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.
Across Kenya, more than 350 anti-government protesters were arrested last week—six reported torture in detention. Over the weekend in Kraljevo, Serbia, thousands rallied against President Aleksandar Vučić, following his promise to resign. Under the scorching sun and the police watch in New Delhi, India, hundreds of students have been camping out for nearly two weeks, calling on the education minister to step down.
The world is protesting. For the past six months, we at CGFoE have been monitoring the most significant pro-democracy protests where freedom of expression plays a central role. The CGFoE Protest Monitor has recorded over 150 protests around the world, along with the state responses they have provoked—from peaceful negotiations to violent crackdowns, mass arrests, and internet shutdowns.
This week, we are launching the CGFoE Protest Monitor webpage—a new tool that tracks protests across 2026 as they unfold, through the lens of the right to freedom of expression and its violations. Updated weekly, the platform features an interactive map of the latest protests we have analyzed in depth in our newsletter, a chronological archive of all protests we have documented, and an overview of the methodology behind our tracking.
The CGFoE Protest Monitor exists because protest is the most visible form of collective expression in the current political moment. The right to protest, however, stands out as one of those most frequently under attack. By documenting how governments respond to dissent, we are building the evidentiary record that supports accountability, advocacy, and scholarship.
Explore the CGFoE Protest Monitor here.
This week, we are launching the CGFoE Protest Monitor webpage—a new tool tracking protests across 2026 as they unfold. Explore it here.
Photo: Protest in Bogotá, Colombia, April 2026.
Credit: Juan Manuel Ospina Sánchez / CGFoE
United States
Lee v. Trump
Decision Date: March 31, 2026
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied President Donald Trump’s motion for summary judgment to find that he was immune from civil liability for harm caused by the January 6 riots. A number of members of congress had brought civil action against the president, arguing that his speech and conduct had incited the violence. President Trump argued that his conduct was official and so was covered by “official-acts” immunity, and that his speech was protected by the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of expression. The Department of Justice had also sought to substitute the government for President Trump as a defendant on the grounds that he had been acting within the scope of his official duties. The Court found that President Trump had been acting as an “office-seeker” rather than an “office-holder” in challenging the results of the election and so the majority of his conduct did not constitute official presidential conduct. It also held that it was plausible that his speech was not protected by the First Amendment and dismissed all the preliminary motions.
United States of America v. Donald J. Trump
Decision Date: February 23, 2026
A United States District Court held that the disclosure of an investigative report compiled by the Special Counsel into allegations that President Donald Trump had destroyed classified information should not be publicly released. The Special Counsel had continued his investigations despite an order from this Court that his appointment was unconstitutional and all actions following that appointment were therefore invalid. When President Trump and two other implicated persons learned about the existence of the report, they sought to enjoin the disclosure of its contents. The Court held that it would contravene “basic notions of fairness and justice” to release the report and that its disclosure would cause irreparable harm by exposing privileged and grand jury materials, and undermine the presumption of innocence. The Court emphasized that it was permitted to exercise supervisory jurisdiction and enforce its previous orders related to the constitutionality of the Special Counsel’s appointment and the protection of evidence in the matter.
European Court of Human Rights
Kirkorov v. Lithuania
Decision Date: March 19, 2024
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declared the application inadmissible, finding that a five‑year entry ban imposed on the applicant, a well‑known singer, did not violate his right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The case arose after Lithuanian authorities prohibited him from entering the country on national security grounds, citing his public support for Russia’s actions in Crimea and his role as a “soft power” instrument, influencing public opinion. The Court accepted that the ban interfered with his freedom to impart information but held that the interference was prescribed by law, pursued the legitimate aims of national security and public order, and was necessary in a democratic society. It emphasized that the domestic authorities had based their decision on the applicant’s specific conduct and that the national courts had subjected the threat assessment to meaningful scrutiny. The Court also considered the measure proportionate, noting that the applicant had no family or other ties in Lithuania and the restriction applied only to entry into that country. The applicant’s related complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) were declared inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
JUL 8: Is Freedom of Expression Dead? Rethinking Free Speech in Times of Authoritarianism. Together with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Studies in Freedom of Expression (CELE) at the University of Palermo, Buenos Aires, Argentina, will host a discussion on freedom of expression in authoritarian times. The panel will include Irene Khan, UN Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression; Irina Schoulgin Nyoni, Sweden’s Ambassador for Human Rights, Democracy, and the Rule of Law; Chantal Joris, Acting Head of Law and Policy at ARTICLE 19; and David Greene, Senior Counsel at EFF. Online. In English. Wednesday, July 8, 2026. 1 PM Buenos Aires / 12 PM New York. Register here.
● US: Knight Institute Urges Eleventh Circuit to Reverse Court Order Barring Release of Smith’s Report. This June, the Knight First Amendment Institute appealed the district court’s permanent injunction barring the release of Special Counsel Jack Smith’s report on President Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents. The Institute argues that the injunction was entered without jurisdiction and that the report is subject to a presumptive First Amendment right of public access. “Mr. Smith investigated Mr. Trump for conduct that appears to have entailed an astonishing betrayal of the public’s trust as well as the nation’s security,” writes Jameel Jaffer, Knight’s Executive Director, in an op-ed for The New York Times this week.
● UN Special Rapporteur: Freedom of Expression in New Frontiers. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan published her final report, available as an advance edited version. In the report, Rapporteur Khan exposes how the asymmetrical power tandem—of states and corporations—is shrinking the space for freedom of expression both online and offline. The report points to the erosion of international human rights law and “the surrender of freedom of expression to geopolitics,” in which the US has played a prominent role: “At a scale that no other State has ever dared before, the United States has asserted its political and commercial power to punish other States for upholding international law.”
● Hong Kong: Beijing Tightens Social Control. Marking six years since the imposition of the National Security Law on Hong Kong, Human Rights Watch (HRW) explains how Beijing reengineered the region’s entire governance and institutions, neutralizing its democracy movement. “The authorities no longer present national security as an exceptional response to the 2019 protests, but as a standing principle of administration,” HRW stresses. Over the past year, the Hong Kong government has continuously expanded the national security architecture, ballooned its budget, and resorted to the “sedition” offense to criminalize speech.
On Wednesday, June 24, across Israel, thousands of ultra-Orthodox protesters joined vehicle convoys, as demonstrations against mandatory military conscription continue. On Thursday in Beersheba, Israel, hundreds of Palestinian Bedouins protested targeted home demolitions and displacement. On Thursday in Rome, Italy, pro-Palestinian demonstrators urged municipal authorities to cut ties with Israel. On Saturday in Kraljevo, Serbia, thousands rallied against President Aleksandar Vučić after he had promised to resign. That day in Edinburgh, the UK, thousands condemned recent anti-Muslim attacks. In New Delhi, India, hundreds of students have been camping out for nearly two weeks, calling on the education minister to step down.
Find our new web tool documenting protests since January 2026 here.
Last Thursday, June 25, demonstrators across Kenya called for accountability two years after the June 25, 2024, anti-Finance Bill protests had turned deadly. The police mounted barricades, blocked roads, and arrested more than 350 people.
Background & Demands: During the 2024 anti-Finance Bill protests, security forces killed at least 63 people; at least 127 were killed across June–July 2024 and a comparable period in 2025. Marking the anniversary of the crackdown last week, protesters called for a credible investigation, guarantees against the use of excessive force, and justice for the victims. Other rallies have been happening recently, including the recent transport-union unrest—see CGFoE’s analysis of the state response.
Significance: This year’s June 25 protests—across at least ten counties—met a different repression pattern: a mass pre-emptive containment strategy, followed by allegations of enforced disappearance and torture in custody.
Partial Results: One week earlier, President William Ruto acknowledged “instances of excessive and extrajudicial actions by members of the security services” and set aside two billion Kenyan shillings (~$15.5 million) for victims of protest-related abuses, a gesture some activists said was insufficient.
State Response: The police pre-positioned water-cannon trucks and barricades around Nairobi and detained six for laying flowers near the parliament building. Officers used tear gas to disperse protesters and journalists. The interior ministry confirmed 355 arrests nationwide, while human rights groups reported that 361 people were arrested, including several journalists; at least seven protesters were held incommunicado; six were later found “dumped by the roadside” bearing injuries consistent with beatings.
FoE Violations: The crackdown constitutes a direct assault on peaceful assembly and expression and perpetuates Kenya’s repression cycle as described in the Human Rights Watch 2026 Report: “plain clothed security forces reportedly abducted, tortured, and forcefully disappeared individuals suspected of organizing and supporting anti-government protests and social media activists.”
● Documenting Trump Administration’s Misogyny Toward Women Journalists. “Piggy,” “Stupid,” and “Ugly” are only some of the gendered attacks that President Trump has directed against women journalists. The International Women’s Media Foundation has launched a new initiative tracking such incidents and more.
● The Knight First Amendment Institute is hiring a Staff Attorney, a Paralegal, and Fall 2026 Research, Policy, & Communications Interns (open to Columbia University and Barnard College students only).
This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression. For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.
Leave a Reply