Compelled Speech Case Archives

The compelled speech doctrine sets out the principle that the government cannot force an individual or group to support certain expression. Thus, the First Amendment not only limits the government from punishing a person for his speech, it also prevents the government from punishing a person for refusing to articulate, advocate, or adhere to the government’s approved messages.

The Supreme Court’s decision in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943) is the classic example of the compelled speech doctrine at work.

In this case, the Court ruled that a state cannot force children to stand, salute the flag, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The justices held that school children who are Jehovah’s Witnesses, for religious reasons, had a First Amendment right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance or salute the U.S. flag.

In oft-cited language, Justice Robert H. Jackson asserted, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

Read more Supreme Court cases on compelled speech:

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023)

In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. ___ (2023), the Supreme Court held, in a 6-3 decision, that a website designer had a First Amendment free speech right to refuse to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. This decision reversed the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis,

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)

Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) said that requiring government
employees to pay union dues that weren’t used for political purposes did
not violate the First Amendment.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society (2013)

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society (2013)
said barring funding for NGOs not explicitly opposed to certain policies
violated the First Amendment.

Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. II(2020)

The Supreme Court in 2020 ruled that First Amendment speech protections did
not apply to foreign organizations in affirming a law barring AIDS funding
to organizations that refused to affirm certain beliefs in Agency for
International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.
II.

Arkansas Times v. Waldrip (8th Circuit) (2022)

The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2022 upheld an Arkansas law that
requires contractors with the state to sign a pledge not to boycott Israel
despite challenges that it violated free speech.

Glickman v. Wileman Brothers and Elliott, Inc. (1997)

In Glickman v. Wileman Brothers and Elliott, Inc., the Court held that
requiring farmers to contribute to the cost of generic advertising did not
abridge their freedom of speech.

Harris v. Quinn (2014)

In Harris v. Quinn (2014), the Supreme Court dealt with the First Amendment
issues of requiring personal care workers in Illinois to join a union
against their will.

Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31 (2018)

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that that an Illinois law allowing government
employee unions to collect fees from non-members violates the First
Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the 2018 opinion in Janus v. American
Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, saying the rule was a
form of compelled speech.

Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin (2020)

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear a First Amendment challenge to a
requirement that attorneys pay dues to a state bar association in Wisconsin
to support programs they disagreed with. Their compelled speech argument in
Jarchow v. State Bar of Wisconsin was rejected by lower courts.

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005)

In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005), the Court, using the
government speech doctrine, rejected a First Amendment challenge to a
compelled advertising program.

Keller v. State Bar of California (1990)

In Keller v. State Bar of California (1990), the Court upheld a state bar’s
use of compulsory membership fees if such fees were used to support
“germane” political causes.

Knox v. Service Employees International Union (2012)

In Knox v. Service Employees International Union (2012), the Court struck
down a union’s imposition of special dues applied to nonunion members to
oppose two referenda.

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association (1991)

Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Association (1991) addressed First Amendment
protections and the expenditure of contributions nonunion members are
required to pay to the union.

Locke v. Karass (2009)

Locke v. Karass (2009) said that as long as union litigation was related to
collective bargaining, charging nonmembers for national litigation did not
violate the First Amendment.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) used the principle of religious neutrality to overturn a decision penalizing a shop owner under discrimination laws for refusing to design a cake for a same-sex wedding.

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018)

National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (2018) ruled
that forcing pregnancy centers to tell patients about abortion services
violated the First Amendment.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006)

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (2006) said that
conditioning funding on allowing military recruiters on campus did not
violate the First Amendment.

United States v. United Foods, Inc. (2001)

In 2001, the Supreme Court overturned a federal program that required
mushroom producers to subsidize generic advertising for mushrooms. In
United States v. United Foods, Inc., the Court said the law was a clear
case of compelled speech and violated the First Amendment rights of the
companies.

Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

In Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977), the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that the government cannot compel individuals to subscribe to certain beliefs. The case involved a New Hampshire law that required license plates to contain the state motto “Live Free or Die” and prohibited individuals from obscuring the mottoJehovah’s Witness fined for covering state motto

Compelled Speech Case Archives

Woodhull Foundation on Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton: Its meaning and impact

Self-censorship and the ‘spiral of silence’: Why Americans are less likely to publicly voice their opinions on political issues

VOA’s global impact felt long after the Cold War

Neutral news sources could exploit today’s polarized mediascape to boost revenue − here’s why they may choose not to