Media Contact
A federal judge in Virginia has temporarily jammed the Trump administration’s plans to payout of its Anti-Weaponization Fund until at least June 12; plaintiffs are alleging the fund violates the separation of powers, First Amendment, and equal-protection clause of the Constitution.
G.S. Hans, associate director of the First Amendment Clinic and professor at Cornell Law School, says he expects the judge to take the First Amendment claims seriously given that the language of the fund specifically refers to Democrats.
Gautam Hans
Associate Clinical Professor of Law
“My understanding is that part of the plaintiffs’ claims rest on the idea that the potential disbursements violate the First Amendment’s prohibition of viewpoint discrimination from the government. In effect, the government can effectively never make choices based on the viewpoint of the speaker, and because the language setting up the fund specifically refers to ‘Democrats’ who may have targeted potential fund recipients, obtaining funds through the government program seems contingent upon a specific viewpoint.
“While I think any decision in the case will probably not primarily rest on the First Amendment argument in validating or invalidating the fund, it’s a powerful claim that I suspect Judge Brinkema will take quite seriously.”
