Government Speech Doctrine Cases
The issue of censorship usually involves First Amendment protections for freedom of speech and press. However, as Federalists once argued, the entire Constitution was intended to protect fundamental rights through such mechanisms as the division of national powers among three distinct branches of government (separation of powers) and between local, state, and national authorities (federalism). City
In Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association (2005), the Court, using the
government speech doctrine, rejected a First Amendment challenge to a
compelled advertising program.
Legal Services Corp. v Velazquez (2001) said a prohibition on using federal
funds designated for indigent legal services to challenge welfare law
violated the First Amendment.
In National Rifle Association v. Vullo, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the National Rifle Association (NRA) stated a plausible First Amendment claim when it alleged that Mario Vullo, the superintendent of the New York Department of Financial Services, pressured insurance companies and executives to cease dealing with the NRA or face governmental scrutiny.
Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2009) determined a city could refuse to place a
monument in a public park because it was a form of government speech immune
from First Amendment review.
In a First Amendment case, Rust v. Sullivan (1991) upheld regulations
prohibiting doctors receiving federal funding from providing information on
abortion.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2022 in Shurtleff v. Boston determined that, in
this instance, flying a Christian flag on a city flagpole at the request of
a resident was a private expression, not government speech.
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (2015) said license
plates were a form of government speech and protected from First Amendment
challenges.
