The Court should also review and reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding that President Trump’s speech could be constitutionally proscribed incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). The state supreme court relied on Professor Simi’s testimony and deferred to the district court’s factfinding in wrongfully holding that President Trump had encouraged violence and that his words were likely to have that effect. App. 106a–113a. But constitutional speech protections should not turn on opinions from sociology professors, and constitutional facts of this sort should be reviewed de novo rather than deferentially

  • Quote

Name

The Court should also review and reverse the Colorado Supreme Court’s holding that President Trump’s speech could be constitutionally proscribed incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 447 (1969). The state supreme court relied on Professor Simi’s testimony and deferred to the district court’s factfinding in wrongfully holding that President Trump had encouraged violence and that his words were likely to have that effect. App. 106a–113a. But constitutional speech protections should not turn on opinions from sociology professors, and constitutional facts of this sort should be reviewed de novo rather than deferentially

Types

Referenced by