First Amendment

We have represented clients in a broad range of free speech cases. Representative matters include:

  • Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. Federal Communications Commission, 275 F.3d 337 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We represented the SBCA and member companies Echostar Communications Corp. and DirecTV, Inc. in a First Amendment challenge to the must-carry provisions of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act of 1999, requiring satellite television carriers to carry all television stations in a local market if they choose to carry one station in that market. The court of appeals rejected the challenge and upheld the law.
  • National Rifle Association v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).
    We represented the National Rifle Association in its challenge to the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. The statute prohibits corporations from airing television and radio advertisements mentioning a federal candidate in the 60 days prior to an election. Our suit sought to invalidate this prohibition on First Amendment grounds. In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the statute.
  • Anti-Defamation League v. Quigley, 540 U.S. 1229 (2004).
    We represented the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the Supreme Court. The Tenth Circuit upheld an award against the ADL of $8.5 million in punitive damages for defamation and violations of the Federal Wiretap Act arising out of ADL’s role in publicly denouncing an anti-Semitic campaign of intimidation and harassment that was reportedly designed to drive a Jewish family from its home in Colorado. The Supreme Court denied certiorari.
  • Cruz v. FEC, No. 19-908 (D.D.C.).
    We represent Senator Ted Cruz in a challenge to a provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and FEC regulations implementing it, which impose a $250,000 cap on the amount a federal candidate may raise, after an election, to pay down loans that the candidate personally made or incurred before the election for the benefit of the campaign. Because this restriction burdens a candidate’s ability to spend his own money to finance his campaign, the lawsuit claims that it is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page