First Amendment Stories to Watch in 2026

The U.S. faces a wide range of First Amendment issues in 2026, many driven by concerns over the effects of new technology and others by ongoing debates over our core freedoms: religion, speech, press, assembly and petition.

Free speech rights vs. protection of young users online

A 2025 U.S. Supreme Court decision upheld a state law requiring websites that host “adult content” to use age-verification technology that blocks access by minors.

Opponents of such laws say they will have a “chilling effect” on adults who fear the information could be used to identify the kinds of content they access.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than 45 states and Puerto Rico have introduced more than 300 bills and resolutions aimed at protecting minors from various kinds of online content, and at least 20 states enacted new laws in 2025. This is despite the fact that courts have struck down some — but not all — of these laws on First Amendment grounds. 2026 will see more challenges to these laws, some of which will likely involve the First Amendment.

Federal lawmakers are active in this area as well.

In December, a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee reviewed 18 different bills concerning online safety for children, including a new version of the Kids Online Safety Act, which has also been introduced in the U.S. Senate. Pending in Congress, these bills are likely to be the subject of additional hearings, debates or votes in 2026.

An earlier version of Kids Online Safety Act received bipartisan support from Congress and some major tech companies. But some critics, including other online providers and civil liberties and LGBTQ+ rights groups, warn it could grant too much authority to government officials to restrict speech, potentially leading to First Amendment violations.

Limits and protections for speech and press rights

Speech rights

The Supreme Court will decide whether mental health professionals can provide conversion therapy — an effort to alter a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation — to minors. The question: Should conversion therapy be treated as a form of talk-based treatment and thus First Amendment-protected speech, or as professional medical conduct subject to state regulation?

Two other Supreme Court rulings expected this year also touch on free speech issues:

• National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission concerns a challenge to existing campaign finance laws by the National Republican Senatorial Committee. At issue is a provision in federal law that says national political parties must spend campaign money the party has received without any input from individual party candidates, even if the party is spending money to support those candidates. The NRSC argues this violates its — and the candidates’ — free speech rights.
• First Choice Women's Resource Centers Inc. v. Platkin concerns a New Jersey attorney general’s subpoena requiring organizations to disclose donor names and other internal business information. The group contesting the subpoena, First Choice Women’s Resource Center, argues such an order violates its First Amendment freedom of assembly and chills the free speech of donors who want to remain anonymous.

The free speech rights of non-citizens in the U.S. will also remain a live issue this year. A U.S. appeals court will hear an appeal of a September 2025 district court ruling on non-citizens' rights. That court had found that a Department of Homeland Security policy of arrests and deportation was intended to chill pro-Palestinian speech and criticism of Israel, preventing citizens from hearing non-citizen views and thus violating the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint discrimination, freedom of speech and the right to assemble.

As noted in the district court decision, the appellate judges will have to consider “a collision between two doctrines”: the executive branch’s broad power to regulate immigration and “this nation’s steadfast and foundational commitment to freedom of speech.”

Press rights

The dispute over whether the White House can exclude The Associated Press or other news media organizations from certain press briefings and presidential travel will also continue into 2026. A three-judge federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., heard arguments in November, and both sides are expected to appeal any adverse ruling to the Supreme Court.

Separately, in December, The New York Times sued the U.S. Department of Defense, challenging a Pentagon requirement that journalists sign a 21-page policy restricting contact with military and civilian staff. The policy also warns that journalists who report information not approved by department officials, regardless of how it was obtained or whether it was classified, could be labeled a “security or safety risk” and lose press credentials issued by the Pentagon.

The newspaper argued the policy violates the First Amendment by limiting journalists’ ability to question government employees and report beyond official statements. Several major TV networks and other news organizations, including the Times, lost access to the Pentagon after refusing to comply with the requirements.

Later that same month, on Dec. 15, President Donald Trump filed a $10 billion defamation and deceptive and unfair trade practices lawsuit against the BBC. The suit, filed in a federal court in Florida, concerns the editing of a 2021 Trump speech in a documentary not aired in the U.S. “The suit puts well-settled First Amendment law in a novel context: a first-of-its-kind legal action by a sitting U.S. president against a foreign news outlet,” notes Freedom Forum’s Alex Morey.

Both the New York Times-Pentagon lawsuit and the Trump-BBC lawsuit are expected to continue into 2026.

Campus speech, academic freedom and K-12 public schools

Free speech on college campuses is likely to remain a major source of contention after years of protests and renewed controversy following the September 2025 murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk while he spoke at Utah Valley University.

Every year in its College Free Speech Rankings, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression gathers data on free speech issues and controversies on college campuses. In its 2025-2026 findings — collected before the Sept. 10 murder of Kirk — FIRE noted a worsening climate of self-censorship on campuses, especially on “controversial political issues.” The report further notes that “more [students] believe it’s acceptable to shout down a speaker, block access to events, or even resort to violence to silence campus speech than ever before.”

Another First Amendment issue at colleges and universities that is expected to continue in 2026 involves the Trump administration’s withholding of federal research funding to push for changes in curricula, hiring and admissions, among other school policies.

Education Week reported in December 2025 that there were 72 lawsuits in 2025 over Trump administration education policies, many rooted in claims that schools have a First Amendment right to make their own decisions on hiring, admissions and curricula. Many of these lawsuits will continue into 2026. Some lawsuits also claim the administration withdrew grant funding for ideological reasons.

First Amendment disputes involving K-12 public schools will also likely continue in 2026. These include conflicts over parental opt-out rights for classroom materials, school library content, and school policies affecting LGBTQ+ student names and transgender athletes, as well as teacher firings stemming from their online comments.

In September 2025, USA TODAY reported that more than 100 educators, lawyers, public employees and others nationwide faced repercussions for social media posts or public comments critical of Kirk, noting at least three lawsuits had been filed by educators who were dismissed for comments they posted. While First Amendment protections do not restrict private employers, they do apply to government institutions, including public schools and universities.

There's likely no one-size-fits-all set of court rulings coming in 2026, since the specific facts in each case can raise free speech considerations, state employment law provisions, academic freedom protections, and whether universities can document claims that statements disrupted the educational process at schools.

Debates and court cases on religious freedom in government, schools and prisons

Ongoing national debate — and upcoming court cases— about the extent of First Amendment protections for religious freedom is also expected to remain prominent in 2026.

The U.S. Commission on Religious Liberty, established by President Trump in 2025, is tasked with issuing a report on the history and state of religious liberty in the nation by July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of U.S. independence.

According to a White House fact sheet, the report will address “parental rights in religious education, school choice, conscience protections, attacks on houses of worship, free speech for religious entities, and institutional autonomy.”

The topic of religious freedom will likely come up in federal government workplaces as well. A potential source of dispute involves new U.S. Office of Personnel Management workspace rules stating that personal religious expression by federal employees should be allowed to the greatest extent possible unless it imposes undue hardship on business operations. A Bloomberg Law report on the changes noted that critics have raised concerns about implementation, warning the policy could “prioritize the promotion of Christianity in the workplace at the expense of the rights of all federal workers, regardless of their faith traditions.”

In the past 40 years, the Supreme Court has shifted its interpretation of the First Amendment’s establishment and free exercise clauses from strict separation of church and state to more government accommodation of personal religious views — as seen in the OPM’s new workplace rules.

There will also be several court decisions in 2026 on the topic of religious freedom:

• The Supreme Court is set to decide whether a former Louisiana prison inmate may seek monetary damages after corrections officials shaved his dreadlocks despite religious objections. The inmate cited an earlier federal appeals court ruling that declared his First Amendment right to keep his hair and collect damages from government officials, under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000.
• In 2023, the Supreme Court held that a Colorado web designer had a religious freedom right to refuse to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple. In October 2025, after hearing a claim that cited the 2023 case, the Texas Supreme Court held that a county judge could decline to perform same-sex weddings without violating the state’s code of judicial conduct. First Amendment advocates anticipate additional lawsuits citing this ruling.
• The Supreme Court will also decide whether a preacher can challenge the 1871 Civil Rights Act on religious speech grounds. Lower courts have ruled the law bars his constitutional challenge to a Brandon, Missouri, ordinance restricting demonstrations near a city-owned amphitheater, as he had previously pleaded “no contest” and paid a fine for violating the ordinance.
• Another federal court is reviewing a proposed agreement between the Internal Revenue Service and several religious organizations. The agreement would remove tax penalties preventing religious groups from endorsing political candidates, under a rule known as the Johnson Amendment. Supporters of the new agreement say preventing such endorsements from the pulpit are unlawful restrictions on free speech and freedom of religion.

With implications extending into 2026 and beyond, a 2025 Supreme Court decision affirmed parental rights to opt children out of school instruction or materials that conflict with religious beliefs. Although the case involved LGBTQ+ reading materials, the ruling may prompt broader opt-out requests across a range of subjects that conflict with religious beliefs.

AI regulation, the First Amendment and compelled speech

Legal disputes involving artificial intelligence in the U.S. have so far focused on copyright claims, deepfake content, and lawsuits alleging harm or defamation arising from interaction with AI.

In September 2025, members of Congress signaled possible new safety regulations for AI chatbots after hearing testimony from parents whose son died by suicide after extensive conversations on the subject with ChatGPT.

As lawmakers examine AI’s broader societal impacts, early proposals have included labeling or disclosure requirements to inform users when content is generated by artificial intelligence.

However, as Freedom Forum Fellow Ashkhen Kazaryan has written, labeling or disclosure laws must be tightly focused on preventing concrete harms, or they risk being struck down by courts as unconstitutional “compelled speech,” which would violate the First Amendment.

Given the rapid pace of AI development, debates over whether First Amendment protection applies to nonhuman expression will also ramp up in 2026.

The First Amendment in 2026

From new issues to new challenges to what was once considered "settled" law, particularly in the areas of free speech and religious liberty, the First Amendment will be front and center in 2026.

Be sure to subscribe to the 1st Things First newsletter for weekly First Amendment headlines and analysis. And follow us on X and Facebook for daily updates on all things First Amendment.

Gene Policinski is a senior fellow for the First Amendment at Freedom Forum. He can be reached at [email protected].