Jawboning: What Is It, and Does It Violate the First Amendment?

A government official pressures a TV network to fire a political commentator. The head of a federal agency pushes a social media company to moderate certain users’ political posts. A governor threatens consequences for anyone who works with a controversial organization.

These are all examples of “jawboning”: a term for when the government pressures a private company or person to restrict another company or person’s First Amendment freedoms, rather than the government doing the restricting itself.

Read on to learn more about jawboning, how it involves the First Amendment, and prominent examples and court cases.

What is jawboning, and how does it involve the First Amendment?

The First Amendment applies only to government actions. This means the government generally can’t force people or companies to speak — or not speak — with some limited exceptions.

The First Amendment does not prohibit private companies or individuals from preventing other private companies or individuals from speaking. For example, a private social media platform may bar a user without violating the First Amendment.

While it doesn’t always violate the First Amendment, jawboning is a First Amendment issue because it involves the government pressuring one private actor to restrict another private actor’s ability to exercise its First Amendment-protected freedoms.

To determine if an instance of jawboning violates the First Amendment, courts ask whether:

1. The government pressure on the first private party effectively amounted to a demand, one the government had no legal authority to make.
2. That pressure caused the first private party to actually restrict a second private party’s First Amendment freedoms.

Jawboning violates the First Amendment only if both these elements are proven.

Court cases and famous jawboning examples

Below are some prominent examples and court cases involving jawboning.

Rhode Island and Bantam Books

In 1956, Rhode Island created a state commission to educate the public about books and other materials that contain “obscene, indecent or impure” language.

The commission notified book distributors about materials meeting this criterion and requested distributors’ cooperation in ensuring these materials were not sold or distributed to minors. At the same time, it reminded these distributors of its duty to recommend that the attorney general prosecute distributors of obscene content and also to provide lists of “objectionable” publications to local police departments. While the commission did not have legal or prosecutorial power, the implied threat of government action (the prosecutions of those who distribute obscene content, for example) led to some book publishers self-censoring or declining to distribute books in the state.

Four book publishers sued. They argued the commission’s work violated the First Amendment by engaging in prior restraint, a form of censorship, because “[p]eople do not lightly disregard public officers' thinly veiled threats to institute criminal proceedings against them” (and the distributors in this case acted accordingly). In 1963, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the publishers, agreeing the commission violated the First Amendment (Bantam Books v. Sullivan).

New York state and the National Rifle Association

In 2017, New York state financial regulators initiated an investigation into insurance companies doing business with the NRA. Following the 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida, the state of New York also sent letters advising banks and other companies of the reputational and legal risks they could face if they continue to do business with the NRA and issued a news release urging “all insurance companies and banks doing business in New York” to follow those “that have already discontinued their arrangements with the NRA.”

The NRA sued, saying New York officials violated its First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed in a unanimous 2024 ruling (NRA v. Vullo). The court said government officials can criticize companies and try to convince people to agree with their position but cannot use government action — directly or indirectly — to punish speech they don’t like:

“[T]he critical takeaway is that the First Amendment prohibits government officials from wielding their power selectively to punish or suppress speech, directly or (as alleged here) through private intermediaries.”

The Biden administration and tech companies

Following the 2020 presidential election and during the COVID-19 pandemic, social media and tech companies removed posts and banned users who the companies say shared “false or misleading information” about elections and public health.

Residents and state officials in Missouri and Louisiana sued, claiming Biden administration officials “pressured the platforms to censor [their] speech in violation of the First Amendment.” In 2024, the Supreme Court found that the people and states who sued did not have “standing” to bring their cases (Murthy v. Missouri). In other words, the court found no evidence that government action directly caused any of the individuals filing the lawsuit to be banned from the platforms or have their posts removed.

While the court did find the government “played a role in at least some of the platforms’ moderation decisions,” it also noted the platforms “had independent incentives to moderate content and often exercised their own judgment.” Under the First Amendment, private social media companies can moderate content and set their own policies.

President Donald Trump, the Federal Communications Commission and Jimmy Kimmel

Following the assassination of Charlie Kirk in September 2025, Jimmy Kimmel criticized President Donald Trump and other Republicans’ responses in his Sept. 15 “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” opening monologue. Two days later, FCC Chairman Brendan Carr said on a podcast: “Look, we can do this the easy way or the hard way. These companies can find ways to change conduct and take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”