I won’t belabor it — but Tangerine 2.0’s lame-a$$ effort to punish journalists he disfavors… was dealt another [likely lethal] blow, today.

He will doubtless appeal. But that too will fail. Here’s a bit, but do go read all of the 60-plus pages:

…These consolidated cases raise the question whether the First Amendment permits the executive branch to put an end to all federal funding across agencies and programs for two private entities — here, National Public Radio (“NPR”) and the Public Broadcasting Service (“PBS”) — merely because, in the President’s view, “neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events.” Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media, Exec. Order No. 14290 § 1, 90 Fed. Reg. 19415 (May 1, 2025) (“Exec. Order”)….

The President may, of course, engage in his own expressive conduct, including criticizing the views, reporting, or programming of NPR, PBS, or any other news outlet with whom he disagrees. The government may also fund its own speech and may fund government programs that promote specific perspectives on issues of public importance, and it may decide which views or perspectives to convey — and which not to convey — in any such government speech or program. And it may impose limits on federal grants to ensure that they are deployed to further the legitimate purposes of the program and may pick and choose among applicants based on legitimate criteria. But the First Amendment draws a line, which the government may not cross, at efforts to use government power — including the power of the purse — “to punish or suppress disfavored expression” by others. Nat’l Rifle Ass’n of Am. v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024).

As the Supreme Court and D.C. Circuit have observed on more than a dozen occasions, the government “may not deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected… freedom of speech even if he has no entitlement to that benefit.” E.g., Agency for Int’l Dev. v. All. for Open Soc’y Int’l, Inc., 570 U.S. 205, 214 (2013).

Executive Order 14290 crosses that line. It does not define or regulate the content of government speech or ensure compliance with a federal program. Nor does it set neutral and germane criteria that apply to all applicants for a federal grant program. Instead, it singles out two speakers and, on the basis of their speech, bars them from all federally funded programs….

Because the First Amendment does not tolerate viewpoint discrimination and retaliation of this type, the Court will issue judgment against the federal agency defendants declaring Section 3(a) of the Executive Order is unconstitutional and will issue an injunction barring those defendants from implementing it….

Excellent!

नमस्ते