Delayed Ruling in Smithsonian Free Speech Case Begs The Question: Will its Ruling Contradict Itself?

WASHINGTON - Oct. 8, 2024 - PRLog -- Artist Julian Raven's fight to vindicate his First Amendment rights against the Smithsonian Institution has entered a legal limbo, as the U.S. District Court continues to delay a ruling in his current case (22-cv-2809). The delay by Judge Cooper follows the Supreme Court's refusal to answer a fundamental question of federal law in Raven's previous case, Raven v. Smithsonian Institution (17-cv-01240), concerning whether the Smithsonian's status as a private charitable trust exempts it from free speech protections under the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to intervene has left an unresolved constitutional dilemma.

In his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Raven argued that the Smithsonian Institution's establishment as a private charitable trust, per the 1846 Act of Congress, and its administration by federal officials as trustees, requires the federal government to protect his First Amendment rights. Raven's petition, citing Marbury v. Madison, emphasized that "it is emphatically the duty of the judiciary to say what the law is." Despite clear legal precedent, Raven's claims went unanswered.

Raven's Supreme Court petition further cited Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation, a landmark case that held when a government entity controls or operates a private trust, constitutional protections must apply. Board of Regents v. Roth also affirmed that the government cannot arbitrarily limit free speech in federally governed entities. Despite this legal clarity, SCOTUS's refusal to hear Raven's petition has left unresolved whether the Smithsonian's federal trusteeship mandates First Amendment compliance.

Raven also invoked Kendall v. United States to argue that the government cannot run a private trust and ignore the constitutional rights of individuals dealing with that trust. Doubts about the Smithsonian's legal standing, deeply rooted in federal law, have long persisted. Yet, by refusing to clarify whether the Smithsonian is bound by the same constitutional protections as other federal entities, the courts have left the issue dangling.

Now, as Raven pursues justice in his new case, Judge Cooper's delayed ruling only deepens the constitutional quagmire.https://www.prlog.org/13040245-justice-delayed-justice-denied-raven-files-motion-to-compel-in-smithsonian-twitter-free-speech-case-against-director-of-national-portrait-gallery.html This delay contradicts the longstanding judicial precedent that federal institutions acting in a public capacity cannot bypass First Amendment protections.

Raven calls upon the judiciary to fulfill its duty, as prescribed by Marbury v. Madison, and declare the law—resolving the contradiction left by the Supreme Court's refusal to engage. The outcome of this case not only impacts Raven's free speech rights, but could also have far-reaching implications for all Americans who engage with federally administered private entities.