuses and on the left wing of politics in general in the United States is quite vicious."

CODA's honorary faculty fellow John McWhorter tells Reason he interpreted CODA's statement as "saying that an event about who gets to tell the story is untenable when or if a critical mass of people with such stories don't even feel comfortable telling them— i.e.being a participant in the event." He added, "I imagine some might think of that as cutting the salami a little thin, but then I highly suspect that Desai is equally worried about the event becoming a physical melee of some kind. In that, let's face it, he is hardly unreasonable."

Still, McWhorter said that he would have chosen to have the event himself, "especially as in the likely case that some people did talk about their experiences without any particular repercussions, it may have made the more reluctant people less apprehensive about doing so in the future."

According to Mohammadi, as of Tuesday, the Sundial, College Republicans, Platypus Affiliated Society at Columbia (which discusses leftist thought and history), and Columbia's Heterodox Academy chapter have left CODA. 

CODA was not the only group to condemn the Sundial's piece. On October 14, the Columbia Political Review's editorial board wrote that Mohammadi and Ma's piece "violates standards of integrity" and "perpetuates a culture of campus violence, rape, and assault." The editorial board of the Columbia Political Review, which purports to publish "multipartisan political discourse," stated that it would refuse to publish "any article that upholds or recreates cultures and systems of rape, sexual assault, or violence" and it urged "all campus publications to do the same."

And on Monday, Columbia's main newspaper, the Spectator, published a staff editorial accusing the Sundial of violating journalistic ethics by "its page to disparage survivors of sexual violence." 

Mohammadi tells Reason the piece underwent "far more editorial scrutiny than any other piece" the Sundial had published given the sensitive nature of the topic.

Free speech student organizations are necessary on Columbia's campus, especially as the school's free speech climate continues to crumble; it recently received a failing grade from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. And while upholding free speech principles may have become more fashionable among those resisting the Trump administration's pressures on academic freedom or those defending pro-Palestinian speech, it is clear that some topics remain taboo in the public square. College is supposed to be a place where students debate controversial topics, form their own beliefs and opinions, and learn from mistakes. Hopefully, the students who demanded condemnation instead of debate will be forgiven for their perversion of free speech ideals, and they will learn to afford such grace and open-mindedness to classmates with whom they disagree.

The post A Free Speech Group at Columbia Canceled an Event About Free Speech Over 'Cornell 7' Article Controversy appeared first on Reason Magazine.

I read and much enjoyed—and highly recommend—my Stanford colleague Diego Zambrano's book, How Americans Enforce the Law. He was kind enough to write up for us this post that captures the core of his argument, and I'm delighted to pass it along (though I encourage people to read the whole book):

The headlines are full of stories about a federal government retreating from enforcement. Agencies are dropping investigations, abandoning regulations, shrinking staffs and changing enforcement priorities. One week, the EEOC drops discrimination cases. The next week, the SEC and CFPB wind down investigations into securities fraud and wrongdoing affecting consumers. Critics fear that the Department of Justice's antitrust division will overlook mergers when it is convenient for the administration. And the DOJ has abruptly reduced enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Facing these changes, Americans might worry that a wide range of laws will go unenforced.

But that concern misses something unique about the American system of government. We have never relied only on bureaucrats to enforce our laws.

All the way back to the colonial period, American legislators have repeatedly done something unusual: they have given ordinary people the right to sue alongside government officials. In almost every regulatory area that most Americans care about—be it regulation of wages and hours, environmental pollution, consumer protection, or securities fraud—statutes allow both government officials and private parties to file suit to enforce the law. All of this happens through little-known provisions called "private rights of action," which is just a technical name for a right to sue. Thousands of these provisions build a second enforcement system alongside the bureaucracy, turning employees, consumers, competitors and their lawyers into co-enforcers of public law.

This system of private enforcement of the law is highly unusual. In much of the rest of the world, whenever a government faces a regulatory problem, it typically empowers government officials and bureaucrats to police legal violations. In France, Germany, Japan, and even the UK, legislators are far less likely to let anyone sue over, say, environmental pollution or employment discrimination.

Consider the case of oil spills. In 1989, the United States faced the Exxon Valdez oil spill off the pristine waters of Alaska.  Millions of gallons of oil laid waste to coasts, waters, and fisheries for hundreds of miles. What most Americans don't know is that a decade later, France also faced a catastrophic oil spill, caused by a ship called the Erika. So how did governments react? In the United States, private plaintiffs sued Exxon directly under existing tort and maritime law, eventually winning substantial damages. Congress, meanwhile, enacted a statute called the Oil Pollution Act with a new right-to-sue those responsible for oil spills. By contrast, in France, the oil spill led primarily to a major criminal prosecution and, eventually, to new national and European regulatory measures (including a new bureaucracy called the European Maritime Safety Agency). When France finally adopted a right to sue in 2016, it paled in comparison to the American version.

Why is the United States so different? Part of the answer, as I argue in a new book, is that Americans have always done this. Back in the colonial period, state legislatures adopted what they called "penal statutes," that empowered any person to enforce regulatory statutes and collect a bounty. So when Massachusetts wanted to regulate the storage of gunpowder, it allowed private informers to sue neighbors who stored it improperly. And this model applied across many areas of colonial life: alcohol consumption, trade, taxation, public morals, church attendance, and more. The Founders used the same tool across the board: Thomas Jefferson and James Madison co-wrote Virginia statutes full of penal statutes, and John Adams handled these suits routinely as a colonial lawyer.

The key feature of this system is that even though private parties file suit for their own aims—the employee wants their full wages paid or the consumer wants a refund for a shoddy product—they inevitably enforce the law. And those lawsuits benefit everyone else because employers and manufacturers may change their behavior with respect to other employees and consumers. In that sense, every single plaintiff is a little bureaucrat or, as some courts call them, a "private attorney general."

This system has the added benefit of reducing political disruptions in enforcement. Even though any single administration can change the enforcement priorities of the EEOC, SEC, CFPB, or Department of Justice, the president cannot control thousands of lawyers and their clients. Private enforcement, then, makes enforcement less dependent on what the bureaucracy and president want.

Right. So you might think that when the bureaucracy won't pursue wrongdoing, the obvious solution should always be new rights to sue. Indeed, many news stories decrying a lack of government enforcement immediately call for more private lawsuits.

But there's a problem with that solution. Private enforcement is not tailor-made for every regulatory area. It makes the most sense to empower private parties when the bureaucracy is truly faulty, under-resourced, politically vulnerable, or likely to be captured by regulated entities. When this isn't the case, private enforcement can cause more problems than it solves.

Consider, then, the enormous problems that rights to sue pose in the environmental context and in the construction of housing and infrastructure. There, broad rights to challenge government approvals can let private parties oppose the construction of housing, mass transit, green energy, and other projects. Examples of ruinous lawsuits abound. Neighbors in a Maryland suburb—backed for years by a nearby country club—sued to delay the Purple Line light-rail project over concerns for a microscopic organism, while the Sierra Club sued to stop a major Mojave solar energy project over the potential impact to a desert turtle. So even if a city government has approved a project that might benefit thousands of people, a single crank can use a right-to-sue to stop the project. In these settings, rights to sue have contributed to delays and increased costs of housing and infrastructure.

We need a careful approach to rights to sue. Yes, we need more of them in some areas. Especially if the government won't enforce anti-corruption or consumer protection statutes. And yes, in employment law, securities, and antitrust, private enforcement often makes a lot of sense. But this is not necessarily the case in environmental law and construction. There, we need better bureaucracies, not thousands of people with the ability to oppose construction projects for any number of reasons.

When the bureaucracy retreats, Americans should rest assured that private parties will still enforce the law. But that power to enforce the law should be given carefully.

The post "The Three Words That Explain American Government: 'Right to Sue,'" by Stanford Law Prof. Diego Zambrano appeared first on Reason Magazine.

I shouldn't get so angry. It isn't healthy.

Last week, New York state summoned me to jury duty.

I went, of course. It's the law, and my duty.

A jury may protect the innocent from government abuse. Ordinary citizens, not officials, decide if you are guilty.

But doing our patriotic duty shouldn't mean surrendering hours of our lives to bureaucratic indifference. Serving justice is important. Sitting around doing nothing isn't.

During my 50 years consumer reporting, I've watched greedy capitalists constantly make improvements and find better ways to do things. They use computers, adjust hours, reduce wait times.

If they don't, we consumers quickly switch to competitors who will.

But government bureaucracies—courts, the DMV, the passport office—have no competitors. So they don't try very hard.

Government is force.

My summons arrived on paper, in the mail.

Most businesses now communicate with customers instantly, by text or email. Airlines send boarding passes to our phones. Doctors text reminders. Restaurants send notifications when our table is ready.

But government sends paper.

We summoned jurors meekly arrive at the courthouse and wait. And wait.

I'm old; it's important I hydrate. At least government provides a water cooler and a drinking fountain. Oh, damn, neither works.

We sit another hour.

Eventually, a bored clerk drones through long instructions on how fill out a form. Printed instructions would be better—a video would be much better. But this is government, and government bureaucracies have little incentive to innovate.

Finally, clerks choose 80 of us to be considered for a criminal trial. "Wait in the hall," we're told.

We wait.

Then they tell us, "Go across the street to another building, and wait there."

We go.

After an hour, we're admitted into a courtroom, where another bureaucrat tells us, "Come back Monday."

Monday! This was the Thursday before. Imagine an airline telling 80 passengers, "Welcome to the airport. Your flight is in five days. Come back then."

No airline would survive doing that.

But courts don't have competition.

When court finally starts, a stenographer types away, recording what people say. Computers today transcribe speech instantly, accurately, at almost no cost. But New York taxpayers still pay someone to type every word.

Amazon experiments with faster delivery. Supermarkets install self-checkout machines. Banks let us deposit checks just by photographing them with our phones.

Capitalism protects your time while bureaucrats waste it.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman explained why by pointing out there are four ways to spend money:

No. 1: Spend your money on yourself. Then you're very careful about both cost and quality.

No. 2: Spend your own money on someone else. You're careful about the cost, but don't care as much about the quality.

No. 3: Spend someone else's money on yourself. You care less about cost, but still care about quality.

No. 4: Spend someone else's money on someone else. You don't care about cost OR quality.

That's what government does.

Some court workers work hard, and many want to help people. But they're stuck in a system where saving people's time brings them no rewards.

In my case, 80 prospective jurors sat around for at least six hours, just waiting—that's 12 40-hour work weeks lost. Some had to hire babysitters, reschedule doctor's appointments, tell their bosses they'll try to make up the work at night. Some lost income. Some missed opportunities.

For just one case. Multiply that by thousands of cases: countless hours of human progress vanish.

Why not stagger arrival times? Let jurors wait at home until needed? Use text messages to call people in?

Because innovation takes effort. So courts don't bother.

They act as if wasting our time is free. It's not.

COPYRIGHT 2026 BY JFS PRODUCTIONS INC.

The post My Jury Duty Was a Master Class in Government Inefficiency appeared first on Reason Magazine.

School resource officers (SROs) in Texas referred tens of thousands of elementary and middle schoolers for prosecution for relatively minor misconduct over the last decade, a news investigation found.

An analysis by The New York Times and the San Antonio Express-News reported that, as the number of SROs in Texas grew, children in Texas ages 10 to 13 were referred to prosecution for misbehaving in school more than 47,000 times since 2014. A referral doesn't necessarily result in charges being filed, but each one represents a minor being taken into police custody and put in contact with the criminal justice system, which can have long-lasting educational, emotional, and financial impacts for students and their families.

"Most of the students were accused of minor offenses, like making threats, using cannabis vapes or lashing out at classmates or teachers," the papers reported. "Few caused serious physical harm."

Among the examples cited by the Times and Express-News were an 11-year-old who bumped into a school counselor, a 10-year-old who said he saw someone on campus with a weapon, and a 10-year-old who kicked an assistant principal after his cellphone was taken away. 

In one case, a 12-year-old girl who refused to go to the principal's office was handcuffed, arrested, and driven to the school police headquarters. "When she would not put her hand on a fingerprint machine, officers twisted her opposite arm behind her back until she screamed and complied, according to body camera footage," the outlets reported.

The analysis found that referrals of children 10 to 13 increased by a greater percentage than referrals of older students. (Children under 10 cannot be prosecuted under Texas law; many other states don't set a minimum age for delinquency.)

The two outlets published another joint investigation in May on how SROs in Texas schools have used heavy-handed tactics, including Tasers and pepper spray, against students over seemingly minor misconduct.

The findings mirror other recent studies. A report published in July by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Iowa found that, while SROs were placed in Iowa schools to keep students safe from violence, the threat they most commonly dealt with was illicit vaping.

The number of police in schools nationally dramatically increased in recent years, growing by 23 percent at high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools between 2018 and 2021, largely under the justification of stopping mass shootings and handling violent situations.

Organizations like the National Association of School Resource Officers (NASRO) say that carefully selected, well-trained officers act as a filter and decrease arrests by building strong relationships within the school with staff and students.

Civil liberties groups and disability advocates have long argued that increases in school police and zero-tolerance policies for petty disturbances have fueled the "school-to-prison" pipeline and led to disproportionate enforcement against minorities and students with disabilities. Those groups have been aided by viral news stories of police arresting and assaulting school children.

Following the police killing of George Floyd in 2020 and national calls for police reform, several major school districts across the country ended their SRO programs. 

However, several states that experienced horrific school shootings, like Florida and Texas, moved in the opposite direction, passing laws that required police officers or armed guardians in public schools.

A 2020 Reason investigation described how Florida schools had become a high-stakes experiment in policing after Florida more than doubled the number of SROs across the state following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018. A study published in 2020 found that after the increase, the number of Florida school arrests—which had been declining for years—suddenly started to rise. There was also a sharp increase in the use of physical restraint against students.

A 2021 working paper by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, which billed itself as the broadest and most rigorous examination at the school level of how SROs impact student outcomes, found that while SROs "do effectively reduce some forms of violence in schools," they did not prevent school shootings or gun-related incidents.

Another study by researchers at the University of Maryland and the firm Westat, who studied several dozen middle and high schools in California, found that increasing the number of SROs led to both immediate and persistent increases in the number of drug and weapon offenses and the number of suspensions and expulsions of students.

The post Texas School Police Referred Tens of Thousands of Children to Prosecutors for Minor Misbehavior appeared first on Reason Magazine.

This year, the Bureau of Prison determined that "sex-trait-modification surgeries, hormone interventions in general, and social accommodations could no longer be justified as treatment for gender dysphoria." The lower court enjoined this policy, and the Solicitor General sought an emergency stay. Today the Supreme Court denied a stay in Trump v. Kingdom by a 7-2 vote. Justices Thomas and Alito noted they would have granted the application, though there was no written opinion.

I have some thoughts.

First, just yesterday Justice Kagan noted that the Trump appointees rule against President Trump as proof that they are not hacks. And she surely knew this case would come down as further proof of this point. Kagan's point seems to be that ruling against the President that appoints you makes you a fair justice. That premise is only true if in fact that law does not support the appointing President's policy. If a Justice simply rules against the President who appoints him for the sake of optics, then the Justice is no longer a judge.

Justice Alito made this point well in his new book, summarized in the Wall Street Journal.

Insecure originalists may worry that they are subconsciously engaging in "judicial activism" in the service of their own policy preferences. As a result, they may welcome occasions when their originalist analysis leads to results they dislike. They experience a brief catharsis, a release of their anxiety about succumbing to temptation.

Twenty-first-century originalists should shed this insecure mindset.

I wonder if Justice Alito thinks that Justice Scalia's constant praise of his vote in Texas v. Johnson was evidence of this "catharsis." Justice Kavanaugh used to praise the Nixon appointees who ruled against Nixon in the Watergate Tapes case. That premise reinforces the wrong image. I've come to believe that United States v. Nixon was a travesty, and the Justices who joined that were caught up in the Watergate swamp fever. The decision has not held up well over the past five decades.

Let's stop praising how often the Trump appointees rule against Trump. The more useful metric, in my view, is when the Court's two most conservative members (Thomas and Alito) are alone in dissent. I updated my wall of receipts in July 2026 as a recent accounting.

Second, how do we reconcile Mahmoud, B.P.J., and Skrmetti on the one hand and Bostock and Kingdom on the other? For sure, all of these cases presented different legal issues. Mahmoud was a Free Exercise challenge, Skrmetti presented an Equal Protection issue, B.P.J. was about Title IX, Bostock was an interpretation of Title VII, and Kingdom was an APA challenge on the interim orders docket. Yet all of these cases were really about transgender rights. Back in April I wrote that the transgender tide was turning. Was I wrong? Why did all of the recent cases turn out one way but Kingdom turns out the other?

Well, the Court is certainly concerned about transitioning children. They upheld bans on gender transition surgeries in Skrmetti. They required opt-outs from transgender-related indoctrination in Maryland public schools. (Had the story books been only about gay marriage, I don't know that the case would have come out the same way.) The Justices allowed the exclusion of biologically male athletes from female sports. I could add to that list Mirabelli v. Bonta, which prohibited schools from secretly transitioning children.

It's possible that Justice Gorsuch simply saw the light after Bostock, but maybe there is another explanation: he cares more about children than he cares about transgender rights. So his equities tilted to the right. But in a case where adults seek this treatment, Gorsuch cut the other way. Moreover, when those consenting adults are prisoners, Justice Gorsuch's equities are far clearer. For a libertarian, how could the carceral state deny this treatment to incarcerated persons who can't go elsewhere to get it?

Third, I'm struggling with Justice Kavanaugh's position here. He had a free vote, as the split was 7-2. He could have at least written a separate opinion explaining why relief was not appropriate here, but when the case returns on the merits, the outcome may be different. He does that sort of thing all the time in far less controversial cases. But here, we only have the sound of silence. I think he is signaling the government loses on the merits here. Maybe he suspects Trump will be out of office by the time this case returns to the Court, and the policy will be abandoned.

Fourth, I'm sure Justice Barrett figured out some procedural reason why the federal government must remove healthy reproductive organs from prisoners. That is, unless she agrees with the Respondent's arguments that BOP's position is "pretextual and [was] reverse-engineered to implement" President Trump's order. So we're back to pretext, and trying to divine the President's real motivations. Trump v. Cook established that Trump does not get the presumption of regularity. Barrett dissented in that case, through she may not disagree with the broader premise.

Fifth, the application was filed on September 28, briefing concluded on October 9, and the order was issued on October 21. What took so long if this was a straight-up denial without any writings? I suspect that Justices Alito and Thomas were hopeful they could scrounge more votes but could not. Maybe they even circulated a dissent but withdrew it. Something behind the scenes happened here. If only we knew what happened? Thankfully reporters at CNN and the New York Times are no longer able to otbain leaks. The best they can do is ask KBJ's friends for comments and interview the Chief's neighbors in Maine.

The post <em>Skrmetti</em>, <em>Mahmoud</em>, and <i>B.P.J</i> v. <em>Bostock</em> and <em>Kingdom</em> appeared first on Reason Magazine.

On a Tuesday morning in February 2025, federal agents descended upon Ayala's Mini Market, a convenience store in Glendale, Arizona, that offered check cashing, money transfer, shipping, and cellphone repair services along with standard items such as groceries, snacks, sodas, and cigarettes. The agents, who worked for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), seized three computers, five cellphones, and business records, plus about $460,000 in cash and checks. They did not say why.

Twenty months later, the store's owner, Mario Ayala, still has not received a definitive answer to that question. Nor has the government told him what it plans to do with his property or how he can try to get it back. That Kafkaesque situation is unconstitutional, Ayala's lawyers at the Institute for Justice argue in a motion and memorandum they filed on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The motion seeks the return of the property seized from Ayala's business, saying there is no legitimate reason for the government to keep it.

"The government can't take your stuff, disappear, and then never explain itself," says Institute for Justice attorney Betsy Sanz. "For over a year and a half, the government has been holding Mario's money and property. This prolonged seizure violates the Fourth Amendment and federal law. The government cannot hold onto your property indefinitely without explanation so it can eventually take it permanently using civil forfeiture."

The raid on Ayala's store happened while he was visiting his ailing father in Mexico, who died a couple of months later. After Ayala's wife and son called to tell him what had happened, he rushed back to Arizona, where he tried to figure out why his business had been targeted by the IRS and the DHS. That was harder than you might think.

Ayala "has heard nothing from the government since they raided his business and seized his property," Sanz and her colleagues note in their memorandum. When the agents left, they told Ayala's son that "the business would receive a letter within thirty days," the memorandum says, but "no letter came," and the government "has not told Mario why it took his property or why it refuses to return it."

The agents left a one-page inventory of the property they took, including the computers, cellphones (two of which belonged to Ayala's customers), documents, and currency, although it did not specify the amount of money. They also left the first page of a warrant signed by a federal magistrate judge, which contained no information about the crime they were investigating or the property they were authorized to seize. It referred to attachments that might have clarified those points, but the attachments were missing.

Ayala still has not seen those attachments. But on the same day the agents raided his store, they also searched 18 other businesses in the Phoenix area, all of which offered money services. Judging from the warrants served on three of those other businesses, which were signed by the same magistrate judge at the same time on the same day as the warrant for Ayala's Mini Market, the legal justification for the searches was suspected violations of 31 USC 5324, which makes it a felony to "structure" a financial transaction with the intent of "evading" federal reporting requirements.

The Bank Secrecy Act requires that financial institutions report cash transactions involving more than $10,000 to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Although that mandate is aimed at money laundering, someone can be guilty of structuring even without evidence of any other crime if he deliberately tries to avoid triggering a FinCEN report by breaking up a transaction into amounts below the threshold. As far as Ayala can tell, the search of his store was based on nothing more than suspicion of structuring.

If so, Ayala's lawyers argue, the IRS agents who participated in the raid violated a 2019 federal law that bars the agency from seizing money when structuring is the only suspected crime. Congress passed that law in response to IRS forfeiture abuses highlighted by the Institute for Justice. "For the IRS to legally seize property based on a structuring offense, it must also have an added suspicion of some other criminal act," Sanz et al. note. "Yet the IRS seized Mario's property, apparently on the sole suspicion of a structuring violation."

That is not the only legal problem with the seizure. Assuming the government plans to seek forfeiture of Ayala's money based on an alleged connection to criminal activity, it missed a crucial deadline. The Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act (CAFRA) requires the federal government to notify property owners of attempted forfeitures within 60 days of the seizure. That deadline passed a year and a half ago, and Ayala still has received no such notice.

"This notice is crucial because it informs a property owner that the government intends to forfeit his property and triggers his ability to respond by filing a claim or administrative petition," Ayala's lawyers note. If the government fails to meet that requirement, CAFRA says, it "shall return the property."

The government can seek extensions of the CAFRA deadline "only if there is reason to believe that notice may have an adverse result," such as "endangering the life or physical safety of an individual," "flight from prosecution," "destruction of or tampering with evidence," "intimidation of potential witnesses," or "otherwise seriously jeopardizing an investigation or unduly delaying a trial." None of those conditions applies in this case, Sanz et al. say, and their client "is unaware of the government seeking any such extension here."

Another possible rationale for keeping Ayala's property is that the government needs it as evidence in a criminal investigation. But his lawyers argue that the seized items "have no independent evidentiary value."

The government "cannot claim that it is holding the cash as evidence of the suspected structuring offense, because the government—in the usual course—does not continue to hold the physical cash it seizes but rather promptly deposits it," the memorandum says. "To prove the suspected offense here, the government would present evidence documenting the amounts and frequency of transactions and evidence that the defendant intentionally evaded reporting requirements. No fact the government must prove to establish a structuring offense becomes more or less provable by the government's continued possession of Mario's money."

Although "the checks and business documents that the government seized from Mario may at first have had some evidentiary value," Sanz et al. say, it could have long since returned the originals and kept copies. As for the computers and cellphones, "the government has had ample time to extract and copy" any relevant information.

While the benefits of keeping Ayala's property seem highly dubious, the cost to him has been severe. The seizure of the checks and currency wreaked havoc with his business model, which relies on money received for transfers to cash checks, which in turn are scanned and used to pay the companies that handle the transfers.

"The search and seizure of Mario's property upended his business," the memorandum says. "He had to keep his business closed until March 1, 2025, to replace the seized computers and to figure out how they could keep the business open. He took $50,000 of his own money out of the bank so that he could keep cashing customers' checks. When that ran out, the business had to stop cashing checks for a long time, losing customers."

Ayala "also had to come up with $112,097.20 to pay the money transmitters to cover the balance that had accrued while he was away," his lawyers add. "Since all the cash and cashed-but-unscanned checks had been seized, Mario needed to pay this money to the transmitters on his own. Though he did ultimately pay back all the money transmitters over the following month, the consequences of the raid damaged Mario's business relationship with one of the money transmitters he had formerly worked with, InterMex. Today, the business can no longer offer InterMex as an option for money transfers."

Ayala's business "is now finally stable, but it is still not doing as well as it was before the raid," Sanz et al. say. "Mario has changed the way he runs his business because of the raid. He now scans every customer's cashed check to send it to the money transmitters as soon as it is cashed, rather than collecting [checks] and scanning them together as they previously did. He constantly worries that his business will be targeted again."

In the 20 months since the raid, the government has not filed a forfeiture action or even notified Ayala that it intends to do so. Nor has it filed any criminal charges related to the seizure, as far as Ayala knows. "The government has no lawful reason to retain
Mario's property," his lawyers say, "and this Court should exercise its equitable jurisdiction to order its return."

The motion relies on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41(g), which says "a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure of property or by the deprivation of property may move for the property's return." The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which includes Arizona, has adopted four criteria for granting such a motion: whether the government "displayed a callous disregard for the constitutional rights of the movant," whether "the movant has an individual interest in and need for the property he wants returned," whether "the movant would be irreparably injured by denying return of the property," and whether "the movant has an adequate remedy at law for the redress of his grievance."

All of those factors count in Ayala's favor, Sanz et al. argue. Ayala's interest in the property and the injury he is suffering are clear, as is the absence of any other remedy. As for the first criterion, "the government can neither forfeit Mario's property nor justify holding it as evidence, so its continued retention is unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment," the memorandum says. "And its nearly 20 months of silence, without any notice or any forum in which to contest the seizure, offends due process. At every turn, the government has 'callous[ly] disregarded' Mario's constitutional rights."

Ayala immigrated to the United States from Mexico in 1991 and struggled for years to make a go of his business, which was successful enough at the time of the raid that he planned to open a new location devoted to cellphone repair. That plan is now on hold because of the financial difficulties caused by the seizure.

"This business is my American Dream, and the government took years of my hard work without telling me what I did," Ayala says. "This raid hurt me and my family. I hope this lawsuit gets my money back and helps make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else."

The post The Feds Took $460,000 From This Arizona Convenience Store Owner and Never Explained Why appeared first on Reason Magazine.

An Arizona abortion clinic that didn't tell a pregnant woman about the physical characteristics of her 8-week-old embryo before prescribing abortion pills has been found liable in a case brought by the ex-husband of the pregnant woman, who didn't want her to get an abortion.

The ex-husband, Mario Villegas, was awarded $67,500 in a civil lawsuit accusing the clinic of violating an informed consent law that an Arizona court declared unconstitutional earlier this year.

'A Dangerous Precedent'

The Lawyering Project, which represented the doctor and clinic being sued by Villegas, had warned that the case could "establish a dangerous precedent in Arizona concerning embryonic personhood and chill the provision of abortion care."

"A pre-viability embryo or fetus is not a person," says its website in a summary of the case, "and a physician cannot be subject to a wrongful death action for providing high-quality abortion care to a patient who wants an abortion."

In an August 2024 order, Judge Bryan B. Chambers of the Arizona Superior Court in Gila County agreed with the defendants that Arizona's wrongful death statute does not, as written, apply to the death of embryos. The court is "unwilling to expand the common law definition of 'person' as applied to the wrongful death statute to include all unborn children whether viable outside the womb or not," Chambers wrote.

But that doesn't mean he tossed Villegas' lawsuit entirely. And in a judgement released July 22 but largely unnoticed until this week, Chambers wound up holding that Villegas is entitled to $5,000 in statutory damages and $62,500 "in compensatory damages for his psychological, emotional, and physical injuries."

No one in the case alleges that Villegas' ex-wife—referred to in court documents as M.S.V.—was tricked, coerced, or generally uninformed about the abortion. The case turns on technicalities and Arizona's onerous, biased (and now barred) requirements for what abortion doctors must tell patients in order to obtain informed consent.

'Deprived of the love….of his child'

M.S.V's abortion took place in July 2018, when she was around eight weeks pregnant. At the Camelback Family Planning clinic in Phoenix, she was provided with information at least 24 hours before she could come back for the abortion pills, and she signed various consent forms, including one affirming that she was "comfortable with [her] decision to terminate this pregnancy," according to ProPublica.

Around two years later, in July 2020, Villegas—now divorced from M.S.V.—sued the clinic and physician Gabrielle J. Goodrick, alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death. Villegas "has been deprived of the love, affection, comfort, and companionship of his child," his initial complaint stated. He "has been deprived of his constitutionally protected right to parent Baby Villegas."

Villegas sought to have himself appointed the personal representative of the estate of the aborted embryo, and a probate judge agreed.

In an amended complaint, Villegas added that "the estate has been deprived of the net income Baby Villegas would have earned during her lifetime" and sought damages for that, too. (Villegas took the liberty of assuming the embryo was a girl, even though the abortion would have been too early in the pregnancy to tell.)

"Across the U.S., people have sued for negligence in the death of a fetus or embryo in cases where a pregnant person has been killed in a car crash or a pregnancy was lost because of alleged wrongdoing by a physician," noted ProPublica in a 2022 article about the case. "But a court action claiming the wrongful death of an aborted embryo or fetus is a more novel strategy, legal experts said."

Informed Consent or Compelled Speech?

Ultimately, the case came down to Arizona's informed consent law, not fetal personhood.

In the amended complaint, Villegas argued that the clinic had violated Arizona law on informed consent for abortion.

That law—declared unconstitutional in February 2026—said that doctors must obtain informed consent before performing abortions (which is normal) and then added that this consent only counts if clinics obtain it in highly particular (and medically unnecessary) way and tack on a lot of loaded language and anti-abortion rhetoric.

It says that "at least twenty-four hours before the abortion, the physician who is to perform the abortion or the referring physician" must inform a patient woman "orally and in person" about topics such as "alternatives to the procedure or treatment" and "the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at the time the abortion is to be performed." Doctors were also required to tell a woman seeking an abortion that if she went through with the pregnancy, various forms of assistance may be available.

Villegas alleged that even though his wife technically consented to the abortion, it didn't count because the information wasn't provided by the same doctor who prescribed her the pills, and because doctors didn't warn her about the potential "loss of the 'maternal-fetal' attachment bond inherent in birthing a child" and didn't explain alternatives to abortion or the 8-week-old embryo's physical characteristics.

He also complained that the printed form M.S.V. was given "changed the statutory term 'the probable gestational age of the unborn child' to 'the probable gestational age of the pregnancy,' which misstates Arizona's legislative determination that every pregnant woman is carrying a human child."

M.S.V. testified in court "that nothing would have changed her mind about obtaining the abortion," as Chambers put it in his judgement. And no one alleges that the clinic simply failed to discuss some risks and other relevant information with her before the procedure. It simply failed to use the loaded language preferred by the state.

But "the statute does not require proof that M.S.V. would have made a different decision had she been fully informed," wrote Chambers in his judgement. And even if some of the rules of informed consent were followed, "nothing in [Arizona law] suggests that substantial compliance with the consent provisions is all that is necessary."

Fortunately, the informed consent law at the heart of this case has been struck down, so future doctors don't have to worry about being sued for failing to say "unborn child."

But there's still something chilling about the way all this played out. M.S.V. had argued to court that she was tricked into pregnancy—she thought her ex-husband "was fixed," because he'd had a vasectomy, though it was since reversed. Chambers said this did not negate her consent to sex with him, since M.S.V. "was not deceived about the nature of the act. At most, she was deceived about a potential consequence (pregnancy risk)."

In M.S.V.'s telling, she did not exactly give informed consent to the sex that led to pregnancy, but she did give informed consent to the abortion procedure. In neither situation, however, do M.S.V.'s claims about her own consent seem to have mattered much at all.

In the News 

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) shows "significant weakness" when it comes to protecting passenger data, according to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General.

A TSA authentication vendor "was able to access and extract sensitive passenger information, including driver's license and passport images, during system troubleshooting and enhancements, without TSA's knowledge," the report says. More:

TSA lacked clear policies, did not track when this data was extracted, could not verify that extracted information was properly deleted, and did not notify passengers when their biometric and biographic information may have been stored. As a result, although passenger information was generally protected during routine operations, weaknesses in vendor oversight created a risk that sensitive personal information could be retained or exposed.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation comments:

As the OIG's audit underscores, this technology presents privacy risks associated with unsecured data, unauthorized access, and data breaches. The government's use of this technology also creates a mass surveillance system and facilitates the creation of warrantless biometric records for unconsenting parties.

[…] Given that facial recognition technology is prone to mistakes, combined with the OIG's audit revealing significant privacy weaknesses, it is imperative that travelers remember that opting out is possible. TSA's own website emphasizes that travelers who wish to decline to have their photo taken for facial comparison can do so without any delay, disruption, or recourse.

More Sex & Tech 

• You could make a full-time beat out of covering cops' misuse of Flock cameras these days. The latest: "A former Joliet police lieutenant is now facing felony charges for misusing the city's Flock camera system," per CBS News. And, in Sharonville, Ohio, "a police lieutenant was indicted Tuesday after he allegedly used Flock camera systems…29 times between Dec. 19, 2024, and April 20, 2026, to track a person's whereabouts" for personal reasons, Fox 10 reports.

• Airbnb says hosts can't make you wash and dry your own dishes anymore:

I just got an email from Airbnb laying out new ground rules for what hosts can demand of guests, and THANK GOD.

At my last Airbnb, I had to strip the beds, wash every dish, clean the kitchen, haul the trash out to the road, and there was still a $100 cleaning fee! https://t.co/tfQGqQKsRo

— Jessica Huseman (@JessicaHuseman) October 20, 2026

• Another case challenging the use of Flock cameras to get convictions. In Texas, Charles Brownlee—sentenced to 60 years in prison for armed robbery—is asking a federal appeals court to throw out his conviction, "arguing that the AI-powered camera system gives law enforcement more surveillance power than the Constitution allows," per The Texas Tribune.

• A California law that takes effect in 2027 "will require large companies to make a good-faith effort to link customers to a human by phone within 15 minutes," notes The San Francisco Standard. "But it has a carveout for companies that never offered phone support in the first place. It remains to be seen whether the legislation will hold any sway over the AI firms leading the charge to replace human agents."

• Jacob Sullum delves into a convoluted lawsuit filed against Students for Life by a Texas woman who opposes a Texas anti-abortion law.

• In the latest incident to blur the line between the FBI catching criminals and creating them, an FBI task force catfished a high school maintenance worker using an AI-generated image of a 15-year-old, then used Clearview AI facial recognition tools to identify him and Flock to track his car.

The post Arizona Man Awarded $67,500 on Behalf of Aborted Embryo appeared first on Reason Magazine.

Nuclear power has historically been a divisive issue: During the Cold War, an entire generation feared annihilation at the hands of the same basic technology that some want to use to power their homes.

That's unfortunate, because nuclear energy has considerable benefits—a reliable source of power with very few greenhouse gas emissions—with increasingly lower risks.

Thankfully, it seems that message is catching on with people from both major political parties.

"About six-in-ten U.S. adults now say they favor more nuclear power plants to generate electricity," Pew Research reported in October 2025. "That's up from 43% in 2020, driven by increasing support among both Republicans and Democrats." The authors noted that "Republicans are more likely than Democrats" to favor the policy, with "roughly seven-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents" expressing support, but it still included 52 percent of Democrats and independents who lean in that direction.

Gallup found similar results earlier this year. The pollster "asked whether the U.S. should put more emphasis, less emphasis or about the same emphasis as it does now on producing domestic energy from each of six sources," wrote Megan Brenan. The six sources were solar, wind, nuclear, natural gas, oil, and coal.

"Nuclear energy is the only one of the six sources to see support grow since 2021, rising seven points to 46%," Brenan added. "This shift is notable given that preferences for nuclear energy had historically been more evenly divided among responses of more, less and the same." Instead, those favoring more emphasis on nuclear power outranked both those who want less and those who wish for it to stay the same, by about 20 points each.

It seems the consensus has been building: In 2024, a poll of first-time voters in The Wall Street Journal found overwhelming support for nuclear energy as a means of fighting climate change.

The trend is welcome, and it marks a major reversal of anti-nuclear sentiment that goes back decades.

The China Syndrome, a film about a possible meltdown at a fictional California nuclear plant, premiered in the U.S. in March 1979. One character in the film warns that a meltdown could "render an area the size of Pennsylvania permanently uninhabitable, not to mention the cancer that would show up later."

Less than two weeks later, in a disastrous bit of timing, a malfunction caused a partial meltdown at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

Thankfully, Three Mile Island was not a disaster. "Some radioactive gas was released a couple of days after the accident, but not enough to cause any dose above background levels to local residents," according to the World Nuclear Association. "There were no injuries or adverse health effects."

But those details were lost on the public. Several recording artists formed Musicians United for Safe Energy (MUSE), an activist group that opposed nuclear power. Just six months after Three Mile Island, MUSE held a series of "No Nukes" concerts at Madison Square Garden, plus a rally in Central Park that drew nearly 200,000 attendees.

That populist support spilled over into politics, particularly among Democrats. Running for president in 1980, Sen. Ted Kennedy (D–Mass.) called for a two-year moratorium on new nuclear plants. In its national platform, the Democratic Party pledged to "retire nuclear power plants in an orderly manner."

After the Three Mile Island incident, 39 planned nuclear plants were canceled.

That's a shame, for many reasons. As Reason's Ronald Bailey wrote in 2018, in a theoretical world where the development of U.S. nuclear power continued at its previous pace, "by 2015 it would have replaced all coal-burning and three-quarters of gas-fired electric power generation….Cumulative global carbon dioxide emissions would be about 18 percent lower, and annual global carbon dioxide emissions would be one-third less."

Yet even decades later, plenty of people—again, particularly Democrats—still opposed nuclear energy.

"Of all the Democratic divides on climate," Politico wrote in 2019, "the role of nuclear power may be the biggest. Progressives and some environmental groups have long lumped it into a category with fossil fuels, and some have spent decades opposing it."

At the time, a number of people were running to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, and many of them had strong opinions on nuclear energy. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D–Mass.) said that she would not license any new nuclear reactors; Sen. Bernie Sanders (I–Vt.) pledged to go one step further and not renew the licenses of any existing reactors.

But things have changed in just a few short years, and nuclear energy is now an issue with potential bipartisan support. When did this pivot take place, and why?

"It was really around 2021, 2022, I would say that things really began to shift," James Walker, CEO of Nano Nuclear Energy, tells Reason. "A lot of the popular support looks like it's coming from younger people….It is a zero-carbon-emission power, and they have been raised to [be] more climate goal-focused" than older generations.

It's not just Gen Z either: Lawmakers are more keen on nuclear power now too. Earlier this month, the MORE American Fuel Act, sponsored by Sens. Cynthia Lummis (R–Wyo.) and Mark Kelly (D–Ariz.), passed the Senate unanimously. The bill "modernizes outdated Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licensing requirements for uranium enrichment facilities and aligns them with the process already used for other nuclear facilities and reactors," according to a press release from Lummis. It also "lets enrichment companies begin construction at their own risk instead of waiting years for a construction license before breaking ground, while preserving public participation and the NRC's rigorous safety standards."

"What we've seen up in Washington is that there is a nervousness around keeping pace with AI development," Walker adds. "There is a concern that rivals that are also investing very heavily into AI, such as China, are building nuclear reactors like crazy, and one of the reasons they're doing that is just so they have baseload power that allows them to scale up their systems. They are building two gigawatt-scale nuclear power plants every year at the moment, and a lot of it is to try and catch up with the U.S. tech industry."

The post Nuclear Power Now Has Bipartisan Support appeared first on Reason Magazine.

When I wake up each morning, the most important thing is that I avoid setting foot anywhere that is not American in Name Only (AINO). This, as a native Virginian, presents a problem. The state was named after England's Queen Elizabeth I, known as the "virgin queen" for her lack of a husband. How am I supposed to go back to Virginia until it is named Americaginia? I have principles.

Thankfully, President Donald Trump is on this, having made the AINO cause a top priority. He refashioned the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America via executive order; not long after, he decreed Lake Ontario would be Lake America with another wet signature. Naturally, New Mexico is the next target. The state "should immediately change its name to New America," Trump posted this week on Truth Social. "We are not Mexico, we are the United States of America!"

So true. New Mexico lawmakers would have to initiate the transition, and the public would have to approve it—the president cannot do so with an executive order here. But it is vitally important that, when he can, he continue changing the names of geographic landmarks to maximize the use of those four beautiful syllables. And when he cannot, he must raise awareness of the AINO spirit.

I should know. I'm surrounded. Though I am no longer living in ***ginia, I reside in the District of Columbia, a name that strikes fear and loathing into the hearts of any AINO patriot. Columbia is derived from Christopher Columbus, who in 1492 sailed that ocean blue—presently called the Atlantic, we'll return to that momentarily—to what is now America. But are we really going to let our nation's capital conjure up visions of a country in South America, give or take an o? Perhaps a better question: Do we want it dedicated to an Italian? Rechristening it the District of America would be a win for AINO, a win for Trump, and a win for the progressives who hate Columbus Day. Boom.

To the north we have Maryland—named after Queen Henrietta Maria, the wife of England's King Charles I—which will need to be Americaland if I am to cross that line again. (I also ask that Americaland's drivers stop learning their technique from Grand Theft Auto.) Looking southward, I'm trapped as well: The Carolinas bear the title of Charles himself. If there is any justice, North Carolina will be North America, and South Carolina will be South America. Yes, those technically already exist, but these are the real North and South America. The others are the fake ones. (West Virginia is easy: West Americaginia.)

The president could plausibly change the names of the seas that surround this great country. At least, he could change their names in the Geographic Names Information System. Columbus sailed the American Ocean. The Pacific, meanwhile, is properly the West American Ocean—or, given that its waves break against California, the Woke American Ocean. There's something in the water.

Many may find Trump's obsession with AINO bewildering. In reality, it is to be expected. A national-populist presidency must have the requisite packaging—whether the branding primarily promotes policy or is the main event itself is a fair question. Trump is a showman, so there must be a show.

We are approaching the intermission of the second Trump administration. The plot twists—though sometimes predictable—have consisted of higher prices for everyday goods (tariffs), higher gas prices (the war in Iran), and Apple Maps now showing Rochester's shores opening their arms to Lake America. The country may be more expensive, inflation not yet vanquished, government spending altitudinous, the swamp waterlogged, that promised golden age still elusive. But at least America is more American in Name Only. 

The post Why I Can't Go Back to Virginia Until It's Named Americaginia appeared first on Reason Magazine.

The Libertarian Party of New Hampshire's (LPNH) X account—which has become infamous for its bigoted and controversy-ridden posts—is finally gone. But the state's spurious role in its banning raises free speech concerns.

Last week, New Hampshire Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte sent a letter to X's safety team, asking the company to suspend the account. Ayotte's letter made mention of several clear violations of X's content policies: "This account has openly called for the assassination of elected officials from the New Hampshire Democratic Party, has said it condones murdering elected officials for their policy positions, and most recently threatened a member of House leadership.…I'm calling on X to remove [the posts] and suspend the account immediately." 

The letter referenced one particularly bold post from September (which the account later deleted). The post read: "We openly support the assassination of basically every elected democrat in New Hampshire. But if you don't have the balls to do it, then you should probably vote GOP." 

X suspended the account the day after Ayotte sent the letter.

The removal of the LPNH account has likely elicited a sigh of relief from the Libertarian Party's (L.P.) leadership, which has repeatedly tussled with LPNH over its extreme rhetoric, undermining of L.P. candidates, and constant creation of P.R. crises for the party. In 2024, the LPNH endorsed Donald Trump for president instead of Libertarian candidate Chase Oliver, pushing the Libertarian National Committee to disaffiliate LPNH from the L.P.'s structure this past May. The Granite State Libertarian Party was designated the state's new L.P. affiliate in September.

Even though the LPNH has clearly violated X's terms and does not adhere to the most basic requirements for L.P. membership (such as pledging to uphold the nonaggression principle), the government should not tell private firms when to enforce their own policies. This sentiment was shared by Granite State L.P., which recently said in a social media post, "While a private company has a right to remove someone screaming about setting people on fire…the government should play zero part in that decision."

Jeremy Kauffman, the chair of the LPNH, is outraged but unsurprised, posting on Sunday that he and the LPNH are "exploring a lawsuit against the New Hampshire government." He tells Reason, "Ayotte's letter was a classic example of jawboning. When a governor sends a demanding letter like this to a private company, there is a clear implicit threat attached."

Speaking to Reason, Trace Mitchell, a technology and free speech expert at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, defines jawboning as, "when the government, through veiled threats or direct coercion, pressures a private entity to take an action that the government could not lawfully take or mandate itself." 

In Bantam Books v. Sullivan (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the government cannot make recommendations to private companies if those recommendations come with legal repercussions—even implied or veiled repercussions. Doing so would qualify as jawboning, which violates the First Amendment. Though Ayotte's letter could be construed as extralegal pressure, it does not imply a punishment for noncompliance and likely falls short of legally recognized jawboning.

Addressing Kauffman's proposed lawsuit, Mitchell says, "In this case he would likely have to show there is something beyond this letter…[like] outside communications, emails or text with X." 

Safety officers at X provided no comment to Reason to justify the suspension. It is not clear whether there was any external communication involved beyond the letter. Without a more definite connection between Ayotte's request and X's decision, Kauffman may struggle to win in court. Still, that doesn't make the governor's request any less concerning. 

While Ayotte's letter was a surprise, it was not unprecedented. As social media has become the public forum, all levels of government have tried to regulate what is said there. During the COVID-19 pandemic, federal officials under the Biden administration were revealed to be in near-constant communication with major social media firms, encouraging and recommending that misinformation be removed from the platforms. Many of these recommendations were paired with implied threats to review the firms' legal immunity for content posted on their platforms, which spawned a lawsuit that reached the Supreme Court in 2024. 

Although the Court dismissed the case for lack of standing, some lawmakers have taken action to address concerns over jawboning, with Sen. Ted Cruz (R–Texas) introducing the JAWBONE Act in June. The bill would make it easier for members of the public to sue government officials who pressure media networks, as well as require increased transparency for all federal communications to media networks.

Even if Kauffman cannot find legal remit, Ayotte's letter was a troubling move for the future of internet speech. Many of the offending posts referenced were months old or had been deleted before the letter was sent. The LPNH has likely been violating X's content policy for years, but X only took action after the government instructed it to.

You don't need a judge to see how that might be concerning. 

The post X Bans Former Libertarian Party Affiliate—After the State Requests It appeared first on Reason Magazine.