PLF HAS ALWAYS been an effective and eager advocate for First Amendment freedoms. Our most recently argued U.S. Supreme Court case, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, upheld the right of voters to wear t-shirts and other apparel that peacefully expresses political views at a polling place. One of our first Supreme Court cases, Keller v. State Bar of California, struck down a law that forced lawyers to contribute money to support bar association lobbying for political positions they oppose.
Those cases reflect traditional free speech issues, such as censorship and compelled speech. But it has also become necessary for PLF to defend our clients’ right to free speech in a wider range of cases, where the fundamental conflict may involve property rights, economic liberty, or structural limits on the “regulatory state.”
All genuine individual rights are logically connected.
There are several reasons, both strategic and philosophical, for this trend.
To begin with, the Supreme Court better protects First Amendment rights today than at any time in U.S. history. Free speech remains popular in America and is well guarded under current precedent, so we should use that precedent wherever we can. But tragically, legislative overreach and judicial abdication frequently doom lawsuits defending less favored individual rights. Our work to advance property rights and end regulatory abuse attacks that problem directly. Sometimes the best strategy to tackle an injustice involving the government’s abridgment of property or contract rights is to show a court how it is linked to celebrated First Amendment freedoms.
More philosophically, the strategy reflects the fact that all genuine individual rights are logically connected. The Declaration of Independence promises a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Of what good is that, however, if one is not secure to take all the actions needed to achieve it: the freedom to think and express one’s mind; to produce a livelihood; and to keep and earn the property needed to support oneself? Because these rights are connected, laws that start out violating one right usually end up violating others. To be effective, PLF must combat every aspect of the violation to advance the principles of individual rights and limited government.
Consider how this works in a few of PLF’s recent and current cases:
Edward and Delanie Goodwin own a beachfront home in Walton County, Florida. When officials refused to enforce trespass laws to keep tourists off the Goodwins’ private sandy beach, the couple marked the boundary with “Private Property” signs. The county responded with an ordinance banning the signs. Although the case involves the family’s right to exclude strangers from their property, PLF brought a First Amendment lawsuit because the county plainly violated the Goodwins’ right to free speech.
In Seattle, PLF represents a startup business named Rentberry, which created a website allowing landlords to list property for rent and allowing tenants to make auction-style offers for the rent they are willing to pay. The city recently banned such websites, asserting they might raise rents in the city. In one sense, the case is about property and contract rights. But the city abridges those rights by silencing the speech of landlords and tenants, leading PLF to bring a First Amendment claim.
PLF is committed to the American ideal of individual liberty. Our First Amendment practice is one aspect of that commitment, demonstrating that we will use every constitutional tool available to effectively secure individual rights against government abuse.
