SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
ACLU Statement on Supreme Court’s Decision Related to Whether Public Officials Can Block Social Media Followers
The Supreme Court on Friday clarified when public officials’ social media posts are subject to the First Amendment in response to two challenges, O’Connor-Ratcliff v. Garnier and Lindke v. Freed.
“We’re gratified by the court’s ruling today, which underscores that the First Amendment restricts how the government can shape speech that takes place on social media,” said Evelyn Danforth-Scott, ACLU staff attorney specializing in Supreme Court litigation. “It gives everyday Americans a way to hold officials constitutionally accountable when they censor social media content, restrict access to it, or improperly elevate certain viewpoints over others. At the same time, it protects public officeholders’ own free speech rights by giving them guidance on how to make clear when they are speaking as private individuals.”
Both cases involved local officials who had blocked or censored critical constituents from Facebook and X (formerly Twitter); the constituents then sued, saying denying them access violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled that social media posts and curation efforts by government officials can be attributed to the state, and, therefore, subject to First Amendment scrutiny, only if the speaker has the authority to speak on the state’s behalf and purports to exercise that authority through their relevant social media presence.
The ruling follows friend-of-the court briefs filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Michigan, the ACLU Foundation of Northern California, and the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, which acknowledged that the First Amendment guarantees public officials’ right to free speech in their private capacities, but argued that when public officials appear to represent their government offices online, they are acting in their government capacities and so are subject to the First Amendment’s prohibitions on government censorship.
These cases are part of ACLU’s Joan and Irwin Jacobs Supreme Court Docket.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
‘Outrageous’: GOP Budget Includes $1 Billion in Taxpayer Funds for Trump Ballroom
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," said one critic.
May 05, 2026
Even though President Donald Trump has long insisted that his proposed White House luxury ballroom would be funded by private donations, congressional Republicans unveiled legislation on Monday that would put US taxpayers on the hook for the project.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a proposal for a budget reconciliation package that includes $30 billion more in funds for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $3.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and $2.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
Tucked into the proposal is $1 billion for what is described as an "East Wing modernization project, including above-ground and below-ground security features."
Given that Trump is planning to build his ballroom on the area of the White House's East Wing that he demolished last year, this means that $1 billion in taxpayer money would be going to the president's vanity project.
Democratic officials immediately pounced on news that their Republican counterparts are planning to funnel $1 billion to the ballroom project, noting that the budget plan comes as Americans are struggling with the surging costs of energy and food.
"Zero dollars to lower costs," wrote Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee. "Zero dollars to protect your healthcare. A massive check for an out-of-control ICE, and $1 billion for Trump’s ballroom. This Republican budget bill is a disaster."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) responded to the GOP ballroom plan by declaring, "Oh hell no."
"Spiking prices, SCOTUS attacking democracy, collapsing faith in the US government," Casten added, "and the GOP is prioritizing sending more money to murderous ICE agents and Trump's ballroom vanity project. This is offensive."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) contrasted the GOP finding money to fund the ballroom with its unwillingness to extend enhanced subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
"Add the ballroom to the laundry list of things Trump said someone else would pay for," Ansari wrote. "Ultimately, of course, it’s always the American people footing the bill for his outrageous pet projects. A $1BN price tag while he rips away your healthcare. Sickening."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) welcomed the chance to have his Republican colleagues go on the record in favor of funding the ballroom.
"Just flagging that now everyone gets an up or down vote on the ballroom!" he wrote.
Elected Democrats weren't the only ones to hammer the GOP for the proposal to fund Trump's ballroom.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called the GOP plan a "corrupt absurdity" that would make taxpayers shell out $1 billion for the president's "grandiose, bombastic, vanity project."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," added Gilbert, who decried the plans for increased ICE funding as "abhorrent."
Kristen Crowell, executive director of Families Over Billionaires, denounced the ballroom funding plan as "a glaring symbol of misplaced priorities and grift," while also calling attention to other harmful aspects of the GOP's budget proposal.
"At a time when families are struggling to afford housing, child care, and other basic necessities," Crowell said, "the White House and Republicans in Congress are proposing to pour tens of billions of dollars into an already bloated and unaccountable deportation machine—while also carving out funding for the president’s own luxury projects."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Hegseth Brags About Attacks on Iranian Ships in Strait of Hormuz While Claiming Ceasefire Holds
The president and defense secretary "want you to think we haven’t been at war with Iran for over 65 days," said one Democratic congressional candidate.
May 05, 2026
While assuring reporters that the ceasefire agreement reached last month between the Trump administration and Iran is holding, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Tuesday said the American forces are acting "aggressively" in the Strait of Hormuz, where he said US Central Command has "established a powerful red, white, and blue dome" as a "direct gift from the US to the world."
The metaphorical "dome" the US has placed over the key shipping route for oil and other goods has taken the form of what the Trump administration is calling Project Freedom, which launched Monday and involves the US guiding ships out of the strait, according to President Donald Trump. Iran effectively shut the waterway more than two months ago in retaliation for the unprovoked US-Israeli war on the country, and the US Navy has blocked ships from going to or from Iran in response.
Hegseth emphasized Tuesday that Project Freedom is "separate and distinct" from the military assault on Iran that began on February 28 with the stated aim of eliminating the country's missile and nuclear capabilities.
"The ceasefire is not over," said the secretary. "We expected there would be some churn, which happened, and we said we would defend and defend aggressively, and we absolutely have."
He added that the US is "not looking for a fight."
Independent journalist Rachel Blevins responded sardonically: "'We are not looking for a fight'—we just murdered your leader, your schoolchildren, and your civilians, we bombed your infrastructure, and we've been trying to strangle your economy with sanctions for years."
Adm. Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, told reporters that US warships shot down Iranian cruise missiles that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) had fired at the vessels Navy ships were guiding out of the strait on Monday, and Army helicopter gunships sank six military speedboats from Iran.
As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander told Iran's state-affiliated media that US forces actually attacked "two small boats carrying people on their way from Khasab on the coast of Oman to the coast of Iran on Monday" and killed five civilians, but did not hit any IRGC ships.
At his press conference with Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Hegseth insisted that Iran is the "aggressor" even as he threatened the country with restarting "major combat operations" if Trump deems them "necessary."
Project Freedom, said Hegseth, "is about free flow of commerce, all the things that happened before, and only Iran is contesting, so right now the ceasefire certainly holds, but we're going to be watching very, very closely."
One reporter with the Epoch Times asked whether the president plans to seek congressional approval if he decides it is necessary to restart "major combat operations."
Days before the fighting in the strait, Trump notified Congress last Friday that hostilities with Iran had been terminated. The announcement came on the deadline set by the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires US presidents to end conflicts that have not been authorized by Congress no more than 60 days after notifying lawmakers of the hostilities.
Trump told Congress that the fighting has been effectively terminated since the US and Iran agreed to the ceasefire on April 7, a view that Hegseth pushed on Tuesday in response to the question about congressional authorization.
"Our view is... that ultimately with the ceasefire, the clock stops," said Hegseth. "If it were to restart that would be the president's decision. That option is always there and Iran knows that."
Q: Will this administration be seeking congressional approval for any further military operations if the ceasefire breaks down?
Hegseth: Our view is with the ceasefire, the clock stops. If it were to restart, that would be the president's decision. That option is always there.… pic.twitter.com/cz3bIpLeIC
— Acyn (@Acyn) May 5, 2026
NBC News senior national politics reporter Jonathan Allen responded that he had "never heard" of Hegseth and Trump's reasoning for not planning to seek congressional approval for more combat operations.
"Understand that what he is doing here is desperately trying to avoid the War Powers Act," said Fred Wellman, a Democratic congressional candidate in Missouri. "They made up a new interpretation that says the 60-day clock is 'paused' for a ceasefire. Now they are lying and saying this is an all-new, shiny war and not the same one."
He added, "This clown and [the administration's] Republican congressional doormats want you to think we haven’t been at war with Iran for over 65 days."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Fuel Prices Have Spiked More in ‘Energy Independent’ US Than in Nations That Have Moved Away From Oil and Gas
"The only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables," said one policy expert.
May 05, 2026
Average gas prices in the United States are quickly climbing toward $5 per gallon this week as US President Donald Trump's war with Iran shows little sign of resolution.
Where average prices were about $2.98 the day before the war's launch, they had shot up to $4.48 as of Tuesday, according to AAA's gas price tracker, as Iran's restriction of ships traveling through the Strait of Hormuz has squeezed global oil shipping and the shipping of other fuel sources like liquefied natural gas (LNG), causing global price hikes.
And while Trump has touted America’s supposed “energy independence” as an ace in the hole, achieved by ratcheting up fossil fuel production while canceling solar and wind power projects, data shows that the US has been hit harder by the price shocks than any other major economy in the world, with those that have embraced renewable energy being especially resilient.
Although the US leads the world in oil production by a large margin, data from JP Morgan Commodities research, analyzed Friday by MarketWatch, showed that between February 23 and April 27, the US experienced about a 42% increase in gas prices, the fifth-highest in the world.
"The spike in US gasoline prices over the past two months has outpaced everywhere except Southeast Asia, the region most dependent on oil from the Persian Gulf," explained Yahoo Finance geopolitics reporter Jake Conley.
Rebecca Babin, senior energy trader and managing director at CIBC Private Wealth, explained to MarketWatch last week that while increased fuel production gives the US a "buffer," oil is a global market and "it doesn’t operate in a vacuum." She said, "Global tightness and domestic bottlenecks still show up in gasoline prices."
Meanwhile, some of the countries that have best survived the price hikes include France and Spain, which derive large shares of their power from nuclear energy and renewables, respectively.
Craig Hanson and Jessica Isaacs, a pair of researchers at the World Resources Institute, explained last month that while a mix of factors is at play, countries less reliant on fossil fuels generally "find themselves in a better position to withstand the current crisis."
"Every country has homegrown access to at least two clean energy resources—the sun shines, and the wind blows just about everywhere at some point," they said. "The same cannot be said of oil and gas, where production is concentrated in a small number of countries and exposed to geopolitical disruption."
"Renewable resources like wind, solar, and geothermal have zero fuel costs, and the fuel cost of nuclear power is quite low. Again, the same cannot be said of fossil fuels, which have costs set by volatile global markets," they added. "These two advantages are why some of the world’s clean energy frontrunners are faring better than other countries amidst the Iranian energy crisis."
As Reuters reported in late April, the contrast between Europe's biggest gas guzzlers and green energy adopters is particularly stark.
While Albania has kept energy prices in check and even lowered them compared to last year by using its large system of hydroelectric dams, which supply much of its power, countries like Germany and Italy, which still rely heavily on gas, have seen electricity prices spike.
Hanson and Isaacs noted that while clean energy investments have helped soften the blow of global price shocks, the effects are not the same across the board. While price hikes for the electricity used to power factories, homes, and cars have been blunted by the availability of alternative energy sources, others, like heat—which are more reliant on natural gas—have still been affected.
Still, though, they said the crisis has shown that in addition to environmental sustainability, "clean energy systems’ greatest benefits today might actually be price stability and domestic energy resilience."
While Trump has continued his efforts to choke off any federal investment in renewable energy and double down on oil and gas production, other nations have taken the war’s price hikes as a sign to further accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels.
Germany and several other European Union members, for example, have announced expedited timelines to expand offshore wind and solar investments, explicitly citing the volatility in oil markets caused by the war.
Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow in the American Statecraft Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the energy price shocks showed that "the only real energy independence from the Middle East is renewables."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular