This piece originally appeared at PostEverything on washingtonpost.com.
The ACLU joined calls this month for the state of South Carolina to unhook the “Southern Cross”—a Confederate battle flag—from the flagpole at the state capitol and permanently remove the flag from the seat of its government. When the flag came down, we applauded. South Carolina, its governor, legislature and citizens got it right: making a decision, as a state, to change its message, and making that change via the democratic process.
But when the Supreme Court had its chance to weigh in on the Confederate flag debate—and protect the First Amendment rights of Texans who wanted to display it on their cars’ license plates—the Court got it wrong.
The Texas Department of Motor Vehicles offers a “specialty license plate” program that allows individuals to personally design, produce, purchase and display a specialty message of their choosing. Currently, the state of Texas issues plates celebrating Texas realtors, the University of South Carolina (yes, really) and Dr. Pepper—none of which is an official message of the Lone Star State: They’re customized messages of, by and for private citizens. And when the state opens up a platform for private speech—as it has done here, to anyone who’ll pay the required additional fee—it can’t pick and choose who gets to speak.
To keep reading, click here.
Related Issues
Related Content
-
Press ReleaseJul 2026
National Security
Free Speech
Muslim Civil Rights Nonprofits Sue Florida Officials To Prevent Unconstitutional Designation That Threatens The Organizations’ Existence In The State. Explore Press Release.Muslim Civil Rights Nonprofits Sue Florida Officials to Prevent Unconstitutional Designation that Threatens the Organizations’ Existence in the State
TALLAHASSE, Fla. — The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Florida, Southern Poverty Law Center, Akeel & Valentine, PLC, and Bondurant Mixson & Elmore LLP today filed a federal lawsuit challenging Florida officials' imminent and baseless designation of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as a “domestic terrorist organization” under laws that went into effect today. The challenge comes hours after Gov. Ron DeSantis announced his intent to use the new laws against CAIR, one of America’s leading civil rights organizations. Although the governor did not mention CAIR-Florida, he has previously indicated that he also considers it a “terrorist organization.” If the nonprofits are designated, they face immediate and irreparable harm, including the shuttering of all their operations and advocacy in the state. In April 2026, Gov. DeSantis signed into law HB 1471 and HB 1473 despite 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, its members, and a wide range of others associated with the group through extraordinarily broad and severe criminal, civil, and administrative penalties. “We thank the ACLU, SPLC, Akeel & Valentine, and Bondurant for standing up against Gov. DeSantis’ latest attack on the rule of law,” said CAIR’s national headquarters. “Throughout CAIR’s long history, our civil rights organization has worked to protect the Constitution’s guarantees of free speech, religious freedom and equality under the law. We have also pursued justice for all people, including American Muslims impacted by hate. This is exactly why Gov. DeSantis has repeatedly targeted our organization. We see through Gov. DeSantis’ latest biased attempt to punish us for our views and our values. We look forward to fighting these baseless attacks in court and proving once again that the Constitution is stronger than any politician’s bigotry.” Targeted organizations can receive no meaningful notice and have no meaningful opportunity to challenge the designation before a neutral decisionmaker — and before the designation and harsh penalties take effect. “Under Florida’s dangerous new regime, the governor and a few officials can play judge, jury, and nonprofit executioner. But the Constitution does not allow elected officials to punish American nonprofits and deny them the fundamentals of due process because of disagreement with their views,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “Florida’s imminent designation of our clients is both dire and unmoored from reality. CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s speech and advocacy are protected by the First Amendment, which includes their right to criticize the governor, other officials, and their policies. We’re asking the court to protect our clients’ cardinal freedoms.” As the lawsuit explains, CAIR and CAIR-Florida are nonprofits organized under the laws of the District of Columbia and Florida. They do not engage in “terrorist activity.” Their shared mission, rooted in faith, is to enhance the public’s understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims. Like other prominent nonprofits, they hold community events, post educational materials on social media, speak about elected leaders, and represent clients in advocacy and civil rights lawsuits. They have not been charged with, let alone convicted of, a crime. “Like any other faith-driven nonprofit, we host community events to promote religious tolerance and understanding, provide cultural education, and our work seeks to advance public policy that protects the equal treatment of Muslim Americans,” said CAIR-Florida. “Our work is critical to combatting prejudice, false stereotypes, and ensuring the promises of the Constitution cover us all — yet the governor has unfairly labeled us something we are not and threatens our very ability to continue this crucial work. We all share the same rights, and no group should be targeted simply because the governor disagrees with their constitutionally protected speech.” If the designation goes into effect, its impact will be instant and incapacitating for CAIR and CAIR-Florida’s work in the state. Specifically, the lawsuit claims that they would be caught in a kaleidoscope of criminal prohibitions that would stop them from carrying out even their most basic functions in Florida. Put bluntly, designation will completely shut down their speech, force them to shutter their offices in the state, and brand them with one of the most stigmatizing, infamous labels in our country. On top of the reputational and operational harm, the designation would also violate their right to counsel. That’s because, once designation becomes effective, any lawyer or legal organization that provides or attempts to provide legal services or representation to CAIR or CAIR-Florida faces a credible threat of criminal prosecution under this regime. “Florida’s attack on the largest Muslim civil rights organization in the country are dangerous and wrong,” said Daniel Tilley, legal director of the ACLU of Florida. “If we allow this undisguised attempt to restrict constitutionally protected speech and association to go unchallenged, it only ensures that the increasingly normalized censorship and discrimination at the hands of our state government will expand ever further.” The groups are suing under the First Amendment and the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Gov. DeSantis does not have the power to unilaterally brand an organization with this vilifying designation and punish those who support it without due process or judicial review,” said Scott McCoy, deputy legal director, SPLC. “Denying due process and suppressing and punishing constitutionally protected speech and advocacy are clear violations of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments. SPLC will not stand idly by while civil rights groups like CAIR and CAIR-Florida have their rights trampled based on unfounded fear and prejudice by politicians trying to score political points.” CAIR and CAIR-Florida are also separately suing Florida officials over a related executive order that Gov. DeSantis was trying to use to target the nonprofit. In early March 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida granted its request for a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of his “blatantly unconstitutional” executive order, which unilaterally branded CAIR a “terrorist organization,” and would have stripped CAIR — and those associated with the group — of state and local contacts, employment opportunities, funding and other public benefits. The government has since appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The complaint in the lawsuit can be viewed here.Affiliate: Florida -
Press ReleaseJun 2026
Free Speech
Aclu Urges Congress To Vote Against Online Censorship Proposed In The Kids Act. Explore Press Release.ACLU Urges Congress to Vote Against Online Censorship Proposed in the KIDS Act
WASHINGTON – The American Civil Liberties Union sent a letter today urging the House of Representatives to vote against the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS Act) which threatens the freedom of speech online. The legislation, which is set for a House floor vote on Monday evening, would incentivize platforms to remove online content that the government may deem “inappropriate” for minors. The KIDS Act includes a version of the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which the ACLU has repeatedly opposed because it would undermine the First Amendment rights and privacy of all online users. It would incentivize platforms to verify the ages of their users, requiring the collection of significant amounts of personal information. Adults who are unable to verify their ages might not be able to access those platforms at all. “Censorship and invasive age verification measures will not keep children safe,” said Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the ACLU. “The KIDS Act would threaten free speech for people of all ages and it would put our data at risk. Congress should vote no on this well-meaning but misguided bill.” The bill requires apps and websites to take unspecified action to prevent enumerated harms to kids, and in doing so, could lead to the removal of any information even tangentially related to those harms. This could include information that is actually helpful to minors, including information about addiction recovery, mental health resources, and gender affirming care. The proposed expansion of age verification tools would also increase the susceptibility of users’ personal information to data breaches. The letter can be viewed here. -
News & CommentaryJun 2026
Free Speech
Recent Court Documents Allege Misconduct In Mahmoud Khalil’s Immigration Case. Explore News & Commentary.Recent Court Documents Allege Misconduct in Mahmoud Khalil’s Immigration Case
New evidence reveals the Trump administration worked to seal Mahmoud Khalil’s fate before he ever got his day in court.By: Simon McCormack, Veronica Salama -
News & CommentaryJun 2026
Privacy & Technology
+3 Issues
Trump Administration Hijacks Police Grants To Leverage Local Police For Its Authoritarian Ends. Explore News & Commentary.Trump Administration Hijacks Police Grants to Leverage Local Police For Its Authoritarian Ends
We’ve already seen what that looks like in places like Memphis; New “Model Cities Initiative” would spread it to other citiesBy: Jay Stanley