STM Blog
Harvard, like all Americans, can’t be punished by the government for speaking freely – and a federal court decision upholds decades of precedents saying so
The Trump administration’s funding cuts to Harvard were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, emphasizing that government cannot retaliate against institutions for their views. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting free speech and dissent in American democracy.
Last Updated on October 5, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University
When the federal government threatened to cancel billions in research funds from Harvard University – as it has also done to other research universities – the message was clear: Institutions that speak or think in ways elected officials dislike can expect to pay a price.
But in a recent ruling that underscored a principle at the heart of American democracy, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s move. The “government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else,” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote.
The Harvard controversy began when the Trump administration announced plans to cut off billions in federal research funds because it objected to the university’s public positions, campus culture and some of its academic scholarship. No one contended that Harvard had mismanaged money or failed to meet grant requirements.
Instead, the White House said the school had done too little to eliminate so-called woke diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – policies and alleged that antisemitism proliferated on campus, as evidenced by student demonstrations against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war.
Along with the American Association of University Professors, Harvard filed suit in response to the funding cuts, arguing that the administration’s action was punitive and unconstitutional – a textbook case of retaliation. By canceling funding, the government was deploying financial pressure to silence disfavored speech. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rn77N4VGkcU?wmode=transparent&start=0 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on April 15, 2025, spoke about President Donald Trump’s moves against Harvard.
Protection for dissent and disagreement
In striking down the funding cut, Burroughs ruled that the administration’s move violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly by limiting government intrusion. While government officials may disagree with Harvard’s speech – whether that means faculty scholarship, public statements or the culture of campus debate – they cannot retaliate by pulling federal support, the judge wrote.
As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
The principle at work in the Harvard case is simple: Free speech protections don’t just apply to individuals in the town square or in places where public decisions are being made.
First Amendment rights extend to private institutions, even when their views or policies contravene official government opinions, and even when they receive funding from the government. Government reprisal does more than chill speech – it sets up a system where only state-approved viewpoints can flourish.
Supreme Court has seen this before
The ruling in Harvard’s favor follows a long legal tradition of Supreme Court rulings that bar the government from demanding ideological acquiescence in exchange for support.
In the case Speiser v. Randall that was decided in 1958, the court struck down a California law requiring veterans to sign loyalty oaths to receive tax exemptions. The decision created the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a principle that forbids government from making the receipt of a government benefit or entitlement conditional in a way that interferes with the exercise of a constitutional right.
In Perry v. Sindermann, a 1972 decision, a professor was denied reappointment at a state college after criticizing administrators. Even without tenure, the court held, the government could not retaliate against him for protected speech.
And in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the court in 2001 invalidated restrictions that barred federally funded legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that such limits “distort the legal system” by preventing some members of the bar from making arguments on behalf of their clients, while the government would face no similar restriction in promoting their own views.
Supreme Court’s contemporary signals
More recent cases show the court wrestling with the same question in new contexts.
The court’s 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International struck down a requirement that nonprofits adopt a government-approved position opposing prostitution in order to receive global health funding.
The government, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, could not make program funds dependent on grant-seeking groups adopting particular political or moral beliefs. In this case, that meant the Alliance for Open Society did not have to condemn sex work in order to qualify for public health funding.
Likewise, in Janus v. AFSCME from 2018, the court struck down an Illinois law that required public employees who chose not to join a union to still pay fees to support it. The state had argued that these “fair-share fees” were necessary because unions bargain on behalf of all workers. But the court said that forcing nonmembers to pay was a form of compelled speech – subsidizing union political organizing – that abridged the First Amendment.
While the context is very different from Harvard’s funding dispute, both cases highlight the same principle: The government cannot use money – whether through subsidies, grants or mandatory fees – as a way to compel or suppress expression. These rulings show that the First Amendment protections apply to government funding and policy questions that quietly shape who gets heard and who does not.
Long history of retaliation
While American myth celebrates the idea that the United States welcomes dissent, the government has a history of punishing protesters.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized criticism of the federal government. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to imprison activists and silence newspapers. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against alleged communists extended to universities, with faculty losing jobs and having their careers destroyed.
In each of those episodes, dissent was framed as dangerous to national security or social stability. And in each case, the tools of government – whether criminal law, congressional investigations or funding threats – were used to discipline voices that strayed from the party line. The impulse to punish institutions for perceived ideological deviance is part of a recurring American story.
What’s distinctive today is how the tactic has been folded into the culture wars.
Where earlier generations of politicians used criminal prosecution or loyalty oaths, the contemporary fight often plays out in budget spreadsheets. Defund public radio. Cut university budgets. Zero out grants to the arts.
These are not just fiscal decisions; they are symbolic moves aimed at disciplining institutions seen by conservatives as too liberal or too critical.
Why this matters beyond the courts
The latest ruling may protect Harvard in this instance, but the larger conflict is not going away.
The legal decision confirms that retaliation violates the First Amendment, but political leaders may continue to test the boundaries. And among the public, the idea that universities should play along with official doctrine in exchange for continued government funding may eventually gain traction. That possibility feels especially real given Trump’s promises, echoed by Vice President JD Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to wield federal power against universities and civic groups they portray – often inaccurately – as leftist, radical or violent.
A society where public funding flows only to institutions aligned with those in power is not a free society. It’s one where government can shape the landscape of knowledge and debate to its own ends.
The Harvard decision offers a reminder: The First Amendment is not just about the right to speak without fear of jail. It’s also about ensuring that the government cannot punish speech indirectly by threatening livelihoods and institutions. That’s why this case matters to the future of free expression in American democracy.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Link: https://stmdailynews.com/%f0%9f%93%9c-who-created-blogging-a-look-back-at-the-birth-of-the-blog/
Rod's Pure Thoughts
Remembering Patrick Stewart: A Star Trek Journey Through My Life
Remembering Patrick Stewart: From childhood adventures with Kirk to finding another favorite captain in Picard, Rod Washington reflects on Patrick Stewart, the Next Generation cast, and the creativity they inspired.
From childhood afternoons with the original Enterprise crew to the reunion in Picard, Star Trek has been part of my life for decades. Patrick Stewart helped make that journey unforgettable.
Remembering Patrick Stewart
The news of Sir Patrick Stewart’s passing has me thinking about how much of my life has had Star Trek somewhere in the background—and often right in the foreground.
Star Trek: The Original Series has been my favorite since I was in single digits. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest of that crew were part of my childhood. Long before there was a Captain Picard, that was my Enterprise.
Then came the motion-picture era with the original cast. The Wrath of Khan arrived during my teenage years. The Voyage Home followed in my young adulthood. As I grew up, those familiar characters kept coming back with new adventures.
Then we got a new Enterprise and a new generation.
A New Crew Earned Its Place
When Star Trek: The Next Generation began, my reaction was something like, “It’s okay.”
I continued watching. I was curious, but I already had a strong attachment to the original crew. That kind of connection takes time to build.
By the end of the first season, though, I was crazy about The Next Generation.
Patrick Stewart had a lot to do with that. His portrayal of Jean-Luc Picard gave me another captain to believe in. He had his own presence, his own way of handling a situation, and a way of making you listen when he spoke.
Eventually, Picard was on par with Kirk in my eyes. Coming from someone who had loved the original series since childhood, that says a lot.
From the Enterprise to First Contact
The series became an important part of my adult entertainment life. I cared about the characters and wanted to see where their stories would go.
After the television series ended, the TNG movies gave us more time with them. My favorite remains First Contact. It is the one that stands out most for me from that chapter of Star Trek.
Looking back, I can trace different stages of my life through these shows and movies: childhood with the original series, my teenage years with The Wrath of Khan, young adulthood with The Voyage Home, and then the years spent getting to know Picard’s crew.
That is a long relationship to have with a fictional universe. The people who bring it to life become familiar faces across decades.
Seeing Everyone Together Again
By the time Star Trek: Picard arrived, I was well into another chapter of my own life.
It was fun to see those familiar faces again, especially when the crew came back together. There was a lot of personal history attached to watching them share the screen.
Patrick Stewart and the rest of the cast—and yes, that includes Wil Wheaton—were an important part of my adult life as a viewer. Each contributed to a crew I grew to love.
Seeing them again brought back the feeling that had kept me watching all those years earlier.
Thank You for the Inspiration
What stays with me most is how much creativity those performances sparked.
As someone who enjoys filmmaking and storytelling, I appreciate entertainment that leaves me wanting to create something of my own. Stewart and his castmates gave me that feeling many times over the years.
His passing makes me appreciate the time we had with him on screen and the work we can return to. I can watch an episode, revisit First Contact, or spend another evening with the crew and remember why these stories meant so much to me.
The original series will always have that special place in my heart. Patrick Stewart helped another Enterprise crew earn a place there, too.
Thank you, Sir Patrick, for the years of entertainment, the inspiration, and a captain who became part of my life.
News Background
Stewart died October 28, 2026, at age 86, according to his spokesperson’s statement reported by Reuters. This entry is a personal reflection on his work and its place in my life.
Reader question: When did Captain Picard and the Next Generation crew win you over?
STM Blog
Golden Bird in Compton: When Mom Took a Night Off
Golden Bird in Compton was an occasional Friday or Saturday treat when Mom wanted a break from cooking. A personal look back at its Alondra Boulevard location and the memories that linger.
Some childhood meals stay with you for decades. For me, Golden Bird fried chicken in Compton is one of them.
Growing up in the Los Angeles area, an occasional Friday or Saturday meant my mom wanted a break from cooking. Those were the nights when takeout became a treat, and Golden Bird was one of the places I remember enjoying most.
The location on East Alondra Boulevard sounds like the one we visited. Researching it brought me to 2600 East Alondra Boulevard, Compton—an address listed in Los Angeles County records under Golden Bird #1.
An address can help place a memory on a map. But what I remember most is much simpler: the chicken was delicious, and getting it was a welcome weekend treat.
Part of Our Family’s Takeout Rotation
Golden Bird wasn’t our only chicken stop. Over the years, there was Pioneer, KFC, Church’s, Louisiana Fried Chicken, and later Popeyes. I also remember Jim Dandy from when I was very young, especially its crinkle-cut fries.
Each name brings back a different memory. Golden Bird brings me back to Compton and those evenings when my mother could take some time off from preparing dinner.
As a kid, I thought about enjoying the food. Looking back, I also appreciate what those meals meant for her: one less dinner to cook and a chance to take a break.
The History Behind the Address
Golden Bird’s own history describes a family recipe associated with Zelma and a wet batter designed to give the chicken a crisp outside while keeping the meat moist. My own memory is simply that I loved eating it.
The Alondra Boulevard location also connects to another chapter in Southern California’s fried-chicken history. Vincent Williams opened a Compton Golden Bird franchise in 1983, according to the Los Angeles Times.
A later profile described Williams developing his Honey’s Kettle concept in his former Compton franchise location. Honey’s Kettle dates its beginnings on Alondra Boulevard to 2000, and a 2012 restaurant visit documented its original location at 2600 East Alondra Boulevard. Those accounts point to a connection between the two businesses at that address.
I haven’t established who operated the restaurant during every year my family visited. But learning about its history adds another layer to a place I remember through its food.
A Weekend Memory Worth Keeping
For me, Golden Bird’s place in the story starts with family. It was an occasional treat, a meal I enjoyed, and a Friday or Saturday when Mom could let someone else handle the cooking.
Decades later, that is still a good reason to remember a neighborhood restaurant.
Editor’s note: Golden Bird is still serving fried chicken in South Los Angeles at 8300 South Western Avenue, at West 83rd Street. For those of us who remember it as a weekend family treat, it’s good to know the Golden Bird name remains part of LA’s food scene. Order pickup and delivery
Did you eat at the Golden Bird on Alondra Boulevard—or another Golden Bird location? Share your memories and favorite orders in the comments.
Explore more food stories in STM Daily News’ Food & Drink section.
For generations, the Santa Monica Pier sign has marked the start of a day at the beach. Now, the familiar blue neon landmark is preparing for a journey of its own.
Santa Monica scheduled removal of the 1941 sign for October 20–22, with shipment to Las Vegas anticipated October 26. The timetable is subject to change, according to the city’s October 19 announcement.
The temporary removal accompanies replacement of the aging bridge connecting Ocean Avenue to the pier. It also creates an opportunity to preserve the historic sign.
YESCO will restore it at its Las Vegas facility. The company’s experience includes work on the “Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas” sign.
Crews will repair neon tubing, treat rust, repaint components and address structural needs while retaining historic features. The sign will remain in secure storage during bridge construction.
Once the project is finished, it will return above the new bridge at a slightly greater height for visibility and vehicle clearance. The city’s latest announcement targets project completion by 2028, ahead of the Los Angeles Olympics and Paralympics.
Meanwhile, visitors can photograph a lighted, half-scale replica near Pier Burger.
For anyone who associates that glowing arch with Southern California memories, its absence will be noticeable. The restoration is intended to ensure future generations can make memories beneath it, too.
Source: City of Santa Monica — October 19, 2026 announcement
Related Links
- City of Santa Monica: Official sign restoration announcement — October 19, 2026. Primary source for removal dates, shipment to Las Vegas, YESCO’s restoration work and the sign’s planned return.
- Santa Monica Daily Press: Sign restoration during bridge rebuild — October 20, 2026. Additional local reporting on the project and visitor access.
- LAist: Sign removal and how to watch — Reporting on the removal schedule and public viewing opportunities.
Follow more Southern California stories at STM Daily News.
