Thomas Joseph Powell and other petitioners are challenging the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Gag Rule, alleging it coerces defendants into accepting a “lifetime ban on speech critical of the agency.” They seek review of the SEC’s denial of their rulemaking petition to amend the rule, arguing it violates the First Amendment.
The Institute for Free Speech filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The brief argues the Gag Rule is “a ban not just on speech but a ban on true political speech,” imposing “an eternal, viewpoint-discriminatory prior restraint.” It contends the rule “constitutes a classic prior restraint” and “imposes an unconstitutional condition on settlement.”
The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge and upheld the SEC’s denial of rulemaking. Petitioners have since sought review at the Supreme Court, where the Institute joined an amicus brief supporting certiorari.
At the Supreme Court, the Institute and its co-amici argue the Gag Rule suppresses an entire category of speech—firsthand accounts from those targeted by SEC enforcement—thereby distorting public debate, undermining the right to petition, and depriving the press and public of information needed to hold the government accountable.
The Institute urges the Court to grant review and hold the SEC’s Gag Rule unconstitutional.
To read the Supreme Court amicus brief in the case, Powell, et al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, click here. To read the Ninth Circuit amicus brief, click here. To listen to the Ninth Circuit oral argument on the Free Speech Arguments Podcast, click here.
