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
first amendment
Siding With NYT, US Judge Blocks 'Outrageous' Pentagon Press Policy
"It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash," said one press freedom advocate.
Mar 20, 2026
A federal judge in Washington, DC blocked the US Department of Defense's widely decried press policy on Friday, which The New York Times and reporter Julian Barnes had argued violates their rights under the First and Fifth amendments to the Constitution.
The Times filed its lawsuit in December, shortly after the first briefing for the "Pentagon Propaganda Corps," which critics called those who signed the DOD's pledge not to report on any information unless it is explicitly authorized by the Trump administration. Journalists who refused the agreement turned over their press credentials and carried out boxes of their belongings.
"A primary purpose of the First Amendment is to enable the press to publish what it will and the public to read what it chooses, free of any official proscription," Judge Paul Friedman, who was appointed to the US District Court for DC by former President Bill Clinton, wrote in a 40-page opinion.
"Those who drafted the First Amendment believed that the nation's security requires a free press and an informed people and that such security is endangered by governmental suppression of political speech," he continued. "That principle has preserved the nation’s security for almost 250 years. It must not be abandoned now."
Friedman recognized that "national security must be protected, the security of our troops must be protected, and war plans must be protected," but also stressed that "especially in light of the country's recent incursion into Venezuela and its ongoing war with Iran, it is more important than ever that the public have access to information from a variety of perspectives about what its government is doing—so that the public can support government policies, if it wants to support them; protest, if it wants to protest; and decide based on full, complete, and open information who they are going to vote for in the next election."
The newspaper said that Friday's ruling "enforces the constitutionally protected rights for the free press in this country. Americans deserve visibility into how their government is being run, and the actions the military is taking in their name and with their tax dollars. Today's ruling reaffirms the right of the Times and other independent media to continue to ask questions on the public's behalf."
The Times had hired a prominent First Amendment lawyer, Theodore Boutrous Jr. of Gibson Dunn, who celebrated the decision as "a powerful rejection of the Pentagon's effort to impede freedom of the press and the reporting of vital information to the American people during a time of war."
"As the court recognized, those provisions violate not only the First Amendment and the due process clause, but also the founding principle that the nation's security depends upon a free press," Boutrous said. "The district court's opinion is not just a win for the Times, Mr. Barnes, and other journalists, but most importantly, for the American people who benefit from their coverage of the Pentagon."
Seth Stern, chief of advocacy at Freedom of the Press Foundation, also welcomed the ruling, saying that "the judge was right to see the Pentagon's outrageous censorship for what it is, but this wasn't exactly a close call. If the same issue was presented as a hypothetical question on a first-year law school exam, the professor would be criticized for making the test too easy."
"It's shocking that this sweeping prior restraint was the official policy of our federal government and that Department of Justice lawyers had the nerve to argue that journalists asking questions of the government is criminal," Stern declared. "Fifty years ago, the Supreme Court called prior restraints on the press 'the most serious and the least tolerable' of First Amendment violations. At the time, the court was talking about relatively targeted orders restraining specific reporting because of a specific alleged threat—like in the Pentagon Papers case, where the government falsely claimed that the documents about the Vietnam War leaked by Daniel Ellsberg threatened national security."
"Courts back then could never have anticipated the government broadly restraining all reporting that it doesn't authorize without any justification beyond hypothetical speculation," he added. "It's unfortunate that it took this long for the Pentagon's ridiculous policy to be thrown in the trash. Especially now that we are spending money and blood on yet another war based on constantly shifting pretexts, journalists should double down on their commitment to finding out what the Pentagon does not want the public to know rather than parroting 'authorized' narratives."
The Trump administration has not yet said whether it will appeal the decision in the case, which was brought against the DOD—which President Donald Trump calls the Department of War—as well as Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and the Pentagon’s chief spokesperson, Sean Parnell.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Enormous Relief' as Palestinian Leqaa Kordia Freed From ICE After a Year, But Fight Continues
"We will continue this fight in both immigration and federal courts for as long as it takes, not only for Leqaa but for the freedom of all people facing unjust retaliation for speaking out against genocide," said one lawyer.
Mar 16, 2026
Leqaa Kordia, along with her family and legal team, celebrated on Monday when the 33-year-old Palestinian was released from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement after over a year in detention—but they also pointed to the battles ahead as President Donald Trump's administration continues to crack down on immigrants and critics.
"We are elated and relieved that Leqaa can finally return home to her family in New Jersey after a long year in ICE detention," said Sarah Sherman-Stokes, supervising attorney with the Boston University School of Law Immigrants Rights Clinic, in a statement.
"This is an important step in restoring Leqaa's rights as she continues to be unlawfully targeted by the government for her advocacy for Palestinian rights," Sherman-Stokes said. "We will continue this fight in both immigration and federal courts for as long as it takes, not only for Leqaa but for the freedom of all people facing unjust retaliation for speaking out against genocide."
Kordia is one of several immigrant advocates of Palestinian rights targeted by the Trump administration. The New Jersey resident was arrested during an ICE check-in last March and swiftly transferred to Prairieland Detention Center in Texas.
An immigration judge ordered Kordia's release a third time last Friday, on the one-year mark of her detention, as various advocacy groups including Amnesty International USA and Defending Rights & Dissent renewed calls for her freedom.
"We are overwhelmed with relief and gratitude at the release of our beloved Leqaa Kordia," her cousin Hamzah Abushaban said Monday. "This past year has taken an unimaginable toll on Leqaa and our entire family. We are grateful to our community that stood beside us every step of the way, and for the countless prayers offered during this past Ramadan—those moments of sincerity and hope carried us through some of our darkest days."
"While today marks a powerful and emotional milestone, we recognize that this is only the beginning," Abushaban continued. "Leqaa's voice, her resilience, and her story will continue to echo as we push for justice in a system that too often relies on unjust tactics, separating families, and inflicting lasting harm, as they have done to ours for over a year. We remain committed to advocating for every person who has been unjustly detained. No family should have to endure what ours has experienced. Today, we celebrate Leqaa's return home. Tomorrow, we continue the fight for justice."
Amal Thabateh, staff attorney with Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (CLEAR), one of the organizations representing Kordia, stressed that "Leqaa should not have spent a single moment in ICE detention, let alone an entire year."
"Leqaa, like others, was punished for speaking out in defense of Palestinians, including her own family," Thabateh said. "While it took too many months and too many bond hearings for Leqaa to be released, a just result is finally here. We will continue to defend Leqaa's and others' rights to speak out for Palestinian liberation."
According to her Kordia's legal team, she lost nearly 200 relatives in the US-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip, which has continued to kill Palestinians in the territory despite an October ceasefire deal.
"It is an enormous relief that Leqaa is finally liberated from surviving one year of retaliatory and arbitrary immigration confinement for daring to speak her truth and protest against the genocide in Gaza," said Sadaf Hasan, staff attorney at Muslim Advocates. "It's outrageous that it took the government this long to comply with an immigration judge's repeated orders to release her."
While Kordia can now return to her family, the Trump administration may continue to target her. The Associated Press reported Monday that "an attorney for the Department of Homeland Security, Anastasia Norcross, said the government opposed the release of Kordia, regardless of the bond. She did not say at the time whether it would appeal for a third time."
Hasan said that Kordia walking free, at least for now, "is a long-overdue reminder that the government can't silence the movement for Palestinian liberation," but also is "about calling for an end to an immigration system that profits daily by subjecting tens of thousands of people to the abuses and indignities that Leqaa suffered."
As Trump has aimed to round up immigrants across various US cities, often by sending in hordes of masked federal agents, the number of people in ICE detention has climbed to nearly 70,000, as of last month. Despite the administration's claims that it is working to deport "the worst of the worst," data have repeatedly shown that most detainees lack criminal convictions.
Agents roaming streets in cities including Chicago and Minneapolis have also openly violated the rights of protesters and legal observers, even fatally shooting US citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti in the latter city earlier this year.
Travis Fife, staff attorney with the Texas Civil Rights Project, said Monday that "Leqaa going home today is the bare minimum. We must continue to assert the fundamental First Amendment principle that the government cannot abuse power to punish people for using their voice."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Serious Threat to the First Amendment' as Trump Admin Wins First Antifa Terror Charge
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
Mar 15, 2026
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular