America First Legal Prevails in Lawsuit to Protect the South Carolina Freedom Caucus’ Right to Free Speech

Today, America First Legal (AFL) and co-counsel Christopher Mills won our lawsuit to stop establishment politicians from silencing the South Carolina Freedom Caucus. In a forty-page opinion, United States District Court Judge Cameron Currie permanently blocked the enforcement of state statutes that sought to limit the expressive and associational activities of the Freedom Caucus and other “legislative special interest caucuses,” finding them to be “a ban on speech.” The court held that these laws, written to favor the House Democratic Caucus, House Republican Caucus, the Black Caucus, and the Women’s Caucus, violated the Freedom Caucus’s First Amendment and Equal Protection rights.

"The order allows the South Carolina Freedom Caucus to fundraise and distribute election materials just like the House Republican, Democratic, Black and Women's Caucuses already do. The fledgling conservative faction had argued that a state ethics law limiting those abilities only to caucuses organized by political party, race, ethnicity or gender violated its freedom of speech."

Source: Greenville News. (I'd give the story's link, but it includes a tracking key, and won't work without it)

From the Court’s Order:

“By prohibiting special interest caucuses from engaging in election-related speech, making
expenditures for that speech, and soliciting contributions for that speech, South Carolina’s law
operates as “a ban on speech.” See Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 339
(2010). “The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application to speech uttered during
a campaign for political office,” and “political speech must prevail against laws that would
suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence.””

and

“As noted by Plaintiff, “the House Republican Caucus may speak, while the Freedom
Caucus may not. The House Democratic Caucus may speak, but not the Progressive Caucus. The
Black Caucus and the Women’s Caucus may speak, but not the Family, Pride, or Jewish
Caucuses.” ECF No. 17-1 at 3. The fact that the State allows legislative caucuses to speak, solicit,
and spend money in ways that special interest caucuses may not proves that banning the special
interest caucuses’ speech is not the least restrictive means of furthering any interest.”

and

“The court finds Plaintiff meets the factors for granting a permanent injunction. Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable injury by having its speech restricted by law in the absence of a permanent
injunction. It is well established that the loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal
periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury. Legend Night Club v. Miller, 637
F.3d 291, 302 (4th Cir. 2011).”

Further:

In addition, remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to
compensate for the loss of a First Amendment freedom. Id. Third, considering the balance of
hardships between Plaintiff and Defendants, a remedy in equity is warranted. Defendants are “in
no way harmed” by an injunction that prevents enforcement of an unconstitutional statute that bans
protected speech. Newsom v. Albemarle Cnty. Sch. Bd., 354 F.3d 249, 261 (4th Cir. 2003).
Plaintiff, however, would suffer a hardship if its First Amendment rights continue to be inhibited.

That’s the ruling in a nutshell.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.