ACLU Says Court Found Constitutional Flaws In McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Last night, Florida officials paused their plan to designate the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “domestic terrorist organization,” under new laws that went into effect on July 1. This development comes in a lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and their partners filed on behalf of the civil rights nonprofit and its Florida chapter after Gov. DeSantis and other state officials announced they would quickly move to designate CAIR. According to a court filing, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement now intends to issue regulations to implement the laws, and “no designation will be made before the regulations are finalized.” Lawyers for Gov. DeSantis and other defendants in the lawsuit stated they could not yet provide a timeline on when these regulations would be finalized, and the parties will report again to the court by July 22. “From day 1, Florida officials’ use of this dangerous new designation regime has violated the Constitution. Gov. DeSantis has simply no legitimate basis to brand our clients with one of society’s most reviled labels let alone to force them to shut their doors under threat of crippling criminal penalties, and leave the Floridians they serve without a crucial civil rights voice,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “In the United States, CAIR and all nonprofits have the right to criticize the government, protect religious freedom, and advocate for the causes they believe in.” In April 2026, Gov. DeSantis signed into law HB 1471 and HB 1473 despite public outcry. These laws establish an unprecedented state designation regime and dramatically expand Florida’s authority to both label and punish groups — including nonprofits engaged in First Amendment-protected advocacy — that officials unilaterally decide are security threats. Under the regime, officials can brand nonprofit corporations with debilitating stigma and then use an array of state authorities to immediately silence and incapacitate the organization, its employees, and a wide range of others associated with the group through extraordinarily broad and severe criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. On July 2, the nonprofits’ legal team filed an emergency motion asking the federal court to prevent the designation from going into effect and to allow the groups to litigate the challenge without fear of prosecution under the broad designation laws. The court denied the emergency filings, stating it required further briefing and evidence that Florida officials were following through on their threats. “The fact that Florida officials announced their intent to designate CAIR at their July 1 press conference, before regulations they now plan to issue have come into effect, shows their calculated and cruel plan to designate CAIR is not because it is in any way a threat to public safety, but because doing so suits their political agenda,” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, Southern Poverty Law Center. “The State’s decision to negatively brand CAIR has already violated its constitutional rights and inflicted immediate and ongoing harm to it.” CAIR and CAIR-FL are represented in the suit by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Akeel & Valentine, PLC, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP.

With Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche set to appear before the Senate for a hearing to potentially confirm him to the post, senators have no shortage of questions to ask about his record.

MIAMI — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit today struck down the higher education provisions of the Stop W.O.K.E. Act, a classroom censorship law in Florida that severely restricted educators from teaching about race and gender in schools and workplaces. The court ruled the higher education provision of the law was unconstitutional, saying: “Florida’s salary-for-speech rule is a breathtaking assertion of power to ban unpopular ideas from public discourse in the very places the State’s own statutes recognize as centers of inquiry—classrooms where students are trusted to puzzle through ideas that are good and bad, easy and hard, ideally getting ever closer to the truth.” The court goes on to say it does not matter if the State of Florida agrees or disagrees with the ideas. “Either way, in this context the First Amendment trusts students to figure it out for themselves.” “This ruling sets a strong precedent that higher education cannot be limited to the whims of politicians,” said Leah Watson, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Racial Justice Program. “All students and educators deserve to have a free and open exchange about ideas without government control. Students can’t fight racial discrimination that they don’t see; training and instruction is key to empowering future leaders to pursue racial justice.” The decision comes in Pernell v. Lamb, a 2022 lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Florida, the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), and the law firm Ballard Spahr on behalf of a group of Florida professors at public universities whose teaching has been impacted by this law. “We are thrilled the court has stopped the erasure of topics that have real implications for our students, allowing them to learn, discuss, and develop tools for combatting the complex issue of racism in our country without being gagged by those who would dictate that only state-approved thought may be promoted,” said LeRoy Pernell, a Florida A&M University College of Law professor and the named plaintiff in this lawsuit. Championed by Gov. Ron DeSantis, this overreaching law specifically targeted and placed vague restrictions on educators’ ability to teach concepts such as racism, sexism, privilege, and unconscious bias. It also imposed harsh penalties, including ineligibility for millions of dollars in performance funding from the state for colleges and universities and termination for educators who had been found to violate the law. The court concluded, “[i]f the First Amendment offers any boundary of protection at all for public university classrooms, this statute crosses it.” “The Stop W.O.K.E Act is an egregious example of widespread efforts across the country, most notably in Florida, to force the public higher education system to adopt the viewpoints of those in power. Thankfully, we have a judicial system to protect First Amendment rights and ensure that professors have the academic freedom to foster the type of learning environment where all students can learn and thrive,” said Jin Hee Lee, Director of Strategic Initiatives at the Legal Defense Fund. “It is no coincidence that this state law aimed to censor the perspectives of Black people and LGBTQ+ people, the very same people who are currently under attack. With this decision, the federal appeals court has made clear that Florida cannot actively erase their history of discrimination or their lived experiences without running afoul of our Constitution.” This decision marked the first time an appellate court has considered the constitutionality of this censorship movement, and it will have implications for students and educators across the country who are subject to related laws. Since the Stop W.O.K.E Act went into effect, more than 30 states have moved to introduce and pass higher education classroom censorship bills. In May 2024, a federal court struck down a law in another ACLU lawsuit in New Hampshire, holding that the law's vagueness violated the 14th Amendment. A similar higher education classroom censorship law was struck down in an ACLU lawsuit in Oklahoma, ruling that many of its provisions were so vague that it was difficult for teachers to know what they could and could not teach in the classroom. “By upholding the district court’s ruling, the Eleventh Circuit ensured that our system of higher education is guided by the principle of free speech, not government censorship,” said Carrie McNamara, senior staff attorney at the ACLU of Florida. “Our classrooms are meant to be rooms of curiosity, creativity, and learning. When we stifle this kind of critical thinking, we risk losing our education system as we know it.” “The recent legislative efforts to undermine academic freedom and limit the rights of marginalized communities are incredibly harmful,” said Emmy Parsons, a litigator at Ballard Spahr who was a member of the legal team. “We are proud to be part of this historic case and will keep fighting to protect the First Amendment rights of those teaching the next generation of leaders.” The opinion can be viewed here.

PORTLAND, Maine – Amanda McGonigle, creator of the social media accounts @CatsOnACouch, filed suit today against the U.S. Secret Service and the Executive Office of the President, alleging that she was barred from an official government event because of her social media content criticizing the vice president. “It’s absurd that the Secret Service is wasting their time tracking a satirical cat account on social media,” said Amanda McGonigle. “The government can’t exclude me from official vice-presidential events just because I mock people in power on the internet. The Trump administration has routinely retaliated against people exercising their First Amendment rights, and this is just the latest example. But the First Amendment protects our right to criticize the government, and it's well within my rights to say that I think JD Vance is an unlikeable idiot." McGonigle registered to attend a vice-presidential event in Maine in May and complied with all advance guest guidance provided by the Executive Office of the President. While in line for the event, armed Secret Service agents and other government officials identified her in the line and told her she wasn’t allowed in because “we know where you stand.” “The First Amendment protects every person’s right to express their opinions and political views, free from fear of government retaliation or retribution,” said ACLU of Maine staff attorney Anahita Sotoohi. “Ms. McGonigle uses her platform to criticize and satirize elected officials, using humor to garner support for causes important to her and inform her followers about political developments. The freedom to mock has been a central tenet of American political discourse since the founding. The First Amendment cannot be revoked just because one of the country’s most powerful people can’t take a joke.” McGonigle launched her @CatsOnACouch accounts after Vice President Vance’s infamous “childless cat lady” comment in 2024. She says the purpose of the account is “to have more followers than JD Vance by the time he leaves office and to troll him mercilessly every single day.” She regularly posts videos mocking the vice president, often with a cat theme, and uses the account to engage in mutual aid efforts. “Some politicians may not be able to take a joke, but that doesn’t mean you can’t make one (or many),” said Laura Moraff, staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union. “Ms. McGonigle's satirical social media content is purr-tected speech. Punishing her for her catty commentary is a cat-aclysmic blow to the First Amendment.” The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Maine filed the suit on behalf of McGonigle in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine. The complaint alleges that McGonigle’s First Amendment rights were violated when she was excluded from vice presidential events because of her speech and political views. The complaint can be viewed here.