Representing all petitioners in the constitutional challenge to the SEC's gag rule as a violation of the First Amendment.

Supporting petitioners on grounds of free speech, government transparency, and the dangers of compelled silence in regulatory settlements.

A coalition of the nation's leading free-speech organizations argues the First Amendment's interlocking guarantees create the preconditions for democratic accountability — and the Gag Rule gives the SEC unchecked control over the public account of its own conduct.

From America's preeminent First Amendment lawyer: the Gag Rule extracts speech waivers "at gunpoint," guts a critical check on SEC prosecutorial overreach, and inflicts real and recurring First Amendment harms.

Argues the rights of free speech and petition are inalienable, that the SEC has no legitimate interest in shielding itself from criticism, and that the Gag Rule is so plainly excessive that it violates due process.

Argues the Gag Rule censors speech critical of government and deprives the public of vital information about how its own government conducts itself — running counter to the nation's best juridical traditions of public proceedings.

Argues SEC investigations operate as an escalating ecosystem of coercion that forces capitulation, while pre-enforcement review is effectively foreclosed — leaving the Gag Rule insulated from challenge through normal channels.

Argues the unconstitutional conditions doctrine bars the SEC from demanding First Amendment waivers as the price of settlement — regardless of any claim of "consent."

Argues the SEC's blanket Gag Rule serves no legitimate government interest, uses the threat of agency action to accomplish what the SEC cannot through its enumerated powers, and is essentially unprecedented in both public and private litigation.

Argues the Gag Rule is a textbook prior restraint that also violates the rights to petition government, freedom of the press, and protection from compelled and viewpoint-based speech regulation.

Argues the SEC cannot end its investigations by extracting lifetime waivers of citizens' right to criticize the government — and that the Ninth Circuit is increasingly an outlier in enforcing such waivers.

Argues Rule 202.5(e) inverts Congress's FOIA-based transparency architecture and operates as a prior restraint regardless of how it is characterized as a settlement condition.

Argues the Gag Rule is unnecessary, exceeds the scope of the regulation as the SEC actually applies it, and creates an unfair, coercive enforcement scheme by restricting only the defendant's side of the public record.

Personal testimony from individuals living under the Gag Rule documenting its professional, financial, social, and democratic harms — and the realities that make "settlement" a last resort, not a choice.

From former SEC enforcement attorneys: the Gag Rule manufactures the very half-truths and market distortions the federal securities laws were enacted to prevent — a mandate the SEC enforces against everyone except itself.

From a leading securities-industry trade association: the SEC's outlier Gag Rule is a straightforward First Amendment violation that harms both regulated defendants and the investing public.

From the nation's largest business federation: the Gag Rule operates as an unconstitutional prior restraint extracted under coercive enforcement pressure that no business should be forced to face.

An eleven-organization coalition — including 60 Plus, the Rio Grande Foundation, the Russell Kirk Center, the Orthodox Jewish Chamber of Commerce, and others — argues the Gag Rule is incompatible with the First Amendment's role in democratic self-government.