Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field.

In a classic Greek robe, with a red MAGA cap pulled on a seven-spike crown, the figure of Donald Trump lowers a torch to burn the vicinity. The flames catch the PRESS FREEDOM newspaper and the Constitution he holds up high. Reimagining the Statue of Liberty in this caustic cartoon cover, Index On Censorship asks, “Land of the free?”

This week, we focus on the First Amendment, the bedrock of American democracy, which is being battled over in courts and on the ground. Keeping the US on its 2025 Monitor since March, CIVICUS, a civil society alliance, reports: The country’s space for freedoms of association, peaceful assembly, and expression continues to narrow.

“Six months into Donald Trump’s second term, a bizarre assault on fundamental freedoms and constitutional safeguards has become the new normal,” says Mandeep Tiwana, Secretary General of CIVICUS, listing the deployment of the military against protesters, criminalization of dissent, and the targeting of journalists and civil society.

In “a multipronged attack,” Trump has gone after the “institutions of knowledge, of law, and lawyers,” writes Vicki C. Jackson, Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard. The analyses below show some victories. In the case brought by Harvard, a preliminary injunction blocked the Trump administration from revoking the university’s right to host foreign nationals. In the cases filed by two law firms, separately, a district court found that the President’s executive orders against them violated the Constitution.

Trump’s “America First” strains international cooperation further. Last month, the US announced its withdrawal from UNESCO, accusing the agency of advancing “divisive social and cultural causes” through “a globalist, ideological agenda.”

“This decision contradicts the fundamental principles of multilateralism,” UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay responded. “However regrettable, this announcement was anticipated.” In a statement, Azoulay stressed that despite Trump’s initial withdrawal in 2017, the agency had increased its efforts to contribute to peace.

CGFoE stands behind UNESCO’s mission: defending peace by cross-border solidarity, free exchange of ideas, and universal respect for human rights. As the international rules-based order wavers, we are committed to amplifying court decisions that uphold international standards – and calling out those that undermine democracy.

In Nurturing Forward-Thinking Scholarship, Another Milestone for CGFoE

We have just concluded the third edition of CGFoE’s flagship seminar, Freedom of Expression in the Digital Realm: New Actors and Novel Challenges.

Designed for student teams qualified from the MENA Rounds of Oxford University’s Price Media Law Moot Court Competition, this six-week online course runs in collaboration with the competition’s MENA Rounds Coordinator, Ahmed Khalifa, Professor of Law at Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt. The 2025 seminar discussed the role of Meta’s Oversight Board, Out-of-Court Dispute Settlement bodies, the impact of generative AI on freedom of expression, and the process of writing case analyses.

“When I explain the program to people, they do not believe that it exists,” Professor Khalifa praised CGFoE during the final session. “The initiative gives young people opportunities.” We will soon select three seminar participants for internships with the CGFoE Team. And we will tell you about their projects – stay tuned.

 

United States
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Homeland Security
Decision Date: June 23, 2025
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of a presidential proclamation that barred international students and exchange visitors from entering the United States to study at a prominent US university. The case stemmed from an alleged retaliatory campaign by the US Administration after the university rejected a letter conditioning federal funding on ideological demands, including changes to admissions, elimination of diversity programs, and external departmental audits for viewpoint diversity. In response to the rejection, the Administration froze billions in grant funding, revoked Student Exchange Visitor Program certification, and publicly threatened the university’s tax-exempt status, while senior governmental officials, including the President, made repeated statements linking these actions to the university’s speech and litigation. The Court found a strong likelihood that the proclamation violated Title 8, section 1182(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, noting its unprecedented use to target a domestic institution absent any genuine foreign policy or security rationale. It also concluded that the university was likely to prevail on its First Amendment claims under the US Constitution, which safeguards freedoms such as speech, academic expression, and the right to challenge the government, finding the government’s actions to be retaliatory and rooted in viewpoint discrimination. Determining that enforcement would cause the university irreparable harm by infringing on their constitutional rights and disrupting education and research, the Court granted the preliminary injunction and enjoined the Proclamation.

Jenner v. US Department of Justice
Decision Date: May 23, 2025
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that an executive order imposing broad restrictions on a law firm’s security clearances, government contracting work, civil‑rights investigations, and access to federal facilities and employment was an unconstitutional act of retaliation in violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The firm challenged the order after it was targeted for its courtroom advocacy and pro bono representation, which the order deemed objectionable. The Court found that the punitive measures amounted to impermissible viewpoint discrimination, created a chilling effect on legal speech, and also infringed Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections of the right to counsel. Concluding that these core provisions could not be reconciled with established constitutional doctrine, the Court granted summary judgment in the firm’s favor and permanently enjoined enforcement of the operative sections, while declining to bar future actions based solely on the order’s preface statements, which it treated as protected government speech once stripped of any enforcement power.

Perkins Coie LLP v. US Department of Justice
Decision Date: May 2, 2025
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that an executive order targeting a private law firm was unconstitutional and unenforceable. The order was issued in response to the firm’s representation of political opponents, litigation against the administration, and public endorsement of diversity and inclusion, and it imposed sweeping sanctions including the suspension of all security clearances held by its employees, forced disclosure of client relationships, contract terminations, investigatory directives, and broad access restrictions. The Court found that these measures violated constitutional protections against retaliation for political speech and association and infringed the rights of both the firm and its clients. It also held that the order denied procedural fairness, interfered with the right to legal counsel, and was unconstitutionally vague for failing to define the conduct it prohibited. Concluding that the government’s actions lacked a legitimate basis, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm and permanently blocked the order’s enforcement.

● US: What the Columbia Settlement Really Means, by Jameel Jaffer, Alex Abdo, Katy Glenn Bass, Nadine Farid Johnson, and Larry Siems. At the end of July, Columbia University announced an agreement with the US government, following months of negotiations around the university’s alleged breach of federal anti-discrimination laws. The Knight First Amendment Institute explains how the agreement threatens to affect Columbia’s future. “The settlement is an astonishing transfer of autonomy and authority to the government,” Knight’s staff members write. “It will have far-reaching implications for free speech and academic freedom at Columbia […].” This blog unpacks the most problematic clauses concerning Columbia’s admissions, hiring, promotion, curriculum, protest, and university life, which, the authors warn, might now be subject to “a regime of intensive, ongoing, official surveillance over the exercise of constitutionally protected freedoms.”

● US: Trump Versus the Judiciary, by William Roberts. In this article for Global Insight of the International Bar Association, William Roberts evaluates the unprecedented pressure that the US judiciary is confronting as President Trump pushes the limits of executive power through scores of orders and proclamations. As one law professor told Roberts, “[t]he first six months of the Trump administration have been like a blitzkrieg against the justice system and against the judges,” with over 94% of federal district court decisions blocking the administration’s actions in May alone. Roberts covers several of Trump’s strategies for impairing the rule of law. One is the targeting of lawyers. In a lawsuit challenging the President’s orders against law firms filed in June, the American Bar Association argues that the administration pursues a broader intimidation campaign. Roberts also reports on a significant escalation: the administration suing 15 federal judges in the state of Maryland.

● Sub-Saharan Africa: Community Radio Programmes Shut Down, Access to Information in Jeopardy after Voice of America Suspension. Reporters Without Borders (RSF) condemns the severe blow that the US government delivers to the media landscape of Sub-Saharan Africa, as the suspension of Voice of America (VOA) curtails the right to access reliable information for millions of people. “The Trump administration’s brutal dismantling of VOA has created a worrying information vacuum, particularly in rural areas of Africa,” says Sadibou Marong, Director of RSF Sub-Saharan Africa. In the eastern DRC, more than 50 community stations used to relay VOA’s programs in Kiswahili, reaching over 20 million people; in the rural areas of West Africa and Cameroon, VOA’s broadcasting in Hausa used to reach almost 80 million listeners. Joining the VOA employees and their unions, RSF took the Trump administration to court; in April, a preliminary injunction ordered the reinstatement of more than 1,300 VOA staff and the return of VOA’s broadcasting.

This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers

UNESCO: Freedom of Expression, Artificial Intelligence, and Elections, by Ajay Patel. This 2025 issue brief, authored by electoral expert Ajay Patel and jointly published by UNESCO and the UN Development Programme, surveys the impact of AI on freedom of expression in the context of elections. Foregrounding international standards on freedom of expression and access to information, the paper aims to inform electoral practitioners on addressing the risks of AI – including deep fakes, voter manipulation, false information, lack of transparency, breaches of data privacy, bias, and gendered disinformation – as well as harnessing its benefits. The latter could contribute to information integrity in free and fair elections through multi-stakeholder coalitions, strategic communication campaigns, media capacity building, digital platforms’ cooperation, and media literacy programs, among others.

The Milk Tea Alliance: Inside Asia’s Struggle Against Autocracy and Beijing, by Jeffrey Wasserstrom. Newly published by Columbia Global Reports, the book, written by historian Jeffrey Wasserstrom, explores the question: “Why are activists in Thailand, Hong Kong, and Burma willing to court danger to help one another?” Wasserstrom interviewed dozens of activists who share both the values and the enemy – the Chinese Communist Party. In the book’ pages, the reader will meet Netiwit Chotiphatphaisal from Thailand, Agnes Chow from Hong Kong, and Ye Myint Win (also known as Nickey Diamond) from Burma. More here.