Professor Harle joined U.S. Magistrate Judge Laura Lothman Lambert of the Middle District of Florida, Professor Lyrissa Lidsky of the University of Florida Levin College of Law, and Chelsea Kelly of Davis Wright Tremaine for a wide-ranging discussion moderated by David Karp of Carlton Fields.

In front of a large audience, the panel explored broader trends emerging at the Supreme Court, including the expansion of oral arguments and the influence that concurring and dissenting opinions can have in shaping future cases and signaling the views of individual justices.

Among the cases discussed was Chiles v. Salazar, a challenge to Colorado’s speech ban on licensed mental health counselors, as well as First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Davenport, in which the Court unanimously sided with a New Jersey pregnancy care center that raised First Amendment objections to the state attorney general’s investigative demands. The panelists also examined the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s challenge to federal limits on coordinated party expenditures and the implications such a decision could have for campaign finance law.

The discussion extended beyond the Court’s merits docket to recent developments on the emergency, or “shadow,” docket. Panelists considered the Court’s interim actions in Mirabelli v. Bonta, affirming teachers’ ability to tell parents when their children are identifying with a different gender at school, and the significance of separate opinions accompanying such orders. They also addressed pending petitions for certiorari in Dershowitz v. CNN and E.D. v. Noblesville, cases presenting questions concerning defamation law and student speech rights.

One recurring theme throughout the program was that some of the most consequential First Amendment doctrines are currently evolving and facing pressure that the high court may soon need to resolve in merits decisions. Emergency applications, denials of review, and separate writings by individual justices often provide important clues about the Court’s direction and the constitutional questions likely to command its attention in the years ahead.

The annual seminar, presented by the Florida Bar’s Media & Communications Law Committee, brings together judges, scholars, and attorneys to examine the cases and trends shaping the future of the First Amendment — with each participant explaining the issues from their different professional perspectives. Harle was honored to participate in the conversation and to share insights drawn from her work with the FSU Law First Amendment Clinic.

This event was approved for CLE credit because it encouraged attorneys to engage critically with current First Amendment issues. The First Amendment Clinic’s mission is to inform future attorneys and the public about the importance of the First Amendment, this event supported this mission by engaging Florida’s attorneys in live First Amendment issues.

The letter was signed by 10 local media organizations, as well as the national Society of Professional Journalists:

· Baldwin Park Living Magazine

· OrangeObserver.com

· Oviedo Community News

· The Apopka Chief

· The Local Winter Garden

· The Orlando Sentinel

· The Shepherd Radio

· The Southwest Orange Observer

· The West Orange Times and Observer

· VoxPopuli

In the letter, the organizations say the Media Policy “suppresses press freedoms, restricts speech, limits the flow of information to the community, and chills First Amendment-protected speech.” They further warn that the Policy’s restrictions “hinder our ability to gather and report news and may also impede the school system’s ability to share information with the public.”

The Orange County Public Schools Media Policy’s opening clause begins: “Recognizing the rights and benefits of a free press . . . .” Yet the Policy imposes significant restrictions on communications between local media organizations and school employees. The Policy requires all OCPS employees to ask permission before speaking with members of the media about anything at any time. How can a free press offer benefits when no one is allowed to speak to journalists? These requirements suppress press freedoms, restrict speech, limit the flow of information to the community, and chill First Amendment-protected speech.

Even Routine Information Is Off Limits

These effects are not theoretical. School officials have acknowledged that the Media Policy would prevent a teacher from sharing something as routine as the date and time of a middle-school band concert with a reporter—even though the same information was freely shared by students with parents, friends, and neighbors.

A free press depends on the free flow of information. And the First Amendment requires it. Open exchange of information between schools and media organizations helps ensure that communities receive timely and accurate information about matters of public concern.

The letter requests a revised media policy. The signatories stressed that they value their relationship with OCPS and remain committed to covering the many positive stories happening throughout the district. They believe a revised policy would strengthen, rather than hinder, communication between OCPS and the community it serves, and they enlisted the Clinic to draft this letter to preserve and strengthen the fruitful relationship.

A Better Policy Is Possible

An acceptable media policy would:

(1) request (rather than mandate) that OCPS employees loop in the Public Information Officer on comments to the media— without requiring prior approval to speak;

(2) acknowledge employees’ First Amendment rights, including the right to speak as private citizens on matters of public concern;

(3) make clear that employees won’t be disciplined for speaking to the media; and

(4) include training to equip employees to interact effectively with the press.

These revisions are supported by U.S. Supreme Court and federal appellate precedent on First Amendment freedoms. And if Orange County Public Schools leadership does not agree to a more collaborative media policy, litigation may follow.

See our clients’ press releases here and here noting the significance of 11 media organizations joining together to seek changes to the Policy and request a meeting with Orange County Public Schools leadership.

The Clinic’s Involvement

The First Amendment Clinic at Florida State University College of Law is pleased to represent Society of Professional Journalists and The Apopka Chief pro bono. This letter was prepared by FSU law students Roy Thorson (rising 3L) and Zachary Rebert (rising 3L) under the supervision of Clinic Director Denise Harle and Supervising Staff Attorney Sheena Kelly.

What’s Next?

OCPS Superintendent responded to the letter immediately—the same day it was sent! In her response, she offered to meet with the media organizations, discuss their concerns, and explore potential revisions to the Media Policy.

The Issue Extends Beyond Orange County

Orange County Public Schools District is not the only government entity in Florida facing recent scrutiny over restrictions on employees’ communications with the press. Last week, the First Amendment Clinic filed a federal lawsuit challenging the City of Miami’s similar media policy. Read more about that case here.

Read the Clinic’s full letter to Orange County Public Schools below.

Mainstreet Open Letter

55.2KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In just one semester, the Clinic exceeded every expectation.

The Numbers

In its inaugural semester, the First Amendment Clinic:

· Represented 13 clients

· Prepared 14 legal documents

· Filed 5 briefs, including 3 in the Supreme Court of the United States

· Drafted 4 demand letters and 4 legal memoranda

· Represented clients in disputes arising out of 7 states: Florida, California, Illinois, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, and Washington

· Represented clients in 5 Florida cities: Apopka, Miami, Orlando, Saint Petersburg, and West Palm Beach.

· Collaborated as co-counsel with Shutts & Bowen, Lawson Huck Gonzalez, and Duke Law School’s First Amendment Clinic.

Defending Constitutional Rights Across the Country

The Clinic’s first semester spanned several key areas of First Amendment law.

Students prepared legal filings addressing religious liberty, compelled speech, bans on speech, student associational rights, and freedom of the press. Three of those briefs were filed in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The Clinic also represented clients in matters involving public schools, private universities, local governments, healthcare employers, small businesses, online academic publishers, and journalists.

Compelled Speech. The Clinic prepared an amicus brief in Foothills Christian Ministries v. Johnson, a case challenging a California law that required religious preschools to communicate messages about religious instruction with which they disagreed. The brief addressed the First Amendment’s protection against compelled speech and the constitutional limits on government-mandated messaging.

The Clinic’s work earned praise from clients and national organizations. “NIFLA is honored that the FSU First Amendment Clinic has undertaken the task of preparing its amicus brief in the Foothills case.” Following the Clinic’s first Supreme Court filing, the client wrote: “The amicus brief correctly observes that parents do not need the assistance of the state legislature to understand that a child in a Christian school will receive instruction from a Christian worldview. The State of California’s unconstitutional position that compelled speech is required to impose its own worldview on parents and parochial schools is exposed in this case and the excellent arguments presented by the FSU First Amendment Clinic.”

Campus Speech. The Clinic represented law students challenging a private law school’s decision infringing student expression and associational rights. The matter raised concerns about viewpoint discrimination and unequal treatment of student organizations based on their beliefs. After the Clinic’s advocacy secured a swift victory and complete relief for the student organization, the client described the Clinic’s work as “amazing.” Barry law student and TPUSA chapter organizer Christina Malsky continued: “The timeline of the Clinic was expedited and results were nearly immediate. Additionally, the demand letter was very thorough and well-written, it was clear that all the information provided was translated.”

Religious Accommodations in the Workplace. The Clinic prepared an amicus brief in Marin v. Nemours Children’s Hospital, a case involving a hospital employee who was terminated after seeking a religious exemption from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The brief addressed the importance of protecting religious liberty in the workplace and ensuring meaningful accommodations for employees of faith.

The Clinic also prepared an amicus brief in Petersen v. Snohomish Regional Fire & Rescue, a case involving firefighters who sought religious exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The brief examined the dangers of judicial factfinding at summary judgment and the importance of protecting employees’ religious exercise.

Religious Liberty and Religious Minorities. The Clinic prepared an amicus brief in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper, a case involving religious expression in a public-school classroom. The brief explored the broader First Amendment implications of the dispute for religious minorities. According to client Ismail Royer, Director of RFI’s Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, the Clinic’s submission was “one of the most innovative and profound briefs we have ever been a part of.” He praised the students’ ability to combine legal expertise with diverse perspectives to produce what he described as “a paradigmatic amicus brief.”

Student Speech and the Marketplace of Ideas. The Clinic prepared an amicus brief in E.D. v. Noblesville School District, a case involving a high-school student who was denied permission to start a student club because school officials considered its message too political. The brief emphasized the importance of protecting viewpoint diversity and teaching students the value of open debate in a democratic society.

Free Press. The Clinic represents a local news outlet in a challenge to the City of Miami’s Media Policy. The policy prohibits City employees from speaking with journalists without prior permission from the City Manager and requires reporters to route all inquiries through the City’s Office of Communications, limiting timely access to information on matters of public concern. After the City declined to revise the policy upon receiving the Clinic’s demand letter, the Clinic filed a federal lawsuit seeking to protect the free speech of City employees and free press rights of journalists.

The Clinic also represents multiple media organizations in challenging Orange County Public Schools’ Media Policy. That policy requires employees to seek approval before responding to media inquiries and restricts communication between school employees and reporters. The Clinic prepared an open letter on behalf of numerous media organizations, urging the school district to revise its policy and safeguard the free flow of information between public officials and the press.

Religious Liberty for Small Business Owners. The Clinic represented a family-owned business that was told it could not maintain its place at a government-controlled farmers market unless it operated on Sundays. The owners objected because working on Sundays conflicts with their religious beliefs. Thanks to the Clinic’s advocacy and negotiations, the family was able to return to the market while remaining faithful to their religious convictions. Client Cherai Gomez commended the Clinic student-attorneys, telling them they will be “fantastic lawyers for many people who need you.” Her husband, Clinic client Ruben Gomez—an interpreter with more than 30 years of experience working alongside attorneys—praised the students’ work and told them they will bring “value, talent, heart, and skill” to the legal profession.

Beyond Litigation

The Clinic’s impact extended far beyond the courtroom. Working closely with FSU’s Institute for Governance and Civics, the Clinic hosted debates, educational programs, and public events focused on constitutional law and civic engagement.

Students learned directly from nationally recognized leaders, including:

• Nadine Strossen, former President of the ACLU

• Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Carlos Muñiz

• U.S. Supreme Court advocate Ben Flowers

• Leaders from FIRE, First Liberty Institute, and Alliance Defending Freedom

• Sarah Isgur and David French, hosts of the Advisory Opinions podcast

See What the Students Say

Clinic student-attorneys provided testimonials about their experience participating in the First Amendment Clinic:

Abigail Morgan: “If you are interested in protecting fundamental freedoms and advocating for real people, there is no better way to spend a semester than taking this clinic.

Julia Willis: “The most valuable part of my Clinic experience was working with my teammate on two amicus briefs filed in the United States Supreme Court. I learned the most from revising my writing and implementing red lines from Sheena Kelly and Professor Harle, since every step in the revision process further refined my writing and challenged me to communicate effectively and clearly. The Clinic overall has changed and strengthened my perspective on the First Amendment, and specifically, free speech.”

Leila Basili: “If a future student asked me about this clinic, I would tell them that it very well may be the most rewarding experience they will get on FSU Law’s campus. I fully believe they will leave not only with stronger legal skills, but with a better understanding of the world around them and the kind of lawyer they want to be.”

Nicholas Fernandez: “I would say it’s by far the best clinical experience FSU Law offers, from the casework to the dedicated staff and (at least for my group) the sense of community.”

Roy Thorson: “I loved coming to class every day and debating topics that felt relevant and timely. My favorite parts of class were when we got into genuine discussions about ambiguous and difficult standards. [The Clinic] has taught me how to write in a persuasive, succinct, and punchy way. While I still may have room to grow in these areas…I feel as though my persuasive writing has drastically improved this semester.”

Zachary Rebert: “Working on the front lines of constitutional advocacy has been a highlight of my legal education so far. I’ve significantly sharpened my legal writing and research skills while deepening my understanding of what is, in my opinion, our Constitution’s most important provision.”

This is Just the Beginning

The Clinic officially launched in January 2026.

It has already represented clients across the country, filed briefs in the nation’s highest court, partnered with leading organizations, and provided students with hands-on experience defending the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Yet the City of Miami’s media policy (“Gag Order”) prevents reporters from obtaining timely information from City employees. In fact, it bans City employees from speaking directly with members of the press about any topic, at any time, without prior permission from the City Manager.

FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic filed a complaint on behalf of Miami News Trust, Inc., publisher of the Coconut Grove Spotlight (“Spotlight”), challenging the constitutionality of the City of Miami’s Gag Order. The Spotlight is a local independent publication that primarily covers the Coconut Grove area of Miami and seeks to inform the public, increase government accountability, and strengthen local democracy.

Under the Gag Order, City employees are prohibited from speaking directly with news media. Instead, all employees must reroute all media requests to the Office of Communications and obtain approval to speak from the City Manager. As a result, the policy makes it practically impossible for reporters to obtain timely information about matters of public concern. The City claims its purpose is to facilitate response to media requests “effectively, accurately, and quickly.” But the Gag Order produces the opposite result: City employees refrain from speaking with reporters because of fear of disciplinary action for violating the Gag Order—and every media inquiry trudges through layers of preclearance and censorship before it’s responded to.

That’s not compatible with the speed at which journalists report news to citizens. And it’s certainly not consistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to receive information. Perhaps most importantly of all, City of Miami employees do not lose all their speech rights by virtue of their employment.

FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic first challenged the City of Miami’s Gag Order via a demand letter it sent on behalf of Miami News Trust in April 2026. The City has remained uncooperative. Represented by the Clinic, Miami News Trust has now filed suit against the City, on grounds that the Gag Order violates the First Amendment.

The complaint was prepared by FSU law student Roy Thorson (rising 3L) under the supervision of Clinic Director and Professor Denise M. Harle and Supervising Staff Attorney Sheena M. Kelly, with assistance from Haven Branca (rising 3L).

The filed complaint can be read below.

Complaint

409KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

When these eight firefighters chose to fight for their beliefs in court, invoking Title VII’s protections against religious discrimination in the workplace, the lower courts ruled for the employer. Those decisions effectively allow employers to create a “take-it-or-leave-it” approach to religious accommodations—one that allows employers to deny religious accommodations based upon trivial burdens. That is, unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

The Clinic’s Client

The First Amendment Clinic filed an amicus brief in support of Petitioners, on behalf of Americans for Fair Treatment (“AFFT”). AFFT is a national nonprofit organization focused on protecting the constitutional rights of public-sector employees. Its mission is grounded in the principle that public-sector employees should not have to choose between their employment and their First Amendment rights.

AFFT has a strong interest in this case because the First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise religious beliefs. The Clinic proudly represents AFFT’s concern about overly broad interpretations of “hardship” allow employers to sidestep legal protections for fundamental rights.

The Clinic’s Legal and Policy Arguments

Though the core issue in the case is a fundamental one (religious liberty), the dispute involves complex areas of statutory and procedural disagreement. First, the parties contest how to apply the summary-judgment standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56: when do religious employees deprived of an accommodation get to present their case to a jury of their peers? And second, the parties disagree about how much of a burden falls on an employer not wanting to accommodate an employee’s religious request.

The Clinic’s brief weaves together caselaw precedent to argue the dangers of judicial factfinding—and to make the case that the federal district court (and the 9th Circuit on appeal) substituted its judgment for that of a reasonable jury. The brief also explains, using research and scholarship, how misapplication of legal rules to suppress or exclude religion inflicts moral harm on individuals, the workplace, and society. Our nation’s deeply rooted traditions and laws ensure that Americans do not abandon their religious beliefs at the office door. And our legal rules should not be contorted to undermine those guarantees.

Why This Matters

Religion gives individuals a moral framework that shapes how they make decisions, interact with others, and navigate conflict. Research suggests that accommodating religious exercise can improve employee well-being and workplace functioning. When employers exclude religious exercise, it erodes the workplace culture and harms those who work there.

The Supreme Court should grant the petition and reverse the Ninth Circuit’s decision.

Clinic Director Denise Harle and Supervising Staff Attorney Sheena Kelly prepared the brief with FSU Law students Julia Willis (3L), Morgan Hughes (2L), and Haven Branca (2L). This filing marks the Clinic’s third amicus brief filed before the Supreme Court of the United States since January 2026.

Click the link below to read the Clinic’s brief.

AFFT Amicus Brief 25-1210

341KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic Director Denise Harle attended the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI’s) University Faculty Workshop on the Conservative Intellectual Tradition from May 18 to May 22 at AEI’s headquarters in Washington D.C.

AEI selected only 25 professors nationally to participate in the workshop.

Professor Harle joined discussion sessions with Yuval Levin, Adam White, Eitan Harsh, and Matt Continetti, alongside faculty from disciplines including sociology, history, philosophy, political science, education, and economics.

Over five days, participants studied and debated the influence and current status of conservative theory and thought in academia. Throughout the sessions, they analyzed the complexities of conservatism, including how various ideological strands relate to libertarian and progressive philosophies, as well as how these have evolved over time and intersected with culture, society, politics, and higher education.

The workshop placed a special emphasis on the importance of constitutional theories and the role of law in shaping American institutions. These discussions led to a new understanding among the participants about the conservative tradition in America and the best ways to integrate that knowledge among a variety of perspectives included in their research, teaching, and course design.

FSU’s First Amendment Clinic strives for excellence in constitutional advocacy and legal education. And Professor Harle’s participation in AEI’s Conservative Intellectual Tradition workshop ensures students are getting access to the latest ideas in constitutional interpretation. Professor Harle looks forward to incorporating what she learned into her courses at both FSU Law and FSU’s undergraduate program.

Earlier this year, the Clinic submitted an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the National Institute of Family Life Advocates (NIFLA) in support of the petitioners in Foothills. The Clinic filed the amicus brief on behalf of NIFLA because the California law requires faith-based preschools to post state-mandated messages promoting access to spiritual advisors of different faiths. Notably, Harle previously represented NIFLA while serving as counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom and secured the landmark Supreme Court victory in NIFLA v. Becerra (2018)—where the Court reaffirmed that the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing private speakers to convey state-scripted messages in violation of their conscience.

Read the brief here

Why The Case Warrants Scholarly Commentary

In Foothills, the lower courts upheld a California law which requires licensed childcare centers to inform parents and guardians that their child is “free to attend religious services or activities of his/her choice” and is guaranteed “visits from the spiritual advisor of his/her choice”—even at religious preschools. And if a preschool fails to comply with the regulation, it loses its operating license.

As Harle’s SCOTUSblog column highlights, this law raises complex concerns about compelled speech, church autonomy, and burdens on religious liberty—implicating both the Free Speech Clause and the Free Exercise Clause.

Harle also highlights how the case builds on unresolved questions left open after the Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA. As she explains, “NIFLA blurred the line between commercial and private speech,” leaving uncertainty about when speech by nonprofit entities or religious organizations is “commercial.”

That distinction could matter for the Foothills petitioners. As Harle notes, “the religious preschools’ speech is neither proposing a commercial transaction nor advertising – they are categorically required to post signs and distribute written notices about religious services and spiritual advisors regardless of when, what, or whether they are saying anything.”

Today, the Supreme Court is considering whether to take the case and answer the question whether the government can force religious preschools to promote other religions. As Harle explains, “California and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit say yes. But three California churches argue that this burdens both their free exercise of religion and free speech.”

Why The News Coverage Matters

This SCOTUSblog publication signals the Clinic’s growing national recognition and expanding presence in First Amendment advocacy. Students in the Clinic continue to work on high-profile constitutional litigation involving fundamental questions about freedom of speech and religious liberty—and the Clinic remains the only clinic in the nation dedicated to all five First Amendment freedoms.

Click here to read the article

A Positive Resolution

Sometimes constitutional disputes end not in a courtroom, but in collaboration. This spring, the Florida State University College of Law First Amendment Clinic sent a demand letter on behalf of De La Vega Tortillas, a small business owned by a Christian family, the Gomezes, who observe Sabbath rest on Sundays. The Clinic’s letter raised serious religious-liberty concerns about the Charlotte Regional Farmers Market’s policy that they either work on Sundays or lose their booth. After receiving the letter, the Market worked with De La Vega Tortillas to resolve the issue. The Market reinstated the family business to its permanent booth while allowing the Gomez family to continue observing their Sabbath commitments. Today, De La Vega Tortillas is back in business at the Market. They continue to serve customers with their handmade tortillas and chips, while faithfully observing their religious convictions.

A Small Business, Built from Scratch

Cherai and Ruben Gomez are a classic American success story.

An idea emerged after Ruben, who is allergic to many store-bought tortillas, told his wife Cherai how much he wished he could find fresh tortillas made with clean ingredients. Using Ruben’s family recipe, the Gomezes began making their own tortillas. They sold out at nearly every farmers market they attended, and De La Vega Tortillas was born.

Faith Comes First

The Gomezes are devout Christians who observe the Sabbath. For them, that means no work on Sundays.

For years, they operated successfully at the Charlotte Regional Farmers Market, working their booth on Saturdays, while a partner vendor filled their booth on Sundays. Their booth was never empty. The Farmers Market had no issues with the arrangement.

Then The Rules Changed

In 2026, the Farmers Market, which is governed by the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, adopted a new policy:

All vendors must operate both Saturdays and Sundays year-round.

Except…not all vendors.

Produce farmers? They get an exception.

Everyone else? No exception.

Under the new policy, however, the Market initially declined to continue that arrangement for 2026. As a result, De La Vega Tortillas was moved to “The Greenery,” an outdoor, first-come, first-served section of the Market with no guaranteed space.

The relocation created significant hardship for the business. The Greenery sits more than 300 yards from their original location and lacks the climate-controlled environment necessary to protect their products from heat, cold, and humidity.

The Religious-Accommodation Concern

The Farmers Market explained that the updated policy aimed to create consistency among vendors and increase weekend foot traffic. But the policy also included exceptions for certain vendors, namely produce farmers, demonstrating that flexibility was possible in the new system. The Gomezes proposed a narrower accommodation: continuing their longstanding booth-sharing arrangement so the booth would remain staffed on Sundays while allowing the family to observe the Sabbath.

The Constitutional Question

The First Amendment protects the right to freely exercise one’s religion, without government burdens or coercion. The Gomezes believed the policy placed substantial pressure on them to choose between their faith and the stability of their business. The Market’s denial of their original accommodation request raised serious questions about the Gomezes’ rights to religious freedom and equal treatment under the First Amendment.

Because the policy burdened religion, it must be neutral and generally applied to avoid strict scrutiny, under Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990). Although the policy is neutral, it was not generally applied. It permits exemptions by the Market Manager and includes an explicit exception for produce farmers. This demonstrates that uniform enforcement is not essential. And when a system of discretionary exemptions exists, religious accommodations may not be denied without a compelling reason, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 593 U.S. 522 (2021).

Because the policy included discretionary exemptions and explicit exceptions for certain vendors, it called into question why similar accommodations could not be extended for religious reasons.

The Clinic’s demand letter explained that the Gomezes’ proposed booth-sharing arrangement would satisfy the Market’s operational interests while respecting the family’s religious commitments.

Why This Matters

The First Amendment Clinic took this case because the Gomezes’ story reflects an important principle: constitutional protections should remain real and accessible for everyday Americans, including small business owners trying to faithfully live out their beliefs.

This matter also demonstrates how productive dialogue can resolve constitutional concerns without prolonged litigation. After receiving the Clinic’s letter, the Market worked cooperatively toward a solution that respected both its operational goals and the Gomezes’ religious observance.

The Students Behind the Resolution

This case was led by third-year law students, Leila Basili and Molly Adamo, under the supervision of Clinic Director and Professor Denise M. Harle and Supervising Attorney Sheena M. Kelly at FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic.

Their work already left a strong impression on the clients they represented. Cherai Gomez shared that both students will be “fantastic lawyers for many people who need you.”

Ruben Gomez added, “I have served as a Federal, Administrative and Medical Interpreter for over 30 years . . . and worked with many an attorney in and out of the courtroom. I can affirm that both of you will ADD tremendous value, talent, heart and skill to your profession.”

The Clinic represents clients across the country to ensure that constitutional protections remain real and enforceable for everyday Americans.

Back In Business

Following discussions with the Clinic, the Charlotte Regional Farmers Market ultimately worked with De La Vega Tortillas to resolve the accommodation dispute and restore the family business to its permanent booth space. The result allowed the Gomezes to continue honoring their Sunday Sabbath and remain a productive part of the Market community.

Today, De La Vega Tortillas continues to thrive, serving its handmade tortillas and chips to scores of customers. The case reflects what constitutional advocacy can accomplish at its best: practical solutions that protect individual liberties while allowing communities and businesses to move forward together.

Click the link below to read the full demand letter.

DLVT Demand Letter

265KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A recent federal case out of north Florida highlights the fine line between free speech and a federal crime. Prosecutors say Tallahassee resident Diego Villavicencio pled guilty to four federal charges after using his X account to post multiple threats of violence against President Donald J. Trump, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, and U.S. Representative Eric Swalwell.

At the same time, national attention is building around morbid on-air comments from comedian Jimmy Kimmel and a controversial social media post from former FBI Director James Comey—bringing the limits of the First Amendment front and center.

In an interview with Fox 49 News, Professor Denise Harle, Director of the First Amendment Clinic at Florida State University College of Law, made it clear: most speech, even grossly offensive, is protected. But that protection has limits.

“Once speech gets to the edge of imminent threats of violence, that’s when speech can be punished or penalized,” Harle said.

She drew a clear line where speech becomes criminal: “If it is absolutely threatening death to a particular person on a particular date; and we should want our law enforcement to be protecting citizens when there’s a threat that rises to that level,” she explained.

Both the speaker’s intent to threaten and the impact of the words on a reasonable person are key. True threats can’t be remedied by someone later saying they were just kidding. “And so that is the moment that matters... Is when the speech is communicated, does it meet the test for a criminal threat? And if so, it’s going to fall outside of the First Amendment’s protection,” Harle said.

In a digital world where words travel instantly, the Constitution still protects robust debate—but it does not protect true threats.

Click here to read and watch the full interview.

On Monday, April 20, Denise Harle, Director of FSU College of Law’s First Amendment Clinic and Professor of Law, and Michel Stone, former chief of the Public Defender’s Office Capital Division, debated the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Chiles v. Salazar, involving significant First Amendment issues.

This event, hosted by the Pre-Law Club on FSU’s Panama City campus, brought students face-to-face with real-world constitutional questions.

The case Chiles v. Salazar concerned a Colorado ban on conversion talk-therapy for minors. The Supreme Court decided in an 8-1 ruling that Colorado’s ban was unconstitutional because it violated mental health counselors’ First Amendment protections.

Professor Harle and Mr. Stone brought distinct perspectives shaped by their legal careers and differing views on the Free Speech Clause. Professor Harle defended the Supreme Court’s majority decision by arguing the talk-therapy ban was viewpoint-discrimination; Mr. Stone defended Justice Jackson’s dissent, saying talk therapy can be regulated as licensed conduct when administered by mental health counselors.

Interest in the event extended beyond campus, with attorneys, judges, alumni, and other citizens from the Panhandle in attendance. Local news coverage, including Panama City News Herald, reflected the community’s growing interest in conversations about free expression and its role in civic life.

One of the event’s organizers, pre-law student Jennifer Giraldo, put it simply,

“We live in a very heated political climate, and here at FSU we strongly believe the only way out is through… it’s important to break the barriers of communication so students can come together from different experiences… to find solutions for our modern political problems.”

At its core, the event reflects a simple truth: the best way to defend the First Amendment is through education. Whether in Tallahassee, Panama City Beach, or beyond, FSU’s First Amendment Clinic is committed to bringing these conversations to students and communities alike.

Watch the debate here!

The Clinic requested a written response from Barry Law by April 23 to prevent legal action. The results were immediate. The next day after receiving the Clinic’s demand letter, Barry Law administrators reached out to the Clinic’s clients to set a meet with the law students regarding the chapter’s status.

On April 22, just six days after receiving the demand letter and one day before the deadline, Barry Law reversed its denial and approved the TPUSA chapter on campus as an official registered student organization. In an April 23 email to the Clinic, Barry Law Interim Dean Samuel Kan provided the written confirmation that the Clinic had demanded, stating that “Turning Point USA will be added as an official Law School student organization.” Barry Law’s Director of Student Life Bryce Cooke confirmed that “our chapter of TPUSA has been recognized. I am happy to support our chapter’s student members within the scope of our Recognized Student Organization policy.”

How It Started

Barry Law previously rejected the Chapter Organizers’ request to form a TPUSA chapter on campus. Barry Law said TPUSA’s mission conflicted with Barry’s Catholic values.

But Barry never explained how.

TPUSA’s mission is “to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.”

Christina Malsky and other law students at Barry Law understood this denial as viewpoint discrimination—that’s when FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic stepped in.

The Demand Letter

The Clinic sent a formal demand letter, demanding Barry Law:

1. Reverse its denial of the Chapter Organizers’ application to form a TPUSA chapter.

2. Grant full recognition to the TPUSA chapter as a registered student organization.

3. Provide written confirmation of approval.

It also highlighted the four independent legal grounds requiring reversal:

1. The Student Handbook: Barry Law is contractually bound under its own student handbook to “examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately” and to “support causes by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution.”

2. American Bar Association Accreditation: ABA-accredited law schools must uphold First Amendment protections.

3. SACSCOC Accreditation: Member colleges must respect “the right of . . . students to access opportunities for learning and for the open expression and exchange of ideas.”

4. Federal Funding: As a recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, Barry must maintain neutrality toward free speech and expression on campus.

For more information about the Clinic’s involvement with the case, click here.

What Happened Next

The response was immediate.

April 16: Demand letter sent from FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic, requesting written confirmation from Barry Law administration by April 23.

April 17: Barry Law contacted the Chapter Organizers to schedule a meeting.

April 22: Chapter Organizers met with Barry Law’s administration, where administration informed the Chapter Organizers they reversed their position and approved the formation of the TPUSA chapter.

April 23: The Clinic’s deadline for Barry Law to provide written approval. Barry Law provided written confirmation of its decision:

“…Turning Point USA will be added as an official Law School student organization.

We have already met with the students to inform them of this outcome.”

A Win for Students—and the First Amendment

This decision marks a major victory for the Chapter Organizers, Barry Law students, and the Clinic.

Within just six days, the Clinic secured a reversal of the administration’s denial and affirmed that students’ rights to freedom of speech, expression, and association may not be infringed upon.

Christina Malsky, one of the Chapter Organizers, reflected on the experience and the Clinic’s work:

“...the Clinic was amazing!...The timeline of the Clinic was expedited and results were nearly immediate. Additionally, the demand letter was very thorough and well-written, it was clear that all the information provided was translated.”

Why It Matters

The Clinic’s victory comes as a critical time. Across the nation, Americans’ constitutional rights are being challenged. The Clinic remains committed to ensuring that no one is deprived of their fundamental constitutional protections.

Because when the law is clear, results follow.

At Florida State University College of Law, that legacy continues.

The FSU First Amendment Clinic is committed to preserving First Amendment protections for its clients, and teaching its student-attorneys to do the same. That’s why, in light of Kirk’s assassination in 2025, a group of FSU College of Law alumni launched the “Charlie Kirk First Amendment Advocate Scholarship”—a $2,000 award established to recognize one student each semester who demonstrates a strong commitment to First Amendment advocacy. Eligible students can demonstrate this interest by taking First Amendment-focused courses and joining the First Amendment Clinic.

This scholarship’s first winner is third-year law student and First Amendment Clinic member Leila Basili. Ms. Basili has spent her law school experience dedicated to voting-rights education, civic engagement, and defending the First Amendment. She believes free speech is essential to a functioning democracy. In her winning personal statement, she said,

“Protecting robust expression is the only way to maintain a meaningfully functioning democratic system. Without the First Amendment, participation in just about anything becomes less informed and significantly less meaningful. Through it, we ensure engagement is shaped by exposure to competing viewpoints rather than constrained by limited or controlled discourse, an ideal that is incredibly important to me. Building on these principles, my work in the First Amendment Clinic allowed me to translate theory into practice by representing real clients whose rights were directly at stake.”

Ms. Basili’s work reflects a deeper truth: without the First Amendment’s protections, votes become meaningless and the democratic system deteriorates. A democracy cannot function if ideas cannot be freely expressed, challenged, and debated.

The First Amendment Clinic gave Leila, and students like her, a unique opportunity to confront real constitutional issues, represent real clients, and defend the freedoms that sustain public life.

FSU’s First Amendment Clinic is investing in the next generation of First Amendment advocates.

Because protecting free speech is essential to the future of liberty.

To contribute to the Charlie Kirk First Amendment Advocate Scholarship, you can click here and search for the fund by name (Charlie Kirk First Amendment Advocate Fund) or by entering donation code F09871.

Barry Law’s denial of a TPUSA chapter violates the students’ freedom of speech, expression, and association on campus. On behalf of the students, FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic sent a demand letter this week to Barry Law’s Administration calling for immediate reversal of the decision.

The students are asking the university to approve the formation of a TPUSA chapter as a Registered Student Organization (RSO) at Barry Law. TPUSA is a national nonprofit organization whose mission is “to identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote the principles of freedom, free markets, and limited government.” TPUSA supports the formation of student-led chapters on university campuses to advance these principles.

Barry Law attempted to justify its denial by claiming that TPUSA goes against the university’s values, stating that the “mission, national affiliation, and programmatic focus of Turning Point USA are not aligned with Barry University’s Catholic and Adrian Dominican heritage.” Despite multiple follow-ups, the students have not received any concrete explanation beyond that statement.

The students argue this reasoning does not hold up.

Even accepting Barry Law’s rationale, the university does not apply it consistently. Other student organizations at Barry Law—Women’s Law Association and OUTLaw—openly advocate positions that conflict with Catholic doctrine on issues such as abortion and gender identity. Yet those groups remain recognized and active at Barry Law.

This is not neutral enforcement—it is selective.

The demand letter argues that Barry Law must respect its students’ freedom of expression for four (4) independent reasons:

(1) Student Handbook: Barry Law is contractually bound under its own student handbook, which guarantees students and student organizations the right to “examine and to discuss all questions of interest to them, and to express opinions publicly and privately” and to “support causes by orderly means which do not disrupt the regular and essential operation of the institution.”

(2) American Bar Association Accreditation: ABA-accredited law schools must uphold First Amendment protections.

(3) SACSCOC Accreditation: Member colleges must respect “the right of . . . students to access opportunities for learning and for the open expression and exchange of ideas.”

(4) Federal Funding: As a recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Education, Barry must maintain neutrality toward free speech and expression on campus.

Abigail Morgan and Nicholas Fernandez, both third-year law students in FSU’s First Amendment Clinic, are leading the efforts, under the supervision of Director and Clinic Professor Denise M. Harle and Supervising Attorney Sheena M. Kelly.

Fernandez has emphasized that the situation at Barry Law is not an isolated incident:

“Suppressing student expression on college campuses is among the most worrying trends in recent years. As places of education as well as laboratories for new ideas, colleges need to be maintained open for the expression of any student regardless of fears of ‘controversy’ or contrary values. Even private colleges should abide by the protections of the free expression and association guaranteed by the First Amendment; if not by direct constitutional effect then by enforcing the promises that they have made to their students.”

The students have requested a written response from Barry Law within five (5) business days.

Click the link below to read the full demand letter.

Barry Demand Letter Tpusa Chapter Organizers

242KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

On the Spotlight’s behalf, the First Amendment Clinic just sent a demand letter to the City of Miami, calling on City officials to fix the unconstitutional Media Policy that blocks government employees from speaking directly to the press.

“Other members of the press—the Miami Herald, Miami Times, and WLRN (Concerned Partners)—share similar concerns and have an interest in a prompt and amicable pre-suit resolution.”

The City of Miami claims the Media Policy exists to respond to press “inquiries effectively, accurately, and quickly.” But that’s not what’s happening.

Miami’s current Media Policy forces all communication through a central office. In practice, that means delays, silence, and missed stories.

The letter argues that the Media Policy:

• Gags public employees from speaking freely

• Blocks reporters from gathering news

• Delays publication, or kills it altogether

FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic second-year law students Roy Thorston and Zachary Rebert are leading the press’s effort, under the supervision of Director and Clinic Professor Denise M. Harle and Supervising Attorney Sheena M. Kelly.

The Spotlight is demanding that the City of Miami revise the Media Policy to conform with the guarantees of the First Amendment. Taking a collaborative approach, the Spotlight’s representatives are requesting a response within five business days to set a time to meet with Miami’s City Manager and City Attorney to address these concerns.

Click the link below to read the full demand letter.

CGS Demand Letter

309KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

First Amendment education is more important now than ever for young Americans. A new study conducted by the FSU Institute for Governance & Civics reveals a disturbing trend in college-aged Americans’ attitude toward free speech:

“Data shows that 19 percent of the population aged 18-29 believe that using physical violence is sometimes justified to stop a person from engaging in harmful public speech, a statistic that almost doubles the national average for all adults.”

The best way to combat this attitude is educating the public about the First Amendment and its true purpose. FSU takes this duty seriously, that’s why it was ranked third out of 257 universities in 2025 in FIRE’s College Free Speech Rankings. FSU’s First Amendment Clinic is proud to host educational events like this Campus Free Speech Event to support FSU’s mission.

On Wednesday, April 8, 2026, FSU’s First Amendment Clinic and the FSU Institute for Governance & Civics hosted First Amendment experts Greg Lukianoff and Tyson Langhofer at the FSU College of Law, to discuss free speech on campus.

Greg Lukianoff is an attorney, New York Times best-selling author, and the President and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE); he identifies as a liberal atheist. Tyson Langhofer serves as Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF); he identifies as a conservative Christian. Although Lukianoff and Langhofer have different political and religious beliefs, they are both passionate advocates of the First Amendment.

The speakers discussed legal, cultural, and institutional dynamics shaping speech on college campuses today—offering insights into how K-12 schools and universities can accommodate rigorous inquiry while maintaining a respectful learning environment.

The conversation also highlighted a growing and often overlooked issue: while many schools today have adopted strong, speech-protective policies on paper, those policies are often unenforced. In some cases, administrators decline to enforce them at all. In others, enforcement occurs in ways that are not viewpoint neutral—undermining the very principles those policies were designed to protect. As the panel emphasized, the existence of a policy is not enough; consistent and viewpoint-neutral application is what ensures true protection of First Amendment rights.

To illustrate this point, the experts examined a case in which FSU’s First Amendment Clinic recently submitted an amicus brief. The case concerns a high school pro-life club losing its club status because of an inconsistent and viewpoint-discriminatory application of a school policy by administrators. To learn more about this brief, click here.

This discussion benefited FSU undergraduates, FSU law students, and the larger Tallahassee community as a whole; it was open to the public and free to attend.

Student reactions reflected both concern and appreciation for the state of free speech on campus today. As FSU undergraduate student Serena Rauf observed, “I was surprised to learn that free speech on college campuses is worse now than it was 15 years ago.” At the same time, FSU undergraduate student Taylor Callen emphasized the importance of FSU’s environment, noting, “This discussion made me glad I am attending a university such as FSU, where I feel my speech is protected and I do not fear punishment for expressing it.”

Together, these perspectives capture the core takeaway of the event: while challenges to free expression persist nationwide, institutions like FSU play a critical role in modeling what a truly open and protected marketplace of ideas should look like.

You can watch the entire conversation here. Attorneys licensed in Florida are eligible for 1.5 CLE credits.

FSU’s First Amendment Clinic is proud to host First Amendment educational events that benefit the FSU and Tallahassee community. Subscribe to this Substack so you never miss an event and click here to read our other article about this event!

About Dr. Jason Harle

Dr. Jason Harle has taught courses in business and professional development and has advised students as a career coach. Dr. Harle has built his career around one thing: helping people perform at their best.

With a doctorate in Information Systems and Performance Technology, he taught the students how to intentionally build their personal brand.

What’s Your Story? The “Three Words” Test

One of the most impactful parts of the conversation centered on storytelling.

In a competitive field like law, credentials alone do not make you stand out.

What makes you stand out is not just what you’ve accomplished, but how you communicate who you are and what you do.

Dr. Harle challenged students to think about their narrative and decide three words that other people would say to describe you.

If someone else described you in three words, what would they say?

Not what you hope they’d say.

Not what you write in your bio.

But what your actions and presence actually communicate to others.

These three words are your personal brand.

Mentors Matter

Dr. Harle also emphasized the importance of mentorship. He encouraged students to identify people already doing work they aspire to do, learn from them, add value where they can, and build relationships that go beyond surface-level networking.

Because the right mentor doesn’t just give advice—they accelerate growth.

As a LinkedIn guru/strategist, he emphasized the importance of showing up online consistently, authentically, and with purpose.

The Takeaway

For First Amendment Clinic student-attorneys, engaged in real-world advocacy and litigation—and on the precipice of launching their careers—Dr. Harle’s message was clear: Find your lane. Tell your story. And #DoWork.

The article says,

“Florida State University College of Law’s First Amendment Clinic gives students hands-on experience defending constitutional rights across religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. Directed by Denise Harle, a clinical professor and expert in constitutional law, the clinic engages students in real-world litigation and advocacy focused on free expression and government transparency. Under faculty supervision, students represent journalists, media organizations and individuals in matters involving public records, access to government proceedings and First Amendment protections.”

FSU’s First Amendment Clinic is helping shape the only clinic in the nation that advocates for all five First Amendment freedoms while training the next generation of lawyers.

In just a few months, the Clinic has filed four appellate briefs–with a fifth on the way–in high-profile cases. It has also hosted several constitutional law events for its students and the broader FSU Law community.

FSU’s First Amendment Clinic is still in its early stages, but its trajectory is clear. With rapid growth, meaningful casework, and increasing national recognition, the Clinic is quickly establishing itself as a cornerstone of FSU Law. . . . and now, the rest of the country is taking notice.

The First Amendment protects every American’s right to religious liberty—including public employees.

FSU Law’s First Amendment Clinic continues its mission to defend all five first amendment freedoms in its most recent amicus brief, filed in a federal appeals court on behalf of the American Hindu Jewish Congress and the Religious Freedom Institute (RFI), in support of public-school teacher Mrs. Marisol Arroyo-Castro, in the case Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper.

As Ismail Royer, director of RFI’s Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, explained:

“Our brief filed in Arroyo-Castro v. Gasper is one of the most innovative and profound briefs we have ever been a part of. I’m deeply grateful to FSU College of Law’s First Amendment Clinic, to Professor Denise Harle, and to the student team for their exceptional work. They struck a perfect balance between relying on their own considerable expertise and collaborating with us to incorporate broader perspectives. This is what public interest law is about at its core—and together we produced a paradigmatic amicus brief that will help the court understand the broader impact of this case on religious minorities.”

A Personal Expression of Faith

This case centers around a small crucifix placed discreetly beside Ms. Castro’s desk. A devout Catholic, Ms. Castro kept the crucifix for personal prayer between classes, as a reminder of her grandmother, and as an inspiration during stressful moments. It was not part of any lesson. It was not displayed to students as instruction. It was not positioned prominently in the classroom. This passive, personal display reflects the private faith of a private individual who happens to work for the government—not speech by the government itself, as the school district claimed.

When Neutrality Becomes Discrimination

While the school ordered the removal of Ms. Castro’s crucifix, other teachers’ secular personal items–like a Baby Yoda figurine and sports memorabilia–were left alone.

This sort of differential treatment is textbook viewpoint discrimination, reflecting hostility, not neutrality, toward religion. But the First Amendment ensures that public schools may not enforce policies specifically targeting religious practices while allowing comparable secular conduct. Doing so violates teachers’ free exercise rights.

Broader Stakes for Religious Freedom

The consequences of this case extend far beyond a single classroom.

The district court’s order permitting selective enforcement against visible personal religious exercise by teachers will disproportionately burden minority and underrepresented faith traditions, which are too often discriminated against or ignored. Schools could bar religious garb, like the Sikh teacher’s turban, the Muslim teacher’s hijab, the Jewish teacher’s yarmulke, and the Hindu teacher’s tilak—items that are not merely symbolic, but obligatory expressions of religious belief. The same logic would authorize banning personal religious items kept for private use, like prayer beads, rosaries, and even personal copies of the Quran or Torah kept at a teacher’s desk. Precedent from courts across the country forecloses that result and establishes that public employees retain a constitutional right to maintain personal religious symbols in their workspace. Ms. Castro’s crucifix is no different.

As the First Amendment Clinic’s brief makes clear, selectively enforcing the school district’s policy against Ms. Castro’s crucifix, without any showing that comparable secular expression was treated alike, cannot survive strict scrutiny under the Free Exercise Clause.

Click the link below to read our brief.

Ac Amicus Brief

528KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Professor Harle has been selected to serve as National Vice Chair of the Executive Committee for the Professional Responsibility & Legal Education Practice Group. The role places her among a small group of legal scholars and practitioners responsible for shaping national programming, scholarship, and dialogue surrounding the ethics of legal practice and the future of legal training. Click here to read more about the Professional Responsibility and Legal Education Practice Group.

Professor Harle’s appointment as Vice Chair also marks the beginning of a leadership transition. Under the organization’s structure, the Vice Chair typically assumes the Chair role the following year. That means Professor Harle is expected to serve as Chair of the Executive Committee beginning next year, leading the practice group for a three-year term.

Professor Harle was invited to join the Executive Committee as a new member in 2025 and has actively engaged with the group’s educational programs. At the start of this academic year, Professor Harle moderated a national webinar on professional ethics, hosted by the Professional Responsibility and Legal Education Practice Group, that brought together distinguished leaders in legal education and professional responsibility, including Derek Muller, James Burnham, Michael Francisco, and Gene Hamilton. Watch the discussion here.

Why This Matters

This appointment highlights the growing national influence of professors and practitioners who are focused on how law students are trained to practice.

At Florida State University, Professor Harle’s work already reflects that mission through the First Amendment Clinic, where students gain hands-on experience working on real constitutional litigation—including briefs filed before federal appellate courts and the United States Supreme Court.

Clinical education programs like this one are increasingly recognized as critical to bridging the gap between legal theory and practice. National leadership roles like this ensure that those conversations extend far beyond any single law school.

Looking Ahead

As Vice Chair, and soon Chair, Professor Harle will help guide national discussions about legal ethics, professional responsibility, and the evolving role of legal education in preparing lawyers for a complex constitutional landscape.

Greg Lukianoff is an attorney, New York Times best-selling author, and the President and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).

Tyson Langhofer serves as Senior Counsel and Director of the Center for Academic Freedom with Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF).

This event brings together two leading voices in the national conversation on free expression in higher education. In an hour-long discussion moderated by First Amendment Clinic Director, Professor Denise Harle, Greg Lukianoff and Tyson Langhofer will explore the legal, cultural, and institutional dynamics shaping speech on college campuses today, offering insights into how universities can uphold open inquiry while maintaining a respectful learning environment.

FSU’s First Amendment Clinic firmly believes that the First Amendment’s best defense is a free-speech educated and conscious public. Lukianoff and Langhofer’s conversation will expand the audience’s understanding of the purpose and meaning of the First Amendment by exploring the complex state of free speech on America’s college campuses.

If you care about civic discourse, free speech, and the state of American universities, this event is for you. Join us on Wednesday, April 8, at 3:30 in FSU Law Room 101—the event is open to the public and free for all. Florida-barred attorneys are eligible for 1.5 CLE credits.

Register hereto save your seat.