logo
A forgotten Supreme Court case protects unpopular speech

A forgotten Supreme Court case protects unpopular speech

The Hill09-07-2025
An important feature of our legal system is that Supreme Court decisions do not expire. The principles they establish require deference and compliance, even when they seem out of date. Until modified or overturned, Supreme Court rulings must be obeyed and should not be undermined by neglect.
Nevertheless, that is what is happening to Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), a landmark First Amendment case. Although it involves fundamental rights that are directly related to contemporary issues, the case has been overlooked by commentators, legislators, lawyers and even judges.
If Brandenburg's value was understood, those facing prosecution or deportation for their public statements — such as Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student targeted by the Trump administration — could have relied on the First Amendment to protect them.
Clarence Brandenburg was a member of a Ku Klux Klan chapter in Ohio. Someone from the group contacted a television station to invite a film crew to their rally on a farm. The reporter and crew found a dozen people in KKK robes, but no one else.
The speakers offered the usual racist and antisemitic statements common at such events, but what interested the Supreme Court was Brandenburg's statement, which aired on the news: 'We're not a revengent organization, but if our president, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race, it's possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.'
There was no evidence that Brandenburg's words had any effect. He did not urge anyone to obtain weapons and kill innocent people or drive a vehicle into a crowd. Compared to the inflammatory statements in other speech cases, Brandenburg's comments were unthreatening and uninspiring.
Brandenburg was prosecuted under the Ohio Syndicalism Act of 1919, enacted during the Red Scare following World War I. Similar laws were adopted by 20 other states. He was convicted, fined $1,000 and sentenced to one to 10 years in prison. Ohio judges thought so little of the case that the appellate court affirmed his conviction without opinion, and the Ohio Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because 'no substantial constitutional question exists.'
In unanimously overturning Brandenburg's conviction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that 'the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a state to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.'
When the court used the phrases 'directed to inciting' and 'is likely to incite or produce such action,' it raised a critical question: How does one know that the speech is likely to 'incite or produce such [lawless] action' unless it actually does?
If a speech directly incites an unlawful act, the conviction would be upheld. But if it has no impact, it obviously was not likely to cause such action.
Brandenburg suggests that three elements are required for prosecution of potentially dangerous speech: the person specifically encouraged unlawful action; someone who heard or read the speech took such action; and the act could be directly traced to the speech. Thus, if not for the spoken or written words, there would have been no unlawful act.
This standard should have protected Khalil, the Columbia graduate from Syria, who is a green card holder and thus a legal U.S. resident. During campus protests over the treatment of Palestinians by Israel in Gaza, Khalil was a negotiator between the students and the university and a spokesperson for some demonstrators.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Khalil on March 8, accusing him of leading 'activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.' He was sent to the ICE detention facility in Louisiana.
The White House claimed that Khalil helped organize protests where pro-Hamas propaganda was distributed and accused him of 'siding with pro-terrorist organizations.' He has not been charged with any crime. His lawyer said there is no evidence that Khalil provided support to a terrorist organization.
Judge Michael Farbiarz of the federal district court in New Jersey issued a 106-page opinion on May 28 blocking the Trump administration from deporting Khalil. The judge focused on whether Section 1227 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 requires the Secretary of State to identify how Khalil's presence would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences. Instead, Secretary of State Marco Rubio simply reached that conclusion without evidence.
Judge Farbiarz ruled that Khalil was entitled to constitutional protection even though he is not a citizen and decided that Section 1227 was 'unconstitutionally vague.' The judge also recognized that the case involved First Amendment rights.
His detailed opinion mentions the First Amendment 35 times and either cites or briefly discusses more than 30 First Amendment cases. But he does not include Brandenburg.
Khalil's statements fell far short of Brandenburg's requirement that a speaker had to incite an unlawful act that was directly connected to the speech for someone to lose First Amendment protection. It did not matter whether Khalil's involvement inspired demonstrations or the distribution of anti-Israel propaganda.
On June 11, the judge ruled that the government could no longer hold Khalil, but he did not order his release. His 14-page opinion cited free speech rights 16 times but, once again, did not mention Brandenburg.
The government then changed its reason for holding Khalil and said he was being investigated for misrepresenting his work history when seeking legal residency. Judge Farbiarz determined that was an excuse to punish Khalil for his speech, because lawful residents who have not committed crimes are almost never detained while the government reexamines a green card application.
The judge said that holding Khalil under such circumstances was 'highly, highly, highly unusual' and was intended to punish speech. 'And, of course, that would be unconstitutional,' the judge added, and he ordered Khalil's release.
On June 20, after more than three months in custody, Khalil was freed. The government immediately appealed.
The lessons of Brandenburg — and other cases that elevated the First Amendment to a 'preferred position' in our constitutional system — are that we must tolerate disturbing and even hateful speech so that we can freely discuss public issues. The enduring principles that the Supreme Court recognized in Brandenburg should be dusted off and treated with the reverence they deserve.
Richard Labunski, Ph.D., J.D., is a retired journalism professor and author of 'James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

On This Day, July 22: Longest total solar eclipse of 21st century
On This Day, July 22: Longest total solar eclipse of 21st century

UPI

time2 hours ago

  • UPI

On This Day, July 22: Longest total solar eclipse of 21st century

1 of 3 | A U.S. Air Force F-15C Eagle aircraft from the 44th Fighter Squadron out of Kadena Air Base, Japan, releases a flare over Okinawa, Japan, July 22, 2009, during a total solar eclipse. File Photo by Airman 1st Class Chad Warren/U.S. Air Force | License Photo July 22 (UPI) -- On this day in history: In 1864, in the first battle of Atlanta, Confederate troops under Gen. John Hood were defeated by Union forces under Gen. William Sherman. In 1916, a bomb hidden in a suitcase exploded during a Preparedness Day parade on San Francisco's Market Street, killing 10 people and injuring 40. The parade was in support of the United States' entrance into World War I. In 1933, Wiley Post completed his first solo flight around the world. It took him 7 days, 18 hours and 45 minutes. In 1934, bank robber John Dillinger died in a hail of bullets from federal agents outside Chicago's Biograph Theater. UPI File Photo In 1991, police arrested serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, finding human body parts stored in his refrigerator and freezer, and others decomposing in chemicals in a 57-gallon drum. Dahmer confessed to 17 murders in all. In 1992, cartel boss Pablo Escobar vanished along with 10 fellow prison inmates after they staged a riot and held four high-level government officials hostage for some 20 hours in Bogota, Colombia. In 1994, a U.S. federal judge ordered The Citadel, a state-financed military college in Charleston, S.C., to open its doors to women. File Photo by Edward M. Pio Roda/UPI In 2003, Saddam Hussein's sons Uday and Qusai were killed by U.S. forces in a 6-hour firefight at a house in Mosul in northern Iraq. In 2009, millions of people across Asia sought vantage points to view a rare 6 1/2-minute total solar eclipse, longest of the 21st century. It will not be surpassed until 2132. In 2022, Indians elected their first Indigenous tribal president, Droupadi Murmu, a former schoolteacher from the Adivasi community. In 2024, the Israeli military launched attacks on the safe zones of Khan Younis in Gaza, killing dozens of people. The Israel Defense Forces ordered tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians to leave the vicinity ahead of the strikes.

Judge partially blocks provision in Trump's big bill to defund Planned Parenthood
Judge partially blocks provision in Trump's big bill to defund Planned Parenthood

UPI

time4 hours ago

  • UPI

Judge partially blocks provision in Trump's big bill to defund Planned Parenthood

A federal judge on Monday partially blocked a provision in President Donald Trump's spending and tax cut bill that tries to defund Planned Parenthood. File Photo by Bonnie Cash/UPI | License Photo July 22 (UPI) -- A federal judge has issued a partial block of a provision in President Donald Trump's massive tax and spending cuts bill that sought to defund Planned Parenthood. Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts had earlier this month issued a temporary restraining order against the so-called defund provision of the bill, on Monday made it a partial preliminary injunction as the case continues. In her order on Monday, Talwani said Planned Parenthood had demonstrated "a substantial likelihood of success" in its First Amendment argument against the provision. Trump's policy bill, which passed Congress on July 3, enacts a one-year ban on Medicaid payments to healthcare nonprofits that provide abortion services and that received more than $800,000 in Medicaid reimbursements in fiscal year 2023. Planned Parenthood argued that the provision's purpose was to specifically "punish" them for advocating for and providing legal abortion access outside of the Medicaid program and without using federal funds. They also argued that it punishes Planned Parenthood members who do not provide abortions because of their association with the main organization and its advocacy for the medical procedure. "Instead of merely prohibiting Planned Parenthood members that receive Medicaid funds from providing abortions, the statute prohibits them from affiliating with entities that do," the President Barack Obama appointee said. "Moreover, the record is devoid of evidentiary support for defendants' suggestion that Planned Parenthood entities share funds that are ultimately used for abortions." She continued that "restricting funds based on affiliation with an abortion provider operates only to restrict the associational right of members taht. do not provide abortion." Planned Parenthood had filed its lawsuit July 7, with Talwani issuing a temporary restraining order against the provision within hours. Her order on Monday stops short of granting a preliminary injunction to all Planned Parenthood members. "This isn't over," several Planned Parenthood organizations that filed the lawsuit said in a statement. "While we're grateful that the court recognized the harm caused by this law, we're disappointed that not all members were granted the necessary relief today. Patients across the country should be able to go to their trusted Planned Parenthood provider for birth control, cancer screenings and STI testing and treatment."

Judge in Harvard funding lawsuit calls Trump administration's arguments ‘a bit mind-boggling'
Judge in Harvard funding lawsuit calls Trump administration's arguments ‘a bit mind-boggling'

Boston Globe

time10 hours ago

  • Boston Globe

Judge in Harvard funding lawsuit calls Trump administration's arguments ‘a bit mind-boggling'

Advertisement Harvard alumni rally outside a Boston court where Harvard University will argue against the Trump administration's funding cuts 'The consequences for that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,' Burroughs said. Harvard has argued the Trump administration violated its constitutional rights and that the cuts are a significant blow to critical scientific research. Michael Velchik, a Department of Justice attorney appearing on behalf of the government, argued that the government has the right to cancel Harvard's grants because of its determination that Harvard has failed to root out antisemitism on campus, which he said is a priority of the Trump administration. 'Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,' Velchik said. 'The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.' Burroughs, who said she is Jewish and agreed that there were some missteps on campus, pressed Velchik to connect the concerns about antisemitism with the cancellation of funds and why the administration could make wholesale cuts instead of making decisions grant-by-grant. Advertisement After Harvard publicly resisted the Trump administration's demands in April, The case has enormous consequences not just for Harvard — the university says the Steven Lehotsky, a lawyer representing Harvard, argued Monday that the government's termination of the university's research grants violated Harvard's First Amendment rights. He pointed to the Trump administration's Lehotsky said that the case is 'about the federal government's control over the inner-workings of America's oldest institution of higher education.' Harvard has also argued that the Trump administration skirted a legal process to cancel funding under Title VI of the Civil Rights of 1964, which prohibits discrimination 'on the basis of race, color, or national origin.' Lehotsky at one point quoted 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards,' a line from the Queen of Hearts in the book 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland,' to illustrate how he believes the government took action before legally justifying its decisions. Advertisement The Trump administration knew that process was available to try and cancel funds, but chose not to follow it. Velchik, meanwhile, said that the government was not using the Title VI process in this case and argued that the administration had the authority under federal regulations regarding grants. Because of that, Velchik argued that the case should be tried in federal claims court as opposed to federal district court, which Burroughs sharply questioned. Burroughs is a familiar face for Harvard. She is presiding over the university's other high-profile case against the Trump administration, which challenges the government's efforts to bar Harvard from hosting international students. Burroughs has blocked those efforts until the case is decided, and the government has The judge also In a post on his social media network Truth Social, President Trump said Monday that Burroughs is 'a TOTAL DISASTER' and an 'automatic 'loss' for the People of our Country,' an example of Trump's Advertisement On Monday, Burroughs also heard from lawyers representing As the hearing wrapped up around noon, dozens of Harvard students, faculty, and alumni gathered outside of the John Joseph Moakley Courthouse in support of the university and its researchers. The rally was organized by the Crimson Courage, a group of Harvard alumni that has called on Harvard to Community organizer and Harvard alumnus Lew Finfer, who helped coordinate the protest, said the funding cuts not only have disastrous consequences for scientific research, but also for families whose lives were directly impacted by studies focused on cancer, Alzheimer's, and other diseases. 'Having family ... who have had cancer and died of cancer and have Alzheimer's, the fact that people are trying to do something about it — [the research] always feels personal, as it would to anyone if they heard heard about these things," Lew said. 'It's not just research,' Finfer added. It's people's lives.' James McAffrey, 22, a Harvard undergraduate who co-founded Advertisement 'I haven't had research funding cut. I'm not at risk of being deported,' he said Monday. 'Which is why I feel even more committed to speaking out … because there's so many of my peers that can't say what they think and that's not right in an America built on freedom of speech.' Aidan Ryan can be reached at

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store