Freedom of Speech and Association

Accountability NOW USA protests the president 24/7 in Washington, D.C. And a court affirmed its right to publicly express its message criticizing the president.

In Friend-of-the-Court Brief, Free Speech Groups Urge Court to Block Airspace Restrictions Affecting Journalists

Can the Government Punish You for Mocking It? In this episode, host Amber Taylor, Strategic Communications Director at ACLU-D.C., sits down with our client Sam O’Hara to discuss his detention by D.C. police after he recorded National Guard members patrolling Washington, D.C., while playing The Imperial March from Star Wars. Sam shares what happened that day, why he believes his rights were violated, and what his lawsuit, O’Hara v. Beck, could mean for free speech and the right to challenge authority.

A federal district court issued a ruling that the National Park Service cannot interfere with an ongoing protest critical of Donald Trump.

Since President Trump returned to office last year, federal agents have increasingly demanded that social media companies reveal the users behind anonymous accounts critical of his immigration crackdown. According to a report in the Intercept, in spring 2026 Reddit received an administrative summons seeking a wide range of data about one of its users who is of interest to ICE, apparently because they are a critic of ICE’s activities. Reddit informed the user, who obtained counsel and filed a motion to quash the summons in federal court in Northern California, where Reddit is located. Rather than fighting that motion, ICE withdrew it. But four days later, Reddit received a subpoena from a Grand Jury in Washington, DC, seeking information about the same user. Grand Jury subpoenas are difficult to challenge, because Grand Juries have broad discretion to investigate activities that may be crimes. The Reddit user’s lawyers moved to quash the subpoena, but the district court denied that motion. The Reddit user appealed. On September 2, 2026, we filed an amicus brief in the court of appeals, together with the National ACLU, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the Cato Institute, and Netchoice. Because Grand Jury proceedings are always sealed, we do not know the details of the case, and our brief was necessarily very general. It argued that the right to anonymous speech is deeply rooted in American history and law, and it serves critical functions—including protecting speakers from government retaliation. Thus, when a grand jury subpoena seeks to unmask an anonymous speaker’s identity, careful judicial scrutiny is warranted. The government’s interest in unmasking will not be sufficiently compelling to justify piercing a speaker’s anonymity unless the government has made a prima facie showing that the speaker committed a crime. Independently, chilling the speech of or retaliating against critics of the government is an improper purpose for a grand jury subpoena and justifies quashing it. Weaponizing grand jury subpoenas for this purpose runs counter to the grand jury’s original function as a bulwark against government overreach and should not be tolerated. On October 27, the court of appeals granted out motion to unseal our brief, so we are able to post it here. The court of appeals is considering this case without oral argument. We await its decision.

Judges deserve protection from bad actors, but that protection must not silence constitutionally protected speech on matters of public concern, especially information relevant to judicial transparency and ethics.

In early 2026, the Trump administration closed Lafayette Park, Malcom X (Meridian Hill) Park, and Columbus Circle (in front of Union Station) for repairs. The other two parks reopened in the spring, but even though the repairs at Lafayette Park have been completed it remains closed, surrounded by an ugly anti-riot fence. In mid-July, the National Park Service published a proposal to erect a permanent fence around Lafayette Park, which it asserts is needed to protect the security of the President in the White House, but which we view as yet another effort by the Trump administration to prevent speech the President doesn’t want to hear. For more than 100 years, Lafayette Park has been perhaps the single most important forum for First Amendment activity directed at the President, from the Suffragists of the early 20th Century to the Black Lives Matter protests after George Floyd’s murder. While the proposed fence would have gates that would theoretically be open under normal circumstances, we fear that they would often be closed to prevent First Amendment activity or even to trap demonstrators already in the park. Under the National Historic Preservation Act, proposed changes to historic places like Lafayette Park must be reviewed with an eye toward minimizing destruction or interference with their historic values. We have signed up as a “consulting party” under section 160 of that Act so that we can participate in that process, seeking to protect the park’s historic use as a public forum. As part of that process, on August 26, 2026, we submitted a letter to the National Park Service outlining our concerns. We will continue to participate as that process moves forward.

The Department of Homeland Security has ordered multiple Internet Service Providers and social media companies to disclose sensitive information about users who criticized DHS’s practices. DHS has issued these demands through administrative summonses or subpoenas, which require approval only by DHS itself and not a neutral judge. This case challenges another instance of this disturbing trend. Plaintiff John Doe regularly criticizes President Trump and DHS on X and other social media platforms, with his posts collectively receiving well over 100,000 views. Now, DHS wants to obtain detailed information about Mr. Doe and his activities. The government sent an administrative summons to Google, ordering it to disclose “[a]ll records and other information” it possesses relating to the Gmail account Mr. Doe linked to his X account. DHS’s demand expressly includes Mr. Doe’s name, his location information, and data on his online activity—records that could allow the government to trace Mr. Doe’s physical movements and discern the things he reads online and the people with whom he communicates there. Court cases challenging similar summonses have involved the U.S. government targeting people inside the U.S. This case represents a potentially new and troubling development, as Mr. Doe is a Canadian citizen and resident. If DHS can surveil him, it may be able to monitor any critic anywhere on the globe. DHS’s actions in this case are unlawful. The government can act only based on authority conveyed via the Constitution or a statute and here, the statute DHS invoked provides no basis to issue the summons. Represented by the ACLU-DC and the ACLU of Northern California, Mr. Doe brings this case to stand up to DHS’s blatant abuse of government power.