The First Amendment Arguments in the House of Representatives’ Managers’ Trial Memorandum – Reason
[This post was co-authored by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman]
On Tuesday, February 2, 2021, the House of Representatives' Managers filed an 80-page trial memorandum or brief for the impending Senate impeachment trial. The Managers discussion of the First Amendment spans about three pages (pp. 45-48). And the brief cites several posts from Volokh Conspiracy co-bloggers Jonathan Adler, Ilya Somin, and Keith Whittington. These posts responded to our prior Volokh Conspiracy posts. We have five general responses to the position put forward in the trial memorandum.
First, the trial memorandum states that "the First Amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding." We think it a mistake to view impeachment proceedings in this binary fashion: that the First Amendment does, or does not apply to an impeachment proceeding. The phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the Impeachment Clause (1788) does not definitively resolve how other provisions of the Constitutionincluding the not-yet ratified First Amendment (1791)would apply to impeachment proceedings. Moreover, in our February 3 post, we wrote:
The original meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the Constitution is of uncertain scope. And the materials we have from the Philadelphia Convention, the state conventions, and the public ratification debates do not provide clear answers to the precise question we face today. Likewise, past impeachments provide inconclusive, and at times, conflicting precedents.
As a result, each member of Congress, who takes an oath to the Constitution, acting in good faith, may decide whether, and how the First Amendment should apply in impeachment proceedings. Accordingly, we think it a mistake to make an unqualified statement that "the First Amendment does not apply at all to an impeachment proceeding." (emphasis added).
Our position that the First Amendment applies in an impeachment proceeding is not novel. In 1868, during the Johnson impeachment, several Senators contended that an article of impeachment ran afoul of the First Amendment. In our January 17 post, we explained the relevance of these statements:
We do not here, nor did we in our prior post, cite these senators as holding the only view about the scope of the President's free speech rights in the impeachment context. We acknowledged that some senators who voted to convict, as well as the prosecuting House managers, rejected this free speech argument. Our goal was not to say, and we did not say, that the Johnson trial established the correct position. Rather, we raised this history to show that the issue was, and remains, fairly contestable. In 1868, there was a difference of opinion about what speech rights the President has. That same debate exists today. This issue is not clear. It is not settled. There is no controlling on-point judicial precedent. There is some on-point discussion from a prior presidential impeachment. And those debates from the Johnson Senate trial provide some support for our position. But we do not think this issue has been resolved or liquidated.
We take it as a starting point that some Senators can decide in good faith, based on their Constitutional oath, that the President can raise the First Amendment as a defense in the Senate trial. The question then becomes, what theory of the First Amendment is available to the President.
The fact that the House spends several pages discussing Supreme Court caselaw suggests that the Managers are not willing to rest on the absolute position that the First Amendment is inapplicable. This argument, we think, represents a tacit recognition that Senators, in good faith, could find that the President may raise a First Amendment defense.
Second, in the alternative, the House trial memorandum argues that the First Amendment ought to apply differently to the President. Specifically, in a footnote, the House argues that the President stands in the same position as a civil servant:
Indeed, impeachment is fundamentally an employment action against a public official, and thus the First Amendment would not insulate the President's statements from discipline even if it applied, because the government's interest in orderly operation would outweigh the President's speech interests. See Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006); Connick v. Meyers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983); Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 (1968).
We think the Managers erred in analogizing Congress' power to remove an elected President to an employment action involving civil servants. Many courts have held that First Amendment challenges by elected officials are not governed by Pickering. We say many courts. Not all courtsas with so many issues, authority is divided. Scholarly articles have also touched on this question. For example, Professor Katherine Shaw opined on this issue in her Impeachable Speech. In that article, she stated:
Outside of the impeachment context, there are of course First Amendment cases that grapple with government officials as speakers. The Pickering/Garcetti line of cases attends to the speech rights of government employees, creating a standard that is understood to grant public employees very limited First Amendment rights when they speak pursuant to their official duties. But it is not clear whether or how the reasoning in these cases would have any application to the unique figure of the president, who is clearly not a government "employee" in the same sense as the officials at issue in the [Supreme] Court's cases, and where the "sanction" of impeachment is surely distinct from other sorts of professional consequences public employees might face over the content of their speech.
Other precedent could support the argument that a president's speech is in some sense protected from sanction by the First Amendment. Perhaps most relevant here is Bond v. Floyd, in which the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prevented the Georgia legislature from refusing to seat Julian Bond, based on speeches he had made criticizing the Vietnam War and the federal government generally. A president might invoke this case to support the argument that a Congress pursuing impeachment based in part on speech is engaging in a form of impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
Similarly, we wrote in our January 17 post:
Pickering and Garcetti were cases about civil servants. These precedents do not furnish good analogies to justify removing elected officials [such as the President] for purported speech-related wrongs.
We think Professor Shaw's position has merit. Professor Shaw also cites the Supreme Court's First-Amendment-friendly Brandenburg test, and suggests it is relevant to evaluating the constitutionality or lawfulness of impeachments involving speech-related allegations of wrongdoing.
Third, the House Manager's trial memorandum seems to recognize that the President does not stand in the same position as a civil servant. The trial memorandum instead analogizes the President to senior appointed officers:
As the leader of the Nation, the President occupies a position of unique power. And the Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment does not shield public officials who occupy sensitive policymaking positions from adverse actions when their speech undermines important government interests.
We agree that "public officials who occupy sensitive policymaking positions" stand in a different position than civil servants. And we agree that certain senior appointed federal officers who make policy have reduced Free Speech rights, even below the Pickering standard. We previously wrote that when senior appointed federal officers "speak, their message is more readily mis-identified as that of the President they serve." As a result, the appointing authority "needs more control over them."
The trial memorandum, at footnote 203, cited two cases that reflect this dynamic. In Branti v. Finkel (1980), the Rockland County Public Defendera Democratwho was appointed by the County Legislature, planned or intended to discharge two assistant public defenders because they were Republicans. Aaron Finkel and Alan Tabakman had worked for the office for several years, and served at the "pleasure" of the County Public Defender. Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled for Finkel and Tabakman based on the First Amendment. But the Court's decision did not rely on Pickering. These at-will public defenders were not analogous to civil servants. Likewise, Elrod v. Burns (1976) involved "non-civil-service employees" who were "not covered by any statute, ordinance, or regulation protecting them from arbitrary discharge." Here too, the Supreme Court did not rely on Pickering.
Yet, neither of these cases concerns the status of an elected official. We do not think the President can be analogized to civil servants. And we do not think the President can be analogized to senior appointed federal officers with policy-making responsibilities.
In our prior post, we explained why the analogy in the Manager's trial memorandum does not hold:
By contrast, the President is not a cabinet member, who works for a superiorother than the People who act through elections. Nor is the President a GS-15 who can be disciplined for speaking at a political rally. Treating the President as an appointed officer or a civil servant would eliminate the President's ability to act like a politician and party leader. With good reason, the elected President is not subject to the Hatch Act. He is expected to engage in overtly partisan speech. In our view, the President has more expansive free speech rights than civil servants, who have broader free speech rights than at-will executive-branch officers. There is a hierarchy for speech rights for these different positions. It is not the case that principal officers have more rights than inferior officers who have more rights than civil servants. Government officials and officers are not an undifferentiated mass, with identical First Amendment rights. Nor do these rights track the traditional status of positions in the government. Instead, we suggest that elected officials have the widest scope of free speech rights, civil servants enjoy some free speech rights which are subject to certain limitations, and that at-will presidential appointees enjoy the least.
Fourth, the trial memorandum asserts that the House and Senate stand as the superior over the President, in the same fashion that the President stands as the superior over a cabinet member.
Thus, just as a President may legitimately demand the resignation of a Cabinet Secretary who publicly disagrees with him on a matter of policy (which President Trump did repeatedly), the public's elected representatives may disqualify the President from federal office when they recognize that his public statements constitute a violation of his oath of office and a high crime against the constitutional order.
Indeed, in a footnote discussed earlier, the House trial memorandum describes "impeachment [as] fundamentally an employment action against a public official." These statements reaffirm the House's position that Congress is the President's superior. Here, we reach a central point: what is the precise role that Congress plays with respect to impeachment? Is Congress, by virtue of being elected, the superior over the President? We submit the answer is no. It is true that the President draws a salary, as do appointed officers and civil servants. But as a general matter, the President is not considered as an employee, either at-will or subject to some sort of civil service protection. A member of Congress draws salary and can be "removed" by a super-majority of her house. But that does not make a member of Congress an "employee" in the sense that term is commonly used. Professor Shaw, quoted above, expressly rejects analogizing the President to an "employee"the position asserted in the Manager's trial memorandum.
Moreover, we previously wrote:
We reject this analogy between the President and civil servants. Congress is not the superior to the inferior President. They are both elected. They both make policy, within the confines of complying with the legal system. They are both authorized in different ways to control the government-as-employer. As a general matter, Congress does not stand in the role of the employer vis-a-vis the President. If the President has an employer, it is the People, not Congress through impeachment. And that role exists throughout the entirety of a President's four-year term, and not only during the short election season.
Between elections, Congress does not serve as a stand-in for the People. The impeachment process is not akin to a vote of no-confidence, a common procedure in parliamentary governments. The President will stand for election in four years, and the people can decide whether he warrants re-election. Rather, the Constitution empowers Congress to remove the President if specific legal standards are satisfied. The President is not an at-will employee.
Fifth, the Manager's trial court brief considers a final argument in the alternative: even if Brandenburg is the relevant standard, the President's speech is still not protected:
Yet even if President Trump's acts while occupying our highest office were treated like the acts of a private citizen, and even if the First Amendment somehow limited Congress's power to respond to presidential abuses, a First Amendment defense would still fail. Speech is not protected where it is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Given the tense, angry, and armed mob before him, President Trump's speechin which he stated "you'll never take back our country with weakness," proclaimed that "[y]ou have to show strength," and exhorted his supporters to "go to the Capitol" and "fight like Hell" immediately before they stormed the Capitolplainly satisfies that standard.
Here, we will refer back to Eugene Volokh's post. Under Brandenburg's imminence requirement, Trump's January 6 speech would be protected speech. The trial memorandum does not even try to show that the January 6 speech would lead to "imminent lawless action." The memorandum ends with a conclusory statement that Trump's speech "plainly satisfies that standard." Were this an indictment brought in court, we doubt that it would result in a conviction.
[Seth Barrett Tillman is a Lecturer at Maynooth University Department of Law, Ireland (Roinn Dl Ollscoil Mh Nuad).]
View original post here:
The First Amendment Arguments in the House of Representatives' Managers' Trial Memorandum - Reason
- How Tempe debate over feeding homeless at parks is becoming a First Amendment conversation - KJZZ - July 10th, 2025 [July 10th, 2025]
- IRS: Pastors and Politicians Dont Lose First Amendment Rights in Pulpit - Focus on the Family - July 10th, 2025 [July 10th, 2025]
- Trump admin waffles in court on whether pro-Palestinian foreigners have full First Amendment rights - Politico - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- Airlines deportation deal with ICE sparks protests and boycott campaign, leading to First Amendment battle - The Free Speech Project - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- Trump Judges Find No First Amendment Problem With Florida Forcing Teachers to Misgender Themselves - Balls and Strikes - July 8th, 2025 [July 8th, 2025]
- High Court To Hear Street Preacher's First Amendment Case - Law360 - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- The Columbus Connection First Amendment, Independence Day Thoughts, and Happy Birthday CCN - Columbus County News - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Paramounts Trump Lawsuit Settlement: Curtain Call for the First Amendment? (Guest Column) - IMDb - July 6th, 2025 [July 6th, 2025]
- Fourth of July is a reminder to understand your First Amendment rights - The News Journal - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Big Tech Can't Hide Behind the First Amendment Anymore | Opinion - Newsweek - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- FIRE amicus brief: First Amendment bars using schoolkid standards to silence parents' speech - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Protects CNN's Reporting on ICEBlock and Iran - Reason Magazine - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- MCPS to pay $125K to two county residents who sued over alleged First Amendment violations - Bethesda Magazine - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Commentary: Winter Garden arrest threat violated First Amendment rights - Orlando Sentinel - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- First Amendment Expert Responds To BHUSD Policy - Hoover Institution - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Donald Trump: the surprise force who saved the First Amendment - Washington Times - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Paramount Will Pay $16 Million in Settlement With Trump Over 60 Minutes Interview - First Amendment Watch - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Trump Judges Reject First Amendment Challenge and Uphold Florida Law Requiring Teachers to Use Only Pronouns that Align with their Gender at Birth -... - July 4th, 2025 [July 4th, 2025]
- Justice Thomas sounds alarm on courts misapplying First Amendment in political speech cases - Courthouse News - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- 'The full rigor of the Court's resources': Judge warns Trump against witness 'retribution' in First Amendment case over threatened deportations - Law... - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Federal Appellate Court Finds that School Board President Violated First Amendment in Restricting Followers on Social Media - JD Supra - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Protecting Kids Shouldnt Mean Weakening the First Amendment - Public Knowledge - July 2nd, 2025 [July 2nd, 2025]
- Opinion - Jesse Green: Congress must not violate First Amendment in fight against anti-semitism - Northern Kentucky Tribune - June 29th, 2025 [June 29th, 2025]
- VICTORY: New York high school to strengthen First Amendment protections following FIRE lawsuit - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and... - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- FCCs First Amendment Tour Arrives in Kentucky - The Daily Yonder - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- ACLU of Pennsylvania Applauds Passage of Legislation to Expand First Amendment Protections in the Commonwealth - ACLU of Pennsylvania - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- FIRE to court: AI speech is still speech and the First Amendment still applies - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Podcast: Broadcast Journalism, First Amendment, and the Future - Wisconsin Broadcasters Association - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Advertising Companies Cave to the FTC. Media Matters Sues To Defend the First Amendment. - Reason Magazine - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Punishing Universities for Their Viewpoints Violates the First Amendment - Cato Institute - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- Palestinian Student Sues Michigan School Over Teachers Reaction to Her Refusal To Stand for Pledge - First Amendment Watch - June 28th, 2025 [June 28th, 2025]
- CDT and EFF Urge Court to Carefully Consider Users First Amendment Rights in Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc. - - Center for Democracy and... - June 24th, 2025 [June 24th, 2025]
- University of Oregon ordered to cover legal fees after settling First Amendment lawsuit - Campus Reform - June 24th, 2025 [June 24th, 2025]
- City attorney cites First Amendment rights in allowing rally; Third Street to open soon - Northern Wyoming News - June 20th, 2025 [June 20th, 2025]
- Guest column: 1,000 gathered in Oak Ridge to defend First Amendment - Oak Ridger - June 20th, 2025 [June 20th, 2025]
- Fighting Antisemitism Should Not Come at the Expense of the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- How Hawley, Marshall choose Trump over the First Amendment | Opinion - Kansas City Star - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- FARRAND: Saturday was a day we exercised three of our First Amendment rights - thenewsherald.com - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The State of the First Amendment in the University of North Carolina System - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The First Amendment is Again in Colorados Crosshairs - The Federalist Society - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The Military Parade and Protections of the First Amendment - Just Security - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Court ruling clarifies limits of NCs First Amendment protection - Carolina Journal - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Letter to the Editor - Campbell County Democrats Cherish First Amendment Rights - The Mountain Press - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Editorial: Lets remember the peaceably part of First Amendment - Everett Herald - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- PETA Sues NIH, NIMH in Groundbreaking First Amendment Lawsuit - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- First Amendment expert explains the right to protest amid 'No Kings' movement - CBS News - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- ACLU of Nevada shares guidelines for protesters to safeguard their First Amendment rights - KSNV - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Las Vegas ICE protests: First Amendment right or breaking the law? - KLAS 8 News Now - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Rights afforded to protestors by the First Amendment, and what it does not give you the right to do - Action News Now - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- What can and can't you do with your First Amendment right of free speech? - KMPH - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- The First Amendment Is the backbone of democracy - Herald-Banner - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- First Amendment thoughts ahead of weekend protests | Whales Tales - Auburn Reporter - June 18th, 2025 [June 18th, 2025]
- Mass. AFL-CIO president says Trump administration is 'ripping up' the First Amendment - WBUR - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- No First Amendment Violation in Excluding Associated Press from "the Room Where It Happens" - Reason Magazine - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Contra the Trump FTC, Boycotts Are Protected by the First Amendment - RealClearMarkets - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Letter to the editor: Thanks to EPD for respecting my First Amendment rights on Palestine and Israel - Evanston RoundTable - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Texas Harassment Conviction for Sending 34 Messages Over 15 Weeks to Ex-Therapist Violates First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Opinion | This Trump Executive Order Is Bad for Human Rights and the First Amendment - The New York Times - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- Contra the FTC, Boycotts Protected by First Amendment - RealClearMarkets - June 10th, 2025 [June 10th, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump administration over funding cuts, alleging they violate First Amendment - CBS News - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- British Attacks on Free Speech Prove the Value of the First Amendment - Reason Magazine - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Students Protesting the Genocide in Gaza Are Losing Their First Amendment Rights - splinter.com - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump administration, says executive order cutting federal funding violates First Amendment - Fox News - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- PBS sues Trump over funding cuts to public media and alleges First Amendment violation - Business Insider - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Trump Lawyers Claim 60 Minutes Harris Interview Caused Him Mental Anguish, Argue That the First Amendment Is No Shield to News Distortion in Motion to... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Trumps executive orders: Due process, breathtaking sweeps, and the evils of intentional vagueness First Amendment News 472 - FIRE | Foundation for... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Free speech is the rule: Alito wants more First Amendment protections for students after middle schooler is punished for wearing There Are Only Two... - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- Judge Denies Artificial Intelligence Chatbot First Amendment Protections in Lawsuit - FindLaw - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- NPR sues over Trump order cutting off its funding, citing First Amendment - Duncan Banner - June 1st, 2025 [June 1st, 2025]
- South Bend Stops YouTubers Bid to Revive First Amendment Claim - Bloomberg Law News - May 17th, 2025 [May 17th, 2025]
- Trump Administration Likely Violated American Bar Association's First Amendment Rights - Reason Magazine - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- Perkins Coie Litigation Team Secures First Amendment Federal Court Win for DEF CON - Perkins Coie - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- How swiftly power can be weaponized against dissenting voicesincluding the free and open press as protected by the First Amendment - Northeast Valley... - May 15th, 2025 [May 15th, 2025]
- NYUs First Amendment Watch Launches Trump 2.0: Executive Power and the First Amendment - NYU - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- CCIA Files Amicus Brief Defending the First Amendment Rights of Email Service Providers - CCIA - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Zick on executive orders and official orthodoxies First Amendment News 469 - FIRE | Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Why Journalists Must Band Together to Defend the First Amendment - PEN America - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Youngkin vetoes Confederate tax break roll back, but First Amendment scholar says that might be best - WHRO - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- Baxter County facing $102,757 payment after losing eight-year First Amendment lawsuit - Mountain Home Observer - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]
- DOJ to investigate this new Washington law for first amendment violations - KGW - May 10th, 2025 [May 10th, 2025]