# 2025: The Year In Free Speech Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAR20ymomPM Recap page: https://rapidrecap.app/video/kAR20ymomPM Generated: 2026-01-12T18:35:17.339+00:00 --- ## Quick Overview The 2025 free speech year in review highlights key Supreme Court decisions, specifically the unanimous upholding of the TikTok divestment law based on content-neutral national security grounds, and the likely unconstitutionality of the Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors due to viewpoint discrimination in professional speech, alongside discussions of Trump administration actions impacting law firms and university funding. **Key Points:** - The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the TikTok divestment law, focusing solely on the content-neutral rationale that the law prevents the Chinese government from spying on American users, thus avoiding the content-based rationale. - The Supreme Court rejected a First Amendment challenge to the Texas age verification law for pornographic websites in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, upholding it under intermediate scrutiny because it targets unprotected material for minors and is analogous to ID checks for alcohol or tobacco sales. - The Colorado law banning conversion therapy for minors, which includes banning talk therapy, is expected to be held unconstitutional in Charlton v. Salazar because it constitutes an impermissible, viewpoint-specific restriction on professional client speech, even though licensing and malpractice laws are generally permissible. - The Trump administration's executive orders penalizing law firms for their positions in legal actions were largely found unconstitutional by trial courts as they interfered with the firms' First Amendment rights to petition the government and represent clients, citing precedent like NRA v. Vullo. - The Trump administration's attempt to condition research grants on viewpoint neutrality, exemplified by actions against Harvard for alleged Title VI violations leading to demands concerning speech and curriculum, was deemed a coercive and unconstitutional use of federal funding by a district court. - The Ninth Circuit concluded that terminating federal grants based on DEI or sexual minority matters constitutes a First Amendment violation because government cannot impose viewpoint-based restrictions on broad funding programs intended to promote a diversity of views, referencing the precedent set in Rosenberger v. Rector. - The review identified seven total items for the 2025 review, starting with two Supreme Court decisions and one pending case, followed by three matters involving the Trump administration and one concerning employee speech (though the latter was not detailed in the provided transcript segment). **Context:** Eugene Volokh of the Hoover Institution and Jade Bambar of the University of Florida Law School host the 'Free Speech Unmuted' 2025 year in review episode, focusing on seven significant free speech issues, primarily starting with Supreme Court actions. The discussion covers landmark decisions regarding national security and social media (TikTok), content restrictions targeting minors (pornography), and the constitutional boundaries of regulating professional speech (conversion therapy), alongside executive actions by the Trump administration concerning law firms and university funding. ## Detailed Analysis The 2025 free speech review began with the Supreme Court's unanimous decision in the TikTok case, affirming the law mandating divestment from Chinese owners on content-neutral grounds related to preventing foreign government spying; although the D.C. Circuit considered both content-neutral (spying) and content-based (foreign influence on content) rationales, the Supreme Court focused only on the former, suggesting that First Amendment rules differ considerably when speech involves foreigners. Next, the court upheld the Texas age verification law for adult pornography sites in Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton, treating the restriction as content-neutral and applying intermediate scrutiny because the law shields minors from obscenity, drawing parallels to ID checks for purchasing alcohol, despite the burden on adult privacy. A pending case, Charlton v. Salazar, is expected to strike down Colorado's ban on conversion therapy for minors, as the court likely views banning specific talk therapy as viewpoint discrimination, distinguishing it from conduct-based medical restrictions like electroshock therapy, although the court may need to address the broader tradition of regulating professional client speech via licensing and malpractice law. Furthermore, the review discussed the Trump administration's use of executive orders to penalize law firms for their legal positions, which courts largely invalidated as unconstitutional retaliation infringing on petitioning rights, citing the precedent from NRA v. Vullo. Finally, the administration's attempt to leverage federal funding, such as threatening to cut off existing grants to Harvard unless it altered its policies regarding speech on controversial topics and its handling of antisemitism, was found by a district court to be an unconstitutional coercive condition, mirroring a Ninth Circuit finding that terminating grants based on DEI or sexual minority viewpoints violates the principle against viewpoint discrimination in broad funding programs like those supporting universities. ### Supreme Court Review - TikTok Divestment Upheld - Age Verification for Porn Upheld - Charlton v. Salazar (Conversion Therapy Ban) Likely Struck Down ### TikTok Decision Analysis - Decision focused only on content-neutral rationale (spying) - First Amendment rules differ when dealing with speech by or influenced by foreigners - Justice Thomas's concurrence renounced the content-based rationale ### Conversion Therapy Case Doctrine - Colorado law burdens speech (talk therapy), not just conduct - Court may rely on viewpoint neutrality regarding targeted prohibitions on professional speech - Potential discussion on whether licensing requirements for pure speech acts are constitutional ### Trump Administration Actions - Law Firms - Executive orders denying access to government functions based on firms' legal positions were challenged as unconstitutional coercion - Courts cited NRA v. Vullo, stating government cannot use coercion to suppress disfavored speech ### Trump Administration Actions - University Funding - Administration threatened to cut off existing grants to Harvard over Title VI/protest issues, demanding viewpoint changes - District court found this an unconstitutional condition and coercive use of federal funding - Ninth Circuit ruled terminating grants over DEI/sexual minority topics violates viewpoint neutrality in broad funding schemes