Institute For Free Speech

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 36: Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., et al. v. Arizona Secretary of State, et al.

Center for Arizona Policy, et al. v. Arizona Secretary of State, et al., argued before the Arizona Supreme Court on September 11, 2025. Argued by Andrew Gould (on behalf of Center for Arizona Policy, Inc., et al.) and Eric Fraser and Alexander Samuels on behalf of Arizona.

Background of the case [from the Institute for Free Speech amicus brief]: 

Proposition 211 imposes sweeping disclosure rules unlike anything seen before. On every metric, the law expands on its predecessors. It covers more people, more speech, for longer time. Where other laws narrow, Proposition 211 widens. It is a drastic evolution in compelled disclosure—and one that should not survive constitutional scrutiny. 

But what kind of scrutiny even applies? The First Amendment requires what’s called “exacting scrutiny.” See Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595, 607 (2021) (“AFPF”). It’s a high bar in theory—part of the increasingly convoluted “tiers of scrutiny” the federal courts have adopted. Under this standard, a law’s constitutionality often boils down to “if, in the judge’s view, the law is sufficiently reasonable or important.” United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680, 731 (2024) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring). Yet that “kind of balancing approach to constitutional interpretation” is inconsistent with “what judges as umpires should strive to do.” Id. (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).  

Fortunately, “the Arizona Constitution provides broader protections for free speech than the First Amendment.” Brush & Nib Studios, LC v. Phoenix, 247 Ariz. 269, 281 (Ariz. 2019). Those protections do not depend on courts weighing the value of amorphous governmental interests. Rather, Arizona’s Constitution guarantees that “[e]very person may freely speak, write, and publish on all subjects.” Ariz. Const. art. II, § 6. And this Court has taken a “more literal application” of that language, mandating that courts “avoid, where possible, attempts to erode [these rights] by balancing them against . . . governmental interests,” Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 160 Ariz. 350, 357 (Ariz. 1989).  

That means laws like Proposition 211 do not live or die based on the freewheeling balancing that tests like “exacting scrutiny” rely on. If the law burdens the right to speak freely, it violates the Arizona Constitution unless the state can show it prevents abuse. See Plaintiffs’ Supp. Br. at 5–6. And since no one disputes that Proposition 211’s expansive disclosure rules deter protected speech, and no one argues that it targets abusive speech, it cannot survive scrutiny.  

Statement of the issues [from the Arizona Supreme Court docket listing]: 

  1. Is the Voters’ Right to Know Act facially unconstitutional under the Ariz. Constitution? 
  2. If not, did the court of appeals properly dismiss Plaintiffs-Appellants’ as-applied challenge?

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 35: Gays Against Groomers, et al. v. Garcia, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on September 10, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 34: Moving Oxnard Forward, Inc. v. Lourdes Lopez, argued en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on September 9, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 33: Lowery v. Mills, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on August 4, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

Episode 32: OPAWL – Building AAPI Feminist Leadership v. Dave Yost, et al., argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on July 23, 2025.
Listen to the argument here:  

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:  

Get the Latest Updates

© 2025 Institute for Free Speech | 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW | Suite 801 | Washington, DC 20036 | 202-301-3300

The word mark Institute for Free Speech® and its logo of a stylized lantern with a flame are federally registered service marks and are owned by the Institute for Free Speech.