Justice Delayed - Justice Denied! Raven Files Motion to Compel in ongoing Smithsonian Twitter Free-Speech Case
Plaintiff Raven Files Motion to Compel Expedited Ruling in Free Speech Case Against Smithsonian Institution and National Portrait Gallery Director Kim Sajet
Introduction
Plaintiff Julian Raven, pro se, respectfully moves this Court for an expedited ruling on the ongoing First Amendment free speech claims. The continued delay in rendering a final decision, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lindke v. Freed, has resulted in undue harm to Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. Despite the Supreme Court’s long awaited decision in Lindke v Freed, this Court has failed to render a final judgment having the answer it sought rendered now six months ago, exacerbating the deprivation of Plaintiff's First Amendment rights.
Factual Background
Plaintiff filed the present action on 09.12.2022, alleging that Defendant violated Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights by blocking plaintiff's access to the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery director’s twitter account.
On July 5th, 2023, this Court delayed issuing a ruling pending the outcome of Lindke v. Freed, a Supreme Court case expected to clarify key legal principles relevant to Plaintiff’s claims.
The Supreme Court issued its decision in Lindke v. Freed on 03.15.2024, establishing clear precedent on the free speech issues at hand. However, despite this resolution, the Court has failed to issue a final ruling in this case for an additional six months.
As a result of the delay, Plaintiff continues to suffer ongoing harm, including the chilling of Plaintiff’s speech and the deprivation of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment.
Legal Standard
The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that delays in adjudicating free speech claims cause irreparable harm, warranting swift judicial action. In Elrod v. Burns (427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976)), the Court recognized that "the loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury." Thus, courts must act promptly when addressing claims involving First Amendment rights to prevent prolonged violations of those rights.
In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (427 U.S. 539 (1976)), the Court underscored the necessity of timely rulings, stating that any delay in addressing prior restraints on free speech could lead to substantial harm, particularly when the right to speak freely is central to the democratic process.
Furthermore, in New York Times Co. v. United States (403 U.S. 713 (1971)), the Pentagon Papers case, the Court ruled that any delay in resolving free speech issues could unconstitutionally suppress expression, reiterating the judiciary’s obligation to act swiftly to prevent such outcomes.
Argument
This Court’s delay in rendering a decision violates the clear judicial obligation to act swiftly in First Amendment cases. Plaintiff's First Amendment rights have been chilled for TWO years, while awaiting a ruling, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has already addressed the relevant issues in Lindke v. Freed. Continued delay exacerbates the harm to Plaintiff, impeding the free exercise of speech, a core constitutional protection.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the importance of prompt rulings in free speech cases to prevent irreparable harm. In Citizens United v. FEC (558 U.S. 310 (2010)), the Court highlighted the need for expeditious decisions in cases involving political speech, as delays could distort the democratic process. Here, the Plaintiff’s speech has been chilled for an unreasonable length of time due to the Court’s inaction.
Additionally, the Court in Mills v. Alabama (384 U.S. 214 (1966)) ruled that restrictions on political speech around elections required immediate judicial attention to ensure the electorate could engage in informed discourse. Similarly, the prolonged delay in this case unjustifiably impedes the Plaintiff’s ability to exercise their rights in a timely manner.
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court promptly issue a ruling on Plaintiff's First Amendment claims, in accordance with Supreme Court precedent that requires courts to expedite rulings in cases involving free speech rights to prevent further irreparable harm.
