Judge says Education Dept partisan out-of-office emails violated First Amendment
41 comments
·November 9, 2025megamike
theendisney
I wouldnt have imagined at the time that the worse part of electronic messages is that they could one day legaly be written in your name. I thought things coudnt be worse than not being allowed to speak (which was already normal at the time)
jfengel
They also had their own messages removed.
It's not clear to me that they're guaranteed a platform on their work email, but having been allowed to set a message and then having it removed and then replaced with a different one is not a good look for free speech.
getcthbf67
As a contrararianI'm silenced a lot. How do you suggest alignment can happen if more persuasive dissenting voices are allowed to be heard?
epistasis
Contrarian on taxes, spending, organizational issues, democracy versus monarchy?
Or it, you know, those contrarian views? You know the ones.
(Personally, I'm a contrarian about the presence of fire in crowded theaters, and boy have I been silenced)
michael_michael
Silenced by whom?
theendisney
Even the smallest authority may want to force others back in line.
tptacek
It's the right call, but really, those notices were probably doing the administration more harm than good. One of the sweatier message campaigns we've seen in the recent history of US politics.
jfengel
I suppose the First Amendment takes precedence over the Hatch Act, but it's more blatantly a violation of the latter.
alfiedotwtf
Is a judgement worth the paper it’s written on when it’s ignored with zero consequences?
jfengel
They won't ignore it. They'll comply with replacing the partisan message, and move on to dozens of other violations. It's not so much the judgments as that the courts can't keep up.
binarymax
They are adding up. They can ignore them, and when they are out of office, the reckoning will come.
brian-armstrong
That's why they're not leaving office. Check out Venezuela for a preview of what's in store for the US.
ocdtrekkie
Not for the President, unfortunately. Supreme Court precedent has effectively set him as immune from prosecution, and it's not like at his age he'd serve much time anyways.
I expect a lot of his administration to spend their latter years in jail though. Siding with him has basically never paid off for anyone.
staticautomatic
There’s always treason
ethbr1
Why would it be ignored? Say what you want about the executive branch trying to weasel out of things and get the Supreme Court to lift holds, but they've so far been unwilling to out and out disobey finalized court orders.
c420
'We lack the power': Justice Barrett basically admits SCOTUS can do nothing if Trump violates rulings
https://lawandcrime.com/supreme-court/we-lack-the-power-just...
pfdietz
All they need to do is rule that violation of court orders is not protected by qualified immunity from civil lawsuits, a principle SCOTUS invented itself.
ocdtrekkie
I suspect many of the more ridiculous rulings come less from Roberts agreeing with Trump, and more fear of actually placing Trump in a position to straight ignore the court, which he will do.
There is likely a pragmatic view that if they appear to remain relevant they might continue to have some power, even though they already don't.
usrusr
Ties those who ignore it closer to the group in power: more to lose when they lose it. Every little erosion of law adherence creates more of that cheap loyalty substitute.
Normal_gaussian
For other parts of the world looking in, yes.
add-sub-mul-div
Not every failure is meaningful on its own but it would at least spiritually be a very different country today if they wasn't such a pattern of sustained opposition and losing in the courts going back 2017.
nine_zeros
[dead]
VonGuard
[flagged]
ch2026
The point is they wanted to eliminate the department entirely, but couldn’t, so installed the most inept person possible.
Same is true for nearly every other appointment.
hackingonempty
She is doing a fine job, being greatly assisted by A1.
A1 also assists the flavor of steaks and burgers.
add-sub-mul-div
We thought Betsy Devos was rock bottom but then 47 told his 45 past self, "hold my beer."
FridayoLeary
[flagged]
mzajc
> I just don't think this is the sinister power move they are claiming. It's not that deep.
If mass scale identity theft to push your propaganda isn't crossing the line, I don't know what is.
ohyoutravel
First Amendment is quite important.
FridayoLeary
Of course it is, and the union people must be delighted and that's fine with me. But come on. This is hardly the great poster child of First Amendment privileges. This is a departmental squabble that has been allowed to balloon way out of proportion. I can't imagine a more irrelevant affirmation of constitutional rights.
kyralis
Should we only correct violations that would qualify as a "great poster child," then? Let them all fly if they're not sufficiently big and flashy for you? Perhaps we should ignore theft that doesn't meet your personal financial bar, too?
pfdietz
In what way is a blatant 1st amendment violation not a great poster child here? Because it sticks in your craw?
platinumrad
So you would be okay with your employer putting words in your mouth?
ethbr1
When you are a backstabbing administration who demands yes-people, you have difficulty attracting qualified candidates.
As a result, you have incompetent people running things.
People who do things like violate federal law because they're too dumb to think before they act to curry favor.
It's honestly been fascinating watching the people with a modicum of self preservation sense (Marco Rubio) versus those who don't think actions will come back to bite them (Linda McMahon, Pete Hegseth, Kristi Noem).
From a purely practical perspective, you'd have to be stupid not to evaluate decisions with an eye towards "Will I be prosecuted at a future date for this?" in this administration.
kace91
>you'd have to be stupid not to evaluate decisions with an eye towards "Will I be prosecuted at a future date for this?" in this administration.
Stupid or placing their bet in a future where they never lose power.
From ICE agents and DOGE members to higher office, there’s a lot of people who know their lives will be destroyed the very moment the wind blows the other way. It is a sobering thought.
jrflowers
> I just don't think this is the sinister power move they are claiming.
Where did they claim that this is a sinister power move? Those words don’t appear in the article or in any filings as far as I can tell. Are you saying that it isn’t the sinister power move that you imagine that they could have claimed?
pauliephonic
[flagged]
FridayoLeary
Careful. I might sue:-)
I am massively tempted though...
kyralis
GP isn't the government, so you'd have a tough time bringing a first amendment case, alas.
“the First Amendment is a cheap thing if all it provides is the assurance that one may say what a current majority is willing to hear.” Charles Rembar