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.
We at CGFoE mourn the passing of Monroe E. Price on March 16, 2026, at the age of 87. A towering figure in media law and policy, recognized widely for his lifelong commitment to advancing media freedom and the rule of law, Price will be remembered as a path-breaking scholar, leader, and mentor to many.
“Monroe was an indomitable force for good in the world, guided always by deep principles and unwavering integrity at both the personal and institutional level. Tireless and energetic, he had a remarkable gift for bringing people together around ideas and shared purpose,” said CGFoE Associate Director Hawley Johnson.
Through his leadership of the Price Media Law Moot Court, the Media Policy Summer Institute, and other activities, Monroe Price elevated academic standards, mentored generations of media law advocates from around the world, and built a vibrant and dedicated community of scholars, legal professionals, and defenders of free expression.
“Monroe was also a steadfast supporter of CGFoE from its earliest days—attending our events, staying in regular contact, and helping connect us with the Price Moot community in 2014, a partnership that continues to enrich our work,” Johnson added. “He was truly one of a kind, and the global media law community will deeply feel the loss of his leadership, generosity, and vision.”
United States
City of Philadelphia v. Doug Burgum
Decision Date: February 16, 2026
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held that the federal government’s unilateral removal of slavery-related historical exhibits from the President’s House site in Philadelphia was likely unlawful and granted a preliminary injunction requiring restoration of the displays. The City of Philadelphia alleged that the National Park Service (NPS) violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by dismantling educational materials that presented “race and slavery in its historical context,” and illustrated the tension between liberty and slavery. The Defendants, senior officials of the Department of the Interior and the NPS, acted pursuant to presidential executive order “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History” which directed federal agencies to review historical monuments and exhibits. The Court concluded that the agency’s conduct was likely arbitrary and capricious, thus rejecting the government’s argument that it could unilaterally revise the historical narrative presented at the site. The Court emphasized that federal agencies cannot disregard statutory obligations or alter historical interpretation based solely on the preferences of new leadership. Finding that the City would suffer irreparable harm through the erasure of historically significant materials and the disruption of a site developed through decades of collaboration, the Court ordered the federal government to restore the exhibits to their condition as of January 21, 2026, and prohibited further modifications to the President’s House site without the City’s agreement during the pendency of the litigation.
Kelly v. Hegseth
Decision Date: February 12, 2026
A United States District Court granted a senator’s motion for preliminary injunction against the Department of Defense for retaliation against the senator’s criticism of military actions. The senator had appeared in a video reminding active service members that they could refuse illegal orders, and the department had formally censured him and initiated administrative action that could reduce his retired rank and benefits. The Court found the senator’s speech to be protected under the First Amendment to the US Constitution and that the department’s actions were clearly retaliatory and so the senator had demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. As the loss of First Amendment freedoms always constitutes irreparable harm and in finding that the other requirements for a preliminary injunction were met, the Court granted the motion.
Christensen v. Carter
Decision Date: January 14, 2026
A United States District Court granted a preliminary injunction requiring university officials to remove from a student’s academic transcript any reference to his involuntary disenrollment as retaliation for speech the university deemed threatening and disruptive. The matter arose after the university disenrolled the student based on social media posts he had made about the Israel-Palestine conflict, during non-term time and when he was off campus. The Court found that there was no evidence that the speech constituted incitement to imminent violence or would be disruptive to academic activities, and that it was clear that the disenrollment was done in response to the student’s posts. It found that all factors supported a granting of a preliminary injunction.
New Special Collection Paper: Women’s Right to Freedom of Expression—Now in Spanish. CGFoE’s just-released How Do Women Experience the Exercise of Their Right to Freedom of Expression? Some Answers from Court Rulings by Alejandra Negrete Morayta and Estefanía Mullally is now also available in Spanish. The paper analyzes 51 decisions—all included in the CGFoE database—by national and international courts, human rights protection bodies, and quasi-judicial mechanisms, spanning 28 countries across Latin America, North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Middle East and North Africa. (Read the English version here.)
APR 1: The Inter-American Legal Framework of Freedom of Expression: From Origins to Renewal and Recent Developments on Hate Speech. Mark your calendars: in partnership with the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), CGFoE will host an online discussion on the evolution of Inter-American standards on freedom of expression and emerging legal and practical challenges posed by hate speech. The panel will feature Pedro Vaca and Catalina Botero Marino, current and former IACHR Special Rapporteurs for Freedom of Expression; Agustina Del Campo (University of Palermo); and Roberto Saba (University of Buenos Aires and University of Palermo). April 1, 2026. Online. The event will be in Spanish, with simultaneous interpretation into English. Register here.
● Middle East: End Unlawful Attacks and Protect Civilians Now. In a statement addressed to the UN Human Rights Council, ARTICLE 19 calls for an immediate end to the hostilities in Iran and the broader region and urges accountability for the many violations of international law, including by the United States. What adds to the devastating humanitarian toll—at least 1,330 civilians killed in Iran, at least 634 killed and more than 816,000 displaced in Lebanon—are breaches of the right to freedom of expression and access to information by all parties to the conflict: the violations include restrictions on war coverage, retaliatory threats for independent reporting, disinformation campaigns, and Iran’s blanket internet shutdown.
● US: FCC’s Unconstitutional Threat to Broadcast News. On March 14, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission Brendan Carr threatened broadcasters over their coverage of the war in Iran. Responding to President Trump, who lashed out at “the Fake News Media” that “want us to lose the War,” Carr noted: “The law is clear. Broadcasters must operate in the public interest, and they will lose their licenses if they do not.” The law is, in fact, clear: the government cannot use its licensing powers to punish the reporting it does not like. “[T]he Chairman is aware of the First Amendment’s obstacle,” writes Ashkhen Kazaryan, Senior Legal Fellow at The Future of Free Speech. “But statements like the one from last week are not there for legal follow-through; they are there for the chilling effect.”
● US: Human Rights Organizations File Brief in Anthropic v. DOW. Abolitionist Law Center, Access Now, the Center for Constitutional Rights, and Tech Justice Law filed an amicus brief in Anthropic v. US Department of War (DOW), supporting neither party and arguing that the fundamental humanitarian and human rights law principles must constrain both. The Amici maintain that even with Anthropic’s proposed restrictions in place, DOW’s use of its AI still endangers the lives of civilians and allows for mass surveillance in the US. “What we are witnessing now in Iran, in Lebanon and over the last two and a half years in Israel’s ongoing genocidal campaign against Palestinians in Gaza is a fundamental and devastating disregard for human life enabled by Big Tech,” said Katherine Gallagher, Senior Staff Attorney at the Center for Constitutional Rights.
On Friday, March 13, in Caracas, Venezuela, dozens marked the World Day Against Cyber Censorship, demanding that the interim government end the blockade of some 200 websites. That day in Quito, Ecuador, as hundreds protested against a labor reform, the police fired tear gas. Over the weekend, around the world, protests against military actions in the Middle East continued: more than 85 actions gathered thousands across France, a small protest took place in Tel Aviv, Israel, and hundreds marched in Seoul, South Korea. On March 14 in Italy, anti-war demands were heard at a protest against judicial reforms, which, critics argue, could undermine judicial independence. In the US on Monday, after a year in ICE custody, Leqaa Kordia, arrested in connection with a protest outside Columbia University, was released on bond.
On Tuesday, March 17, civil society groups organized a mass lobby of the UK Parliament under the slogan, “Defend our right to protest.” The participants demanded that the government drop protest restrictions under the pending Crime and Policing Bill 2025. If passed, the bill will exacerbate the UK’s rapidly worsening climate for protests.
Background: The proposed legislation builds on the succession of anti-protest laws and would grant police new powers to restrict protests, including through provisions on face coverings and exclusion zones; the bill’s most contested clause concerns “cumulative disruption,” allowing for repeat, lawful protests to be restricted because other protests have already occurred in the same area. Despite neutral framing, public statements link the proposals to the mass rallies for Palestinian rights. Last week, the annual al-Quds Day march was banned in London. Earlier, the government proscribed Palestine Action as a “terror group.” (In February, a court ruled the ban was unlawful.)
Significance: Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch, Liberty, Greenpeace, and dozens of other organizations of diverse standing rallied behind the lobby—a focal point of a sustained campaign against the suppression of dissent, particularly Palestine solidarity activism, which has mobilized up to one million people since October 2023.
State Response: Hundreds of protesters and activists have been arrested, including during raids, and some received lengthy sentences. The proscription of Palestine Action led to over 2,200 protest-related arrests, with 890 at a single Palestine Action solidarity protest in September 2025. Last week, more than 1,000 officers were deployed to the “static” al-Quds demonstration, which resulted in 12 arrests. Protest policing has given rise to the use of facial recognition technology, stop-and-search measures, and the continued application of quashed “cumulative disruption” powers.
FoE Violations: The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has criticized the UK’s anti-protest legislation and the Palestine Action ban, warning of a detrimental impact on freedoms of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. Recent research by Human Rights Watch outlines the steady erosion of the right to protest in the UK.
Call for Applications: Columbia Global Emerging Scholars Fellowship. Columbia Global Centers in Amman, Nairobi, and Santiago invite submissions for the Emerging Scholars Fellowship program designed for early-career scholars in the humanities and humanistic social sciences whose work has been interrupted by conflict or crisis. Apply by March 24.
In case you missed it:
IBA’s Raising the Bar: Women in Law Project. Last week, the International Bar Association (IBA) launched its latest report, Raising the Bar: Women in Law, which examines women’s representation in the legal profession. Find the report and the event’s recordings here.
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply