Presented by the Institute for Free Speech
The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.
Free Speech Arguments
Claim This Podcastby Institute for Free Speech
5.0(1 reviews)
50 episodes
Updated Weekly
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
30
Podcast Authority
BetaPoorBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality46
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement32
Podcast Overview
Presented by the Institute for Free Speech The Free Speech Arguments Podcast brings you oral arguments from important First Amendment free political speech cases across the country.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
2/26/2024
Unlock The Full Podcast Authority Score Report
See how your podcast performs across key metrics
30
Podcast Authority
BetaPoorBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality46
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement32
6
Excellent Areas
1
Good Performance
12
Growth Opportunities
excellent
Episode Length
1h 1m
Performing excellently!
good
Show Experience
36 episodes over 1.5 years
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
needs improvement
Publishing Consistency
Every 16 days
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
+16 More Metrics
Unlock comprehensive insights including:
- • YouTube presence analysis
- • Social media reach metrics
- • RSS compliance scoring
- • Podcast 2.0 features
- • Technical standards
What's Included in Your Full Report
Detailed Analytics
- Complete breakdown of all 19 authority metrics
- Personalized recommendations for each metric
- Industry benchmarks and comparisons
- Technical RSS feed analysis and compliance scoring
Growth Strategies
- Step-by-step action plans for improvement
- Quick wins to boost your score immediately
- Pro tips from successful podcasters
Get your free podcast insights report
See how your show performs across every key metric
Instant delivery
No spam
Attract Better Guests
High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.
Secure Sponsorships
Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.
Grow Your Audience
Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.
4 verified contact emails on file for Free Speech Arguments
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
May 14, 2026
Are the Trump Executive Orders Targeting Law Firms and Lawyers Constitutional? (Perkins Coie LLP v. DOJ)
Paul Clement, Abbe Lowell, and Abhishek Kambli discuss the constitutionality of executive orders targeting law firms and lawyers in this interview.
April 29, 2026
IRS Donor Disclosure Law: What First Amendment Standard of Review Applies? (The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service)
<p><strong>Episode 50</strong><strong>:</strong> The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service</p><p>The Buckeye Institute v. Internal Revenue Service, argued before Senior Judge R. Guy Cole, Jr., Judge Richard Allen Griffin, and Judge Chad A. Readler of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on April 29, 2026. Argued by Institute for Free Speech Senior Attorney Brett Nolan (on behalf of The Buckeye Institute) and Michael Weisbuch (on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service).</p><p><strong>Case Summary, from the </strong><a href="https://www.ifs.org/cases/the-buckeye-institute-v-internal-revenue-service/" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Institute for Free Speech website</strong></a><strong>:</strong></p><p>The Buckeye Institute filed a lawsuit challenging a decades-old tax law that forces the IRS to demand that nonprofit charities disclose the private information of their largest donors each year. Represented by attorneys at the Institute for Free Speech and its own attorneys, Buckeye’s lawsuit says the law violates the First Amendment and the requirement chills free speech and association.</p><p>The IRS itself admits that it does not need these donor records, and issued a rule in 2020 to stop collecting the same from other tax-exempt groups that are not classified as section 501(c)(3) nonprofit charities. The agency noted in that 2020 rulemaking that its collection of this sensitive personal data on Form 990 Schedule B “poses a risk of inadvertent disclosure” of private, non-public information. Even though the IRS has stated in related contexts that it would prefer not to collect this information from charities, federal law requires it.</p><p>The lawsuit claims that Buckeye’s work “would be significantly damaged” if it could not maintain the confidentiality of its donor relationships, as Buckeye’s supporters “risk retribution from some who oppose its mission.” The recent leak to ProPublica of “a vast trove of Internal Revenue Service data on the tax returns of thousands” of individual taxpayers and other IRS leaks understandably give financial supporters of certain charities, including Buckeye, justified pause...</p><p>District Court Judge Michael H. Watson ruled that exacting scrutiny is the appropriate level of judicial review to apply to the law in question in the Buckeye case. Relying on AFPF, Judge Watson’s order shifts the burden to the IRS. The government must prove that this law is narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s interest in tax enforcement and administration. That means the government must justify collecting sensitive donor information from every 501(c)(3) non-profit every year.</p><p>A special procedure in federal law allows federal appellate courts to review a ruling before the case is decided. That’s the situation in this appeal. The government disagreed with Judge Watson’s ruling, stating that exacting scrutiny applied, and asked the appeals court for permission to review his opinion. Both Judge Watson and the Sixth Circuit granted the request for review.</p><p><strong>Statement of Issues, from the </strong><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/032-Buckeye-Appellee-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Appellee’s Brief</strong></a><strong>:</strong></p><ol><li>Whether exacting scrutiny governs a First Amendment challenge to 26 U.S.C. § 6033(b)(5)’s requirement that nonprofit organizations disclose their “substantial contributors.”</li><li>Whether the Court can enter judgment against the plaintiff-appellee, determining that § 6033(b)(5) does not violate the First Amendment, without affording the plaintiff-appellee an opportunity for discovery or factual development.<strong> </strong></li></ol><p><strong>Resources: </strong></p><ul><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/cases/the-buckeye-institute-v-internal-revenue-service/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for Free Speech case page</a> (contains all documents)</li><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/017-Appellants-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Opening Brief for the Appellant</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/032-Buckeye-Appellee-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Appellee’s Brief</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/011-Order-granting-petition.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Sixth Circuit Order Granting the Petition for Interlocutory Review</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/blog/court-irs-donor-disclosure-law-must-overcome-exacting-scrutiny/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Institute for Free Speech Blog Post</a>, “Court: IRS Donor Disclosure Law Must Overcome Exacting Scrutiny”</li></ul><p>The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org</p>
April 13, 2026
Can Government Retaliate Against Critics by Launching an Investigation and Demanding Documents? (Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission)
<p>Episode 48: Media Matters for America (MMFA) v. Federal Trade Commission<strong> </strong></p><p>Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission, argued before Judges Patricia A. Millett, Robert L. Wilkins, and Gregory G. Katsas of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on April 13, 2026. Argued by Nathaniel A.G. Zelinsky (on behalf of Media Matters of America) and H. Thomas Byron, III (on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission).</p><p><strong>Case Summary, adapted from the </strong><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Media-Matters-Appellees-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee</strong></a><strong> Media Matters:</strong></p><p>When Elon Musk purchased X, he modified the rules about violent posts and misinformation, laid off staff responsible for moderating the site, and reinstated accounts of white supremacists and conspiracy theorists. As a result, MMFA alleged that extremist content surged.</p><p>MMFA is a nonprofit media watchdog that chronicled what it described as the increasingly disturbing content on X. In November 2023, one of Media Matters’ articles about X went viral. It claimed advertisements for some companies, including Apple and IBM, were still appearing alongside pro-Nazi and antisemitic content.</p><p>The article struck a nerve and, along with other reporting about X, has made MMFA a target for Musk and his allies, including FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson, who blamed the organization for advertisers leaving the site. Musk immediately vowed to bring a “thermonuclear lawsuit” against MMFA.</p><p>Musk’s company also filed suit in the Northern District of Texas—not in California, as required by X’s terms of service. Meanwhile, Stephen Miller—today, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff—called on “conservative state Attorneys General” to investigate MMFA for its speech. In response, Texas and Missouri issued intrusive document demands to MMFA.</p><p>The district court granted a preliminary injunction blocking the FTC investigation of MMFA, finding that it violated the First Amendment. The FTC appealed.</p><p><strong>Statement of the Issues, from the </strong><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Media-Matters-Appellees-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener"><strong>Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee</strong></a><strong> MMFA:</strong></p><ol><li>Whether the district court had jurisdiction.</li><li>Whether Media Matters has a cause of action.</li><li>Whether the FTC forfeited its exhaustion argument.</li><li>Whether the district court clearly erred in finding retaliation.</li><li>Whether the district court clearly erred in finding the CID would deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking.</li><li>Whether the district court abused its discretion in balancing the equities.<strong> </strong></li></ol><p><strong>Resources: </strong></p><ul><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Media-Matters-Appellees-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brief for the Plaintiff-Appellee – Media Matters for America</a></li><li><a href="https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/Media-Matters-Appellant-Brief.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Brief for the Appellants – Federal Trade Commission, et al.</a></li><li><a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/71146258/media-matters-for-america-v-ftc/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">CourtListener Docket</a></li><li><a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.281859/gov.uscourts.dcd.281859.34.0_1.pdf" target="_blank" rel="nofollow external noopener noreferrer">District Court Opinion Granting the Motion for Preliminary Injunction</a><strong> </strong></li></ul><p>The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you’re enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute’s mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org</p>
50 total episodes available with 49 transcripts
Deep-dive analytics for Free Speech Arguments
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Free Speech Arguments?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates weekly.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 6 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
No, this podcast does not typically feature guests.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.