Eugene Volokh

American legal scholar of the First Amendment and constitutional law; the Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law. Founder and coauthor of The Volokh Conspiracy, a legal blog hosted at Reason.

Website

The Volokh Conspiracy (blog)

What we have documented

We have documented 5 statements by Eugene Volokh, in 5 cases. Each statement below gives the quotation, its original source and a link to the full case.

Statements by Eugene Volokh

Eugene Volokh

Role at the time: Law professor and coauthor with Rebecca Roiphe and Nadine Strossen

October 5, 2026Mixed or conditional

Statement summary

Volokh, Roiphe and Strossen seek First Amendment review of disbarment based on public political speech. They decline to address other allegations, including alleged false statements to courts, Eastman's own client and Vice President Pence's team.

“This amicus brief does not opine on those matters. ... this Court should grant certiorari to consider when lawyers can be disbarred for their public political speech.”

Read the original textRoiphe, Strossen and Volokh urge review on public-speech groundsSummary of argument, reservation about false statements and conclusion

Why we used this label

The reference point is Eastman's disbarment. The coauthors seek review on public-speech grounds while expressly declining to address the other allegations against him.

Read statement Full case: Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment

Eugene Volokh

Role at the time: Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution and professor emeritus at UCLA School of Law, in a signed post on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at Reason

September 18, 2026Mixed or conditional

Statement summary

In a signed post on the Volokh Conspiracy blog at Reason, law professor Eugene Volokh wrote that, according to the D.C. Circuit, the government may not exclude press outlets based on viewpoint from spaces broadly opened to the press, such as the main White House press briefing room, but may do so from spaces such as Oval Office interviews. He wrote that an exclusion resting on an objective viewpoint-neutral judgment “might be permissible,” while one based in part on disapproval of the three outlets’ perspectives or editorial judgments would likely be seen as viewpoint discrimination.

“But if the exclusion is based in part on disapproval of CNN's, MS NOW's, and Politico's perspectives or editorial judgments as being unfair or unsound, that would likely be seen as viewpoint-discrimination—which, again, is unconstitutional as to the main press briefing room but constitutional as to the Oval Office.”

Open sourceCan President Trump Ban CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from White House? · Reason MagazineFinal paragraph, second sentence (begins 'But if the exclusion is based in part on disapproval'); the preceding sentence in the same paragraph gives the 'might be permissible' alternative.

Why we used this label

Volokh’s words neither approve nor reject the announced exclusion: he writes that its constitutionality depends on the space (unconstitutional as to the main press briefing room, constitutional as to the Oval Office) and on whether it rests on a viewpoint-neutral judgment, which “might be permissible,” or on disapproval of the outlets’ perspectives, and he does not say which basis applies here. The closest competing label is condemns, because he says an exclusion based in part on such disapproval would likely be seen as viewpoint discrimination. That loses because the same sentence calls such an exclusion constitutional as to the Oval Office, so his conclusion turns on an express condition rather than rejecting the act.

Read statement Full case: Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?

Eugene Volokh

Role at the time: In his May 21, 2025 Volokh Conspiracy analysis

May 21, 2025Mixed or conditional

Statement summary

Volokh argues that readers have a First Amendment interest in receiving AI output. He criticizes the court's tentative analysis while allowing that some negligence or product-liability claims might remain constitutionally permissible.

“I think the First Amendment does apply to such AI output”

Open sourceEugene Volokh examines the First Amendment ruling in GarciaAnalysis preceding the quoted allegations; paragraphs on listener rights and possible exceptions

Why we used this label

The reference point is the company's First Amendment defense. Volokh supports applying the amendment but expressly leaves open exceptions that could permit liability.

Read statement Full case: Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide

Eugene Volokh

Role at the time: UCLA law professor

January 21, 2010Defended or excused

Statement summary

Volokh argued that denying business corporations speech rights would also deny them to media corporations.

“The constitutional protections offered to the institutional media are no greater than those offered to others. And thus if ordinary business corporations lack First Amendment rights, so do those business corporations that we call media corporations.”

Open sourceVolokh responds to the Citizens United dissent on corporate speechLessened Corporate First Amendment Rights and Media Corporations; final substantive paragraph

Why we used this label

The dispute concerns constitutional protection for independent corporate election speech. Volokh defends that protection by rejecting a distinction that would strip ordinary corporations of rights while protecting media companies.

Read statement Full case: Citizens United: Corporate election spending and free speech

Eugene Volokh

Role at the time: Legal scholar, in an author-hosted draft of a Daily Journal column

June 11, 2001Defended or excused

Statement summary

Volokh supports the result despite expecting more illegal interception. He argues that suppressing important reporting would be a worse alternative.

“the alternative was to let the government suppress speech that’s often vital to public debate”

Open sourceVolokh: Regulating Reporters' RevelationsFinal paragraph of author-hosted column draft

Why we used this label

The reference point is publishing the intercepted call. Volokh supports the publication holding while acknowledging adverse privacy consequences.

Read statement Full case: Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call

A participant is a subject of the case. A speaker has a statement documented in it. A commentator has an opinion or editorial documented in it.

Case

Should President Trump bar CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House over their coverage?

Relationship to this case: Commentator

Trump announced a White House ban on CNN, MS NOW and Politico over their coverage. Read his original post, the outlets' responses and their accounts of reporters being refused entry.

Media U.S. PoliticsUpdated September 30, 2026

Case

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee urge Supreme Court review of John Eastman's disbarment

Relationship to this case: Speaker

Cruz and Lee argue John Eastman's disbarment threatens lawyers' speech and clients' access to counsel. California's State Bar says the evidence showed he advanced false election claims. The petition is set for the Supreme Court's November 6 conference, and review has not been granted.

Free Speech January 6 AttackUpdated October 15, 2026

Case

Character.AI argues the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide

Relationship to this case: Commentator

Character.AI argued that the First Amendment bars a lawsuit blaming its chatbot for a teen's suicide. The mother's lawyers said chatbot output is not protected speech. A federal judge declined to call it speech at an early stage, and the case settled.

Artificial Intelligence Free SpeechPublished October 13, 2026

Case

Citizens United: Corporate election spending and free speech

Relationship to this case: Commentator

The Supreme Court protected corporate and union independent election spending in Citizens United. Defenders say the ruling protects political speech and association. Critics say it gives wealthy interests excessive influence and undermines democratic accountability.

Campaign Finance Free SpeechUpdated October 19, 2026

Case

Bartnicki v. Vopper: justices split over publishing an illegally intercepted call

Relationship to this case: Commentator

The Supreme Court protects disclosure of a call by recipients who did not participate in its illegal interception. The majority emphasizes public concern; the dissent stresses privacy and the incentive for others to intercept communications.

Press Freedom PrivacyUpdated October 25, 2026

Eugene Volokh

What we have documented

Want the next important update?

Statements by Eugene Volokh

Published cases

Topics in this coverage