Free Speech Arguments

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. Find us on Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

Episode 32: OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al.

OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al., argued before Circuit Judges Raymond M. Kethledge, Eric E. Murphy, and Andre B. Mathis in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 23, 2025. Argued by Elisabeth C. Frost (on behalf of OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership), Mathura Jaya Sridharan (on behalf of Dave Yost, et al.), and Jason Walta (for Amicus Ohio Education Association).

Background of the case, from the Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief):

It is well established that lawful permanent residents (“LPRs”) are entitled to First Amendment protection, including for their political speech. And the Supreme Court has long held that spending to promote or oppose direct democracy measures is core First Amendment expression. Nevertheless, [in 2024], Ohio enacted Ohio Revised Code § 3517.121 (“Section 121”), making it a crime for any noncitizen—including LPRs—to engage in any political spending.

Section 121’s broad prohibitions reach every conceivable type of spending, from direct contributions to independent expenditures, whether made “directly or indirectly through any person or entity,” and apply even to spending “in support of or opposition to a statewide ballot issue or question, regardless of whether the ballot issue or question has yet been certified to appear on the ballot.” Id. § 3517.121(B)(2). At the same time, Section 121 invites political weaponization, mandating that the Attorney General investigate any alleged violation made by any Ohio elector. Id. § 3517.121(G)(2)(a). The law’s sheer breadth, lack of tailoring, and threat of unrestrained investigations threaten and will chill the core First Amendment activity of not just noncitizens, but also citizens and domestic organizations who take donations from noncitizens or involve noncitizen decisionmakers….

In support, Ohio relies overwhelmingly on a reading of Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, 800 F. Supp. 2d 281, 288 n.3 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d, 565 U.S. 1104 (2012), that is at odds with the decision itself. Bluman held that Congress may constitutionally prohibit foreign citizens other than LPRs from directly contributing to candidates or to expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a candidate, but in writing for that court, then-Judge Kavanaugh repeatedly cautioned that restrictions on political spending by LPRs or for issue advocacy would raise substantial constitutional questions. See, e.g., id. at 292 (making explicit court was not deciding whether Congress could extend ban to LPRs or restrict noncitizens engaging in “issue advocacy and speaking out on issues of public policy,” warning its holding “should not be read to support such bans”). [Emphasis in original.]

The Bluman court was right to be concerned—and this Court should be, too, now that Ohio has enacted such a ban….

Statement of the Issues

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON APPEAL [from the Brief of Appellees – Cross Appellants (Second Brief) [OPAWL]]

  1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in preliminarily enjoining Defendants from enforcing Section 121 based on the statute’s definition of individual foreign national, which the legislature purposefully enacted to include lawful permanent residents?
  2. In the alternative, should the Court affirm the district court’s preliminary injunction because Section 121 unjustifiably discriminates against noncitizens in violation of the Equal Protection Clause?

STATEMENT OF ISSUES ON CROSS-APPEAL

  1. Did the district court err in concluding that Plaintiffs were not likely to succeed on their claim that Section 121’s prohibition on ballot-issue spending violate the First Amendment, and should this Court remand to the district court to issue a preliminary injunction based on that claim?
  2. Are Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Fourteenth Amendment challenge to Section 121 because several essential provisions of the law are unconstitutionally vague and invite arbitrary enforcement, and should this Court remand to the district court to issue a preliminary injunction based on that claim?
  3. Are Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their overbreadth challenge, and should this Court remand to the district court to issue a preliminary injunction based on that claim?

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES [from the Brief of Appellants – Cross Appellees (First Brief) [Ohio]]

  1. Whether the District Court erred in preliminarily enjoining Ohio’s law restricting campaign spending by foreign nationals as inconsistent with the First Amendment.
  2. Whether the District Court erred in preliminarily enjoining Ohio’s law as to all foreign nationals despite concluding that the law transgresses the Constitution only as to lawful permanent residents.
  3. Whether the District Court erred by not limiting its preliminary injunction of Ohio’s law to the party plaintiffs.

Resources:

Listen to the argument here:

     

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.

Episode 31: Libby, et al. v. Fecteau, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on June 5, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 30: Americans for Prosperity, et al. v. Meyer, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on May 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 29: Institute for Free Speech v. J.R. Johnson, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 28, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 28: Associated Press v. Taylor Budowich, argued before a three-judge panel in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit on April 17, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 27: Local 8027, AFT-New Hampshire, AFL-CIO v. Edelblut, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on April 8, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 26: Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, argued before the en banc U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on March 19, 2025
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 25: Powell, et al. v. United States Securities and Exchange Commission, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on February 13, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 24: Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on January 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 23: Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 15, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 22: TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on January 10, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 21: Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, consolidated under AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 30, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 20: Moms for Liberty – Wilson County, TN, et al. v. Wilson County Board of Education, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on October 29, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 19: Central Maine Power Company, et al. v. Maine Commission on Governmental Ethics and Election Practices, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on October 9, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 18: Little, et al. v. Llano County, et al., argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on September 24, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 17: TikTok Inc. v. Merrick Garland, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on September 16, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 16: NetChoice, LLC v. Bonta, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 15: X Corp. v. Bonta, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on July 17, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 14: The Imperial Sovereign Court of the State of Montana v. Knudsen, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 4, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 13: Can You Be Punished for Sharing Publicly Broadcast Court Hearings (Somberg v. McDonald), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 12, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 12: Florida’s STOP Woke Act in Higher Education (Pernell v. Lamb), argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on June 14, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 11: National Republican Senatorial Committee, et al. v. Federal Election Commission, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit sitting en banc on June 12, 2024. 
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 10: U.S. v. Sittenfeld, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 9, 2024
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 9: Diei v. Boyd, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on May 2, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 8: Spectrum WT v. Wendler, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on April 29, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 7: Joseph W. Fischer v. United States, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on April 16, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 6: U.S. v. Mackey, argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on April 5, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 5: Gilliam v. Gerregano, argued before the Supreme Court of Tennessee on April 3, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 4: Gonzalez v. Trevino, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 20, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 3: Murthy v. Missouri, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:   

Episode 2: NRA v. Vullo, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 18, 2024.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 1: Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on February 26, 2024
Listen to the argument here: