Document Type

Brief

Case Name

Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

Publication Date

3-9-2026

Abstract

No. 25-927
Richard Lowery v. Lillian Mills

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The suppression of constitutionally protected speech violates the First Amendment. A speaker need not be punished to be able to state a cause of action if the government has suppressed or threatens to suppress his or her speech through other means. This Court, across decades, and in a range of contexts, repeatedly has reaffirmed that principle. It has done so in cases affirming that a party may challenge a criminal statute penalizing speech without first incurring that punishment, see Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (1974); in cases addressing efforts by government officials to suppress disfavored speech by issuing coercive threats, see Nat’l Rifle Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175 (2024); and in numerous other cases where government action risked deterring individuals from engaging in protected free expression, Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1963), or association, NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958).

Comments

Amici are scholars who write and teach about the First Amendment and thus have an interest in the sound development of doctrine in this area. The scholars write broadly about constitutional law, including on free speech protections for public employees and the constitutional limits on government suppression of disfavored speech. Although amici take no position on the merits of Professor Lowery’s dispute with the University of Texas, amici agree that the test employed by the Fifth Circuit is contrary to fundamental First Amendment protections against government efforts to suppress speech.

See the listing on pages 1-6, including Notre Dame Law School's Richard W. Garnett.

Download

Share

COinS