Citizens United filed an amicus brief today at the Supreme Court in Groff v. DeJoy.  Gerald Groff thought working for the U.S. Postal Service would allow him to honor the Sabbath by worshipping at church and spending time with his family. The Federal Government said no.  Citizens United asks the U.S. Supreme Court to restore important protections for religious employees.  Stand with Citizens United and American workers to defend religious liberty!



CU Amicus Brief - Groff v. ... by Citizens United

CU-CUF-TPC File Amicus Brief in Biden v. Nebraska. 



The amicus brief urges the Supreme Court to affirm the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals injunction striking down the Biden Administration’s student loan cancellation executive order on two grounds.  First, the brief contends the loan cancellation directive is outside the authority granted to the Secretary of Education under the HEROS Act, which was enacted in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. Second, if the Court finds that the loan cancellation order falls within the authority granted under the HEROS Act, the Court should revisit its non-delegation doctrine jurisprudence and strike down the loan cancellation authority granted under the HEROS Act as an unconstitutional delegation of Congress’ legislative powers to the Executive Branch in contradiction of the Constitution’s separation-of-powers doctrine.




CU Amicus Brief - Biden v. ... by Citizens United

CU-CUF-TPC File Amicus Brief in Arizona v. Mayorkas 



CU-CUF-TPC File Amicus Brie... by Citizens United

Way back in 2008, reality star Heidi Montag told reporters that she supported John McCain for president. She also said she didn’t think anyone cared whom she supported for president.



How wrong she turned out to be. The current era of social media has proved that even minor celebrities like Ms. Montag, with her 1 million Instagram followers, are not only in demand but can also earn serious dollars for their two cents.



Paid influencer advertising is so common that the Federal Trade Commission years ago created rules about disclosing financial relationships between brands and the influencers who lend their stamps of approval to them. The requirement, though, has never applied to political content.



The Federal Elections Commission wants to change that. It is looking at a rule that would define “Internet public communications” to include posts that support or reject federal candidates and are “promoted for a fee” on third-party websites like social media platforms. 



“You’d think that people should know who actually paid for that message when they hear it in order to better evaluate it,” a former FEC commissioner and senior counsel at Perkins Coie, Karl Sandstrom, told the Sun. 



The problem, opponents say, is the vagaries of the rule. 



“‘Promoted for a fee’ may sound fine on the surface but lurking below the radar, it is ambiguous terminology that needs to be defined because it could cause a situation where the internet goes from being pretty much unregulated to where every post that’s political, advocating for or against the election of a federal candidate, gets regulated by the Federal Election Commission,” the president of Citizens United, David Bossie, told the Sun. 



Mr. Bossie said private communications among paid internal staff, consultants, or others involved in the production of content appearing on third-party websites could be swept up into “public” communications. That ambiguity is an anvil that could curb free speech, he said.



"The more vague the terminology, the more it lends itself to overreach and unintended consequences," he said.



The commission began updating its rules on public internet communications a year ago, but the supplemental proposal arose in December after fresh examples of content “promoted for a fee” arose during the midterm election.



The most prominent was a video made by a “Jersey Shore” reality star, Nicole “Snooki” Polizzi, who is a paid supporter of Senator Fetterman of Pennsylvania. 



Mr. Fetterman shared a message recorded in July in which Ms. Polizzi, standing in what appears to be her closet, calls herself a “hot mess” before trolling Mr. Fetterman’s opponent, Mehmet Oz, about his move to Pennsylvania from New Jersey to qualify to run for the Senate seat. 



She jokes not to worry, Dr. Oz will be welcomed home soon, meaning he would move back to New Jersey. The publicity value was high for Mr. Fetterman: The post was shared by his followers and Ms. Polizzi’s fans, and was covered by several celebrity and political news media outlets. Ms. Polizzi reportedly earns $3,500 for her recorded cameo.



While candidates must place disclosures on their advertisements and report payments for celebrity appearances, Ms. Polizzi’s post created a new distinction: Should she have been required to add a disclosure on a creation of her own making? 



Supporters say such a requirement would be a push toward basic transparency in elections.



“Requiring disclaimers on promoted content is the simplest and least burdensome way to protect voters, ensuring they are clearly informed when they are viewing paid political advertising through promoted content,” the Campaign Legal Center wrote in its comment to the election commission.  



Others say such a requirement would have a chilling effect on debate in what is now effectively the public square. 



“Average participants in online political discussion will face extraordinary challenges in discerning and complying with their regulatory obligations, and they may decide simply to abstain from political speech altogether,” Berin Szoka and Ari Cohn of TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank, wrote in comments to the elections commission. 



Platforms have tried to police political advertising on their own. Facebook requires verification of posters and disclosures before allowing paid ads on social and political issues. In September, TikTok announced that it would prohibit politicians and political parties from advertising at all, and that it will crack down on creators who are paid to make branded content for a political campaign. 



Even after TikTok’s announcement, production houses and influencers with connections to political financial backers were creating short videos that looked organic but were not, the clinic lead at Princeton's Center for Information Technology Policy, Mihir Kshirsagar, told the Sun.



“An important way young people are getting information is through these kinds of social media websites, through social media accounts run by different entities, and so that's what you need, disclosures, to know who is behind the video,” said Mr. Kshirsagar, who supports the proposed rule.

The FEC is considering a new rule to regulate free internet speech by American citizens. CU & CUF filed comments opposing the expansive regulation of free speech on the internet. We will defend 1st Amendment rights on the internet and everywhere else. Read comments here: 



CU-CUF FEC Technology Moder... by Citizens United

CU and CUF sign on to amicus brief in Parents Defending Education v. Linn-Mar Community School District in support of appellant and reversal.



CU and CUF sign on to amicu... by Citizens United

The Biden Administration’s arbitrary and capricious regulatory overreach harms hardworking American families. CU, CUF & TPC stand with Texas and Louisiana in support of both the U.S. Constitution and a secure southern border.



CU & CUF file Ami... by Citizens United

The law in Pennsylvania is clear: undated and incorrectly dated mail-in ballots should not count. Pennsylvania should follow the law.



CU & CUF file Ami... by Citizens United

“The law on mail in voting has been settled correctly in Delaware. There is no ‘urgent reason’ to overturn 80 years of settled law.” 




CU & CUF file Ami... by Citizens United

All six Republicans representing Alabama in the U.S. House signed on to a legal brief opposing the Justice Department’s broad subpoena of records from a small conservative group in their state, Eagle Forum of Alabama. 



The friend of the court brief, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, also includes six Alabama state legislators and more than 50 organizations, most of them conservative.



Among those groups: Judicial Watch, Citizens United, Concerned Women for America, the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the Foundation for Government Accountability, the Manhattan Institute, the Public Interest Legal Foundation, and the Texas Public Policy Foundation. 



The Daily Signal reported Sept. 12 that the Justice Department is seeking documents from Eagle Forum of Alabama going back five years as part of a lawsuit challenging an Alabama law that prohibits sex-change treatments for minors. 



The GOP members of Alabama’s U.S. House delegation opposing the Justice Department’s action against Eagle Forum are Reps. Robert Aderholt, Mo Brooks, Jerry Carl, Barry Moore, Gary Palmer, and Mike Rogers. (Rep. Terri Sewell, Alabama’s seventh representative, is a Democrat.)



The six House Republicans from Alabama also sent a letter to Attorney General Merrick Garland on Wednesday, asking him to explain the Justice Department’s constitutional authority for pursuing documents from Eagle Forum and to show that the agency is not acting in an arbitrary, political manner. 



“Eagle Forum of Alabama is an outstanding organization that represents the values of thousands of Alabamians. To have their First Amendment rights infringed upon by the Department of Justice is disrespectful to our Constitution,” Palmer, chairman of the House Republican Policy Committee, said in a prepared statement, adding:



"Constitutional protections should not be dictated by the political views of individuals in the White House or their appointee. Attorney General Merrick Garland owes an explanation for the motives behind this aggressive action against an organization simply petitioning the government on an issue important to them."



Earlier this year, the Biden Justice Department sued the state of Alabama over the law against sex-change surgery and other medical treatment for minors. In August, the department subpoenaed documents from Eagle Forum of Alabama—which isn’t a party to the court case—regarding its interactions with lawmakers and other advocacy. 



Individuals who signed on to the court brief include Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department attorney who is a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation, parent organization of The Daily Signal. 



“This is an outrageous attempt by the Justice Department to try to intimidate citizens engaging in everyday, routine activity on issues important to them,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Signal. “The reason the Justice Department is doing this is because this is a particular view they want to silence.”



The friend of the court brief calls the Justice Department subpoena of Eagle Forum a “transparent and flagrant violation of the First Amendment.” 



The friend of the court, or amici curiae, brief reads in part:



"Amici comprise a wide range of organizations and individuals, from nonprofit policy groups, to federal and state legislators, to individual citizens. Their interests and goals vary. But all agree that the United States’ subpoena in this case is a transparent use of the civil litigation process to chill the speech and political organizing of those who hold views contrary to those of the United States and the Department of Justice.



The subpoena harms not just members of the public across all ideological and political spectra, who will be inhibited from open discourse and petitioning, but also legislators themselves, who benefit from hearing from their constituents without those citizens fearing subsequent federal investigations seeking reams of protected materials."



The Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Daily Signal’s inquiries for this report. 



“The department is full of radical bureaucrats and has even been sanctioned by federal courts for colluding with leftist groups,” J. Christian Adams, president of Public Interest Legal Foundation, said in a public statement. “In America, the government cannot target groups who oppose their political beliefs and that is exactly what the DOJ has done here.”



A weaponized Justice Department is targeting political enemies of the Biden administration, said Tarren Bragdon, president of the Foundation for Government Accountability. 



“The Biden administration has launched an intimidation campaign against a small nonprofit group that has only one full-time employee,” Bragdon said in a public statement defending Eagle Forum of Alabama. “This is an effort to force the organization to exhaust its limited resources defending itself against the full force of the federal government.”