Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union

For the similarly named 2004 case dealing with electronic privacy, see American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft.

2002 United States Supreme Court case

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued November 28, 2001
Decided May 13, 2002
Full case name| John Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
Citations| 535 U.S. 564 (more)

122 S. Ct. 1700; 152 L. Ed. 2d 771; 70 U.S.L.W. 4381; 30 Media L. Rep. 1801; 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Service 4057; 2002 Daily Journal DAR 5183; 15 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 256

Argument| Oral argument
Case history
Prior| American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999); affirmed, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000); cert. granted, 532 U.S. 1037 (2001).
Subsequent| On remand, American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2003); affirmed, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).
Holding
The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on community standards to identify what material "is harmful to minors" may make the statute unconstitutional, but community standards need further definition.
Court membership

Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens * Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia * Anthony Kennedy
David Souter * Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg * Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority| Thomas (Parts I, II, IV), joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Breyer
Plurality| Thomas (Parts III-B), joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia
Plurality| Thomas (Parts III-A, III-C, III-D), joined by Rehnquist, Scalia
Concurrence| O’Connor (in part and in judgment)
Concurrence| Breyer (in part and in judgment)
Concurrence| Kennedy (in judgment), joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Dissent| Stevens
Laws applied
Child Online Protection Act; U.S. Const. amend. I

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002), followed by 542 U.S. 656 (2004), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court, ruling that the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) was unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.[1]

## Background

[edit]

In 1996 Congress passed the Communications Decency Act (CDA). The CDA prohibited the use of the Internet to purposely send indecent material to those under 18 years of age. In 1997 the Supreme Court unanimously struck down the anti-indecency provisions of the CDA in Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, because in the CDA lacked the precision necessary for any regulation of speech. Congress attempted to address the issue of Internet pornography with a new and more specific statute the following year.[2]

### Child Online Protection Act

[edit]

Main article: Child Online Protection Act

The Child Online Protection Act (COPA), passed in 1998, was Congress's second attempt to criminalize the use of the Internet to distribute obscene material, including pornography, simulated pornography, and pornographic artwork. COPA enforced a $50,000 fine and six months in prison for the posting for "commercial purposes" of content on the internet that is "harmful to minors".[3]

COPA attempted to be more specific than the "harmful to children" provisions of its predecessor statute, and made it illegal for any commercial sources to allow minors access to obscene content, drawing on language from the landmark Miller v. California ruling at the Supreme Court to better define the term "obscenity." Material that is "harmful to minors" was defined as:

> any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that--

>     (A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
>     (B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
>     (C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."[4]

Thus, COPA was narrower and more precise than the CDA because it attempted to make use of the Miller Test to find "obscene" internet material that could be regulated.[5]

Opponents of COPA argued that child pornography was already illegal, and COPA would not be effective because it would waste too much time going after individual sites within the US that could simply set up shop overseas if shut down. It was also argued that COPA would infringe upon the rights of adults to receive legal (but perhaps inappropriate for children) content voluntarily, and that COPA was not the least pervasive or most efficient way to protect children from inappropriate online content.[1]

### Procedural history

[edit]

In 1999, Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr. of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of COPA.[6] This ruling was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In 2000, the circuit court upheld the preliminary injunction against COPA because it was impossible to apply "contemporary community standards" to the Internet.[7] This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.[8]

## First opinion of the Court

[edit]

In May 2002, the Supreme Court, in a 8–1 decision, affirmed the injunction against enforcement of COPA enacted by the circuit court, but ultimately ruled that the statute could not be invalidated because of the vague and overbroad definition of "contemporary community standards" in the Miller Test for obscenity.[1] Furthermore, the circuit court should not have held that defining that term was impossible. Thus, the majority voted to remand the case back to the circuit court to discuss that matter further.[5]

### Dissenting opinion

[edit]

The only dissenting opinion came from Justice John Paul Stevens, who argued that the court should have declared COPA to be unconstitutional without remanding to the circuit court for further discussion.[1]

## Second opinion of the Court

[edit]

2004 United States Supreme Court case

Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 2, 2004
Decided June 29, 2004
Full case name| John Ashcroft, Attorney General v. American Civil Liberties Union, et al.
Citations| 542 U.S. 656 (more)

124 S. Ct. 2783, 159 L. Ed. 2d 690

Holding
The Child Online Protection Act was too restrictive in its attempts to regulate harmful material on the Internet, and this violates the First Amendment.
Court membership

Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens * Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia * Anthony Kennedy
David Souter * Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg * Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
Majority| Kennedy, joined by Stevens, Souter, Thomas, Ginsburg
Dissent| Breyer, joined by Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia
Laws applied
Child Online Protection Act; U.S. Const. amend. I

In October 2002, the Third Circuit heard the case a second time, after the remand from the Supreme Court. In March 2003, the Third Circuit again upheld the injunction against COPA, this time with a more precise discussion of "contemporary community standards".[9] The government appealed that decision and the Supreme Court granted certiorari again,[10] and in June 2004 the Court reaffirmed the original preliminary injunction.[11]

This time, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, in light of the circuit court's further discussion of "contemporary community standards" in the Miller Test as applied to the Internet, COPA was indeed an unconstitutional restriction on freedom of speech. The court opined that using contemporary community standards to police the Internet would cause more harm than good, due to differing opinions across America about what was acceptable for children or consenting adults on the Internet.[1]

The court ultimately ruled that COPA was too restrictive in light of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, who delivered the majority opinion, suggested that parents and educators could voluntarily adopt Internet filters and related software to reduce the visibility of harmful or unwanted material. In Kennedy's words, "Filters are less restrictive than COPA. They impose selective restrictions on speech at the receiving end, not universal restrictions at the source. ... [T]he Government failed to introduce specific evidence proving that existing filtering technologies are less effective than the restrictions in COPA.”[11]

The court also found that COPA did not pass the strict scrutiny test for governmental speech regulations, because while preventing children from accessing harmful material on the Internet was a compelling government interest, the statute was not narrowly tailored enough to enable other users, including consenting adults, to access such material voluntarily, and (given the availability of filtering software) the statute was not the least restrictive means of achieving the government's goals.[11]

While allowing the injunction against the enforcement of COPA to stand, the Supreme Court gave the government one more chance to argue its case, due to the now clarified definitions of "contemporary community standards" and other matters. Thus the trial portion of the legal challenge was remanded back to the district court.

### Dissenting opinions

[edit]

Justice Antonin Scalia dissented, arguing that pornography in the media deserved no constitutional protection regardless of the existence of COPA, so that statute should not have been subjected to the strict scrutiny test.[11] Justice Stephen Breyer delivered another dissent, arguing that COPA was indeed the least restrictive means to achieve the government's compelling interest in shielding children from Internet pornography.[11]

## Subsequent developments

[edit]

The case was remanded to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and went to trial again in 2006, at which time the government was given the opportunity to update its arguments in favor of enforcing COPA. The district court rejected the government's updated arguments,[12] and this decision was appealed again to the Third Circuit. The circuit court ruled against the government again in 2008, once again upholding the injunction against enforcement.[13] The government appealed this decision to the Supreme Court yet again in 2009, but this time the court denied certiorari,[14] effectively striking COPA from the United States Code, with the law never having taken effect.

In 2023, Texas introduced a law requiring pornographic sites like Pornhub to confirm the age of a user via their drivers license to access the site; several other states followed suit. The law was challenged on free speech grounds, initially ruled unconstitutial under a strict scrutiny analysis at the district court, but that ruling was reverse by the Fifth Circuit, which used a rational basis standard to find the state had a compelling interest. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court as Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, with oral arguments in January 2025. There, the majority of justices questions whether the decision from Ashcroft, where measures like filtering software could be used, was still valid given the advancement of technology.[15]

## See also

[edit]

* Freedom of speech portal

* List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 535
* Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002), which dealt with a similar law, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996.[16]

## References

[edit]

1. ^ a b c d e Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002).
2. ^ "Ashcroft v. ACLU - The Legal Challenge to the Child Online Protection Act". Electronic Privacy Information Center. Retrieved January 19, 2006.
3. ^ 47 U.S.C. § 231.
4. ^ 47 U.S.C. § 231(e)(6).
5. ^ a b Ward, Artemus. "Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union". www.mtsu.edu. Retrieved September 5, 2022.
6. ^ American Civil Liberties Union v. Reno, 31 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Pa. 1999).
7. ^ American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft, 217 F.3d 162 (3d Cir. 2000).
8. ^ Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 532 U.S. 1037 (2001).
9. ^ American Liberties Union v. Ashcroft, 322 F.3d 240 (3d Cir. 2003).
10. ^ Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 540 U.S. 944 (2003).
11. ^ a b c d e Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004).
12. ^ American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Pa. 2007).
13. ^ American Civil Liberties Union v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2008).
14. ^ American Civil Liberties Union v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1137 (2009).
15. ^ https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/supreme-court-texas-first-amendment-online-pornography/index.html
16. ^ Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002).

## External links

[edit]

* Text of Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U.S. 564 (2002) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
* Text of Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Google Scholar Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
* Summary of COPA cases from People for the American Way
* Summary of PFAW's involvement in ACLU v. Ashcroft
* Washington Post transcript of online discussion of COPA with ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson[dead link‍]

* v
* t
* e

U.S. Supreme Court Freedom of Speech Clause case law

First Amendment to the United States Constitution

Unprotected speech|

| Clear and
present danger
and imminent
lawless action|

* Schenck v. United States (1919)
* Debs v. United States (1919)
* Abrams v. United States (1919)
* Gitlow v. New York (1925)
* Whitney v. California (1927)
* Fiske v. Kansas (1927)
* Dennis v. United States (1951)
* Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Bd. (1955; 1961)
* Yates v. United States (1957)
* Bond v. Floyd (1966)
* Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
* Hess v. Indiana (1973)

|

Defamation and
false speech|

* New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
* Hustler Magazine v. Falwell (1988)
* United States v. Alvarez (2012)
* Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus (2014)

Fighting words and
the heckler's veto|

* Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
* Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
* Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949)
* Feiner v. New York (1951)
* Gregory v. City of Chicago (1969)
* Cohen v. California (1971)
* Nat'l Socialist Party v. Village of Skokie (1977)
* R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
* Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

True threats|

* Virginia v. Black (2003)
* Elonis v. United States (2015)
* Counterman v. Colorado (2023)

Obscenity|

* Rosen v. United States (1896)
* Roth v. United States (1957)
* One, Inc. v. Olesen (1958)
* Smith v. California (1959)
* Marcus v. Search Warrant (1961)
* Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day (1962)
* Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964)
* Quantity of Books v. Kansas (1964)
* Ginzburg v. United States (1966)
* Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)
* Redrup v. New York (1967)
* Ginsberg v. New York (1968)
* Stanley v. Georgia (1969)
* United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
* Kois v. Wisconsin (1972)
* Miller v. California (1973)
* Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973)
* United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film (1973)
* Jenkins v. Georgia (1974)
* Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville (1975)
* Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. (1976)
* People v. Freeman (Cal. 1988)
* United States v. X-Citement Video, Inc. (1994)
* Reno v. ACLU (1997)
* United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. (2000)
* City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc. (2002)
* Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union (2002)
* United States v. American Library Ass'n (2003)
* United States v. Williams (2008)
* FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2009)
* United States v. Stevens (2010)
* Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass'n (2011)
* FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. (2012)
* Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton (2025)

Speech integral
to criminal conduct|

* New York v. Ferber (1982)
* Osborne v. Ohio (1990)
* Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)
* United States v. Hansen (2023)

Strict scrutiny|

* Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)
* Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)

Overbreadth and
Vagueness doctrines|

* Smith v. Goguen (1974)
* Board of Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus (1987)
* Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)

Symbolic speech
versus conduct|

* Stromberg v. California (1931)
* United States v. O'Brien (1968)
* Cohen v. California (1971)
* Spence v. Washington (1974)
* Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
* Dallas v. Stanglin (1989)
* Texas v. Johnson (1989)
* United States v. Eichman (1990)
* Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991)
* City of Erie v. Pap's A. M. (2000)
* Virginia v. Black (2003)

Content-based
restrictions|

* Lamont v. Postmaster General (1965)
* Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
* Boos v. Barry (1988)
* Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Crime Victims Board (1991)
* R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992)
* Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)
* Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
* City of Austin v. Reagan National Advertising of Austin, LLC (2022)

Content-neutral
restrictions|

* Schneider v. New Jersey (1939)
* United States v. Albertini (1985)
* Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. (1986)
* Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. (1986)
* City of Ladue v. Gilleo (1994)
* Packingham v. North Carolina (2017)
* TikTok v. Garland (2025)

| In the
public forum|

* Davis v. Massachusetts (1897)
* Hague v. CIO (1939)
* Thornhill v. Alabama (1940)
* Martin v. City of Struthers (1943)
* Niemotko v. Maryland (1951)
* Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
* Cox v. Louisiana (1965)
* Brown v. Louisiana (1966)
* Adderley v. Florida (1966)
* Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne (1968)
* Coates v. City of Cincinnati (1971)
* Org. for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971)
* Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
* Frisby v. Schultz (1988)
* Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989)
* Burson v. Freeman (1992)
* Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc. (1994)
* Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western New York (1997)
* Hill v. Colorado (2000)
* McCullen v. Coakley (2014)

|

Designated
public forum|

* Widmar v. Vincent (1981)
* Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia (1995)
* Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)

Nonpublic
forum|

* Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
* Perry Education Association v. Perry Local Educators' Association (1983)
* Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense Fund (1985)
* Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes (1997)
* Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (2018)

Compelled speech|

* Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
* West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette (1943)
* Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)
* Wooley v. Maynard (1977)
* Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)
* Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
* Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995)
* Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc. (2006)
* National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)
* 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)
* Moody v. NetChoice, LLC (2024)

Compelled subsidy
of others' speech|

* International Ass'n of Machinists v. Street (1961)
* Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)
* Minnesota Board for Community Colleges v. Knight (1984)
* Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1988)
* Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)
* Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n (1991)
* Board of Regents of the Univ. of Wisconsin System v. Southworth (2000)
* Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
* Davenport v. Washington Education Ass'n (2007)
* Locke v. Karass (2008)
* Knox v. SEIU, Local 1000 (2012)
* Harris v. Quinn (2014)
* Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association (2016)
* Janus v. AFSCME (2018)

Government grants
and subsidies|

* Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington (1983)
* Rust v. Sullivan (1991)
* National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998)
* Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez (2001)
* USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International I (2013)
* USAID v. Alliance for Open Society International II (2020)

Government speech|

* Pleasant Grove City v. Summum (2009)
* Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015)
* Matal v. Tam (2017)
* Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
* Houston Community College System v. Wilson (2022)
* Shurtleff v. City of Boston (2022)
* Vidal v. Elster (2024)

Loyalty oaths|

* American Communications Ass'n v. Douds (1950)
* Garner v. Board of Public Works (1951)
* Speiser v. Randall (1958)
* Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967)
* Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974)

School speech|

* Minersville School District v. Gobitis (1940)
* West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
* Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Community School Dist. (1969, substantial disruption)
* Healy v. James (1972)
* Island Trees School District v. Pico (1982)
* Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)
* Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
* Westside Community Board of Ed. v. Mergens (1990)
* Rosenberger v. Univ. of Virginia (1995)
* Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n (2001)
* Morse v. Frederick (2007)
* Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (2021)
* Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)

Public employees|

* Pickering v. Board of Education (1968)
* Perry v. Sindermann (1972)
* Arnett v. Kennedy (1974)
* Elrod v. Burns (1976)
* Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Board of Ed. v. Doyle (1977)
* Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. (1979)
* Connick v. Myers (1983)
* Rankin v. McPherson (1987)
* Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990)
* Waters v. Churchill (1994)
* United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (1995)
* Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Ass'n (2001)
* Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006)
* Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2011)
* Lane v. Franks (2014)
* Heffernan v. City of Paterson (2016)
* Kennedy v. Bremerton School Dist. (2022)

Hatch Act and
similar laws|

* Ex parte Curtis (1882)
* United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947)
* U.S. Civil Service Comm'n v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers (1973)
* Broadrick v. Oklahoma (1973)

Licensing and
restriction of speech|

* Mutual Film Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n of Ohio (1915)
* Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)
* Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
* Kunz v. New York (1951)
* Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
* Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (1957)
* NAACP v. Button (1963)
* Freedman v. Maryland (1965)
* Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
* Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement (1992)

Commercial speech|

* Valentine v. Chrestensen (1942)
* Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. (1970)
* Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm'n on Human Relations (1973)
* Lehman v. Shaker Heights (1974)
* Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar (1975)
* Bigelow v. Virginia (1975)
* Virginia State Pharmacy Bd. v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976)
* Linmark Assoc., Inc. v. Township of Willingboro (1977)
* Carey v. Population Services International (1977)
* Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
* In re Primus (1978)
* Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Assn. (1978)
* Friedman v. Rogers (1979)
* Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980)
* Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980)
* Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego (1981)
* Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. (1982)
* Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio (1985)
* Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n of California (1986)
* Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico (1986)
* San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee (1987)
* City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc. (1993)
* Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corp. (1995)
* Florida Bar v. Went For It, Inc. (1995)
* 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island (1996)
* Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly (2001)
* Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass'n (2005)
* Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. (2011)
* Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (2017)
* Matal v. Tam (2017)
* Iancu v. Brunetti (2019)
* Barr v. American Association of Political Consultants (2020)
* Vidal v. Elster (2024)

Campaign finance
and political speech|

* Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
* First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)
* Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley (1981)
* FEC v. National Conservative PAC (1985)
* FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986)
* Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990)
* Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (1996)
* Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC (2000)
* Republican Party of Minnesota v. White (2002)
* McConnell v. FEC (2003)
* Randall v. Sorrell (2006)
* FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. (2007)
* Davis v. FEC (2008)
* Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
* Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011)
* Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011)
* American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock (2012)
* McCutcheon v. FEC (2014)
* Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (2015)
* Thompson v. Hebdon (2019)
* FEC v. Ted Cruz for Senate (2022)

Anonymous speech|

* NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
* Bates v. City of Little Rock (1960)
* Talley v. California (1960)
* Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
* Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee (1982)
* McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (1995)
* Doe v. Reed (2010)
* Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021)

State action|

* Marsh v. Alabama (1946)
* Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner (1972)
* Manhattan Community Access Corp. v. Halleck (2019)
* Lindke v. Freed (2024)
* Murthy v. Missouri (2024)

Official retaliation|

* Hartman v. Moore (2006)
* Wood v. Moss (2014)
* Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach (2018)
* Nieves v. Bartlett (2019)
* Egbert v. Boule (2022)
* Gonzalez v. Trevino (2024)
* National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo (2024)

Boycotts|

* NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)

Prisons|

* Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union (1977)
* Turner v. Safley (1987)
* Shaw v. Murphy (2001)
* Beard v. Banks (2006)

*[v]: View this template
*[t]: Discuss this template
*[e]: Edit this template