The nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) that President Donald Trump has required many White House employees to sign – unlike any previous administration – are likely unconstitutional, according to an analysis by Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic. . . .
“The First Amendment enshrines a collective commitment to vibrant public debate on issues of governance,” the report states. “Allowing the White House to stymie damaging revelations for political purposes would subvert the standard of transparency to which we hold our democratically elected officials.”
“We think there’s a First Amendment interest in providing continued access to that app and its functionality to the Chinese-American community,” Michael Bien, one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys, said Saturday.
Trump on Aug. 6 ordered sweeping but vague bans on transactions with the Chinese owners of WeChat and another popular consumer app, TikTok, saying they are a threat to U.S. national security, foreign policy and the economy.
Kyle Langvardt, a law professor at the University of Nebraska Lincoln, told Business Insider that Trump’s orders “are likely to have First Amendment problems.”
“The reason is that they discriminate based on the identity of the speaker (Bytedance, Tencent), and also, arguably, based on the ‘content’ of their speech,” Langvardt said.
The New York Times
The National Association of the Deaf and five deaf Americans have sued the White House, arguing that the lack of a sign language interpreter at President Trump’s coronavirus briefings violates the First Amendment.
The association is seeking to force Mr. Trump and other White House officials to use American Sign Language, or A.S.L., interpreters during “television broadcasts of their coronavirus press conferences and briefings to make them accessible to deaf and hard-of-hearing people.”
The lawsuit contends that the refusal to provide in-frame sign language prevents the plaintiffs from accessing the communications provided by their elected representatives, thus violating their First Amendment rights.
Courthouse News Service
It was one year ago this month that the Second Circuit ruled it unconstitutional for Trump to block users who criticize him — affirming a federal judge’s ruling that the block was a First Amendment violation.