← All Cases Coverage by Bryan K. Randolph · BrynoDC

Coalition for Independent Technology Research v. Rubio

No. 1:26-cv-00815 District · Active Active
Court
D.D.C.
dcd
Judge
James E. Boasberg 44
Filed
Mar 9, 2026
Judge (CL)
James E. Boasberg 44
Filed (CL)
Mar 9, 2026
CL Status
active

Case Overview

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research sued the Trump administration over the new policy which targets noncitizens who conduct misinformation and disinformation research or promote certain content moderation policies.


The Application

History

The policy explicitly restricts noncitizens based on the content of their research and advocacy regarding misinformation and content moderation. The government must demonstrate the restriction narrowly serves a compelling interest rather than suppressing disfavored viewpoints.

The Conclusion

On July 14, 2026, Judge Boasberg granted a stay of the State Department policy under 5 U.S.C. 705, finding CITR showed a likelihood that the policy burdens protected speech and association based on viewpoint, in violation of the First Amendment and APA. Case remains active in D.C. District Court.

Federal Court TMR-4168bc19 "Censorship" Policy Jul 15, 2026

Case Analysis

Overview

The Coalition for Independent Technology Research sued the Trump administration over the new policy which targets noncitizens who conduct misinformation and disinformation research or promote certain content moderation policies.

Issue

Whether an executive policy restricting noncitizens who conduct misinformation research or advocate for content moderation policies violates the First Amendment and constitutional due process rights.

Rule

Content-based speech restrictions receive strict scrutiny and must serve a compelling governmental interest narrowly tailored to achieve it. Noncitizens retain certain First Amendment protections within the United States.

Analysis

The policy explicitly restricts noncitizens based on the content of their research and advocacy regarding misinformation and content moderation. The government must demonstrate the restriction narrowly serves a compelling interest rather than suppressing disfavored viewpoints.

Conclusion

Active case in D.C. District Court (Judge James E. Boasberg) filed March 9, 2026, challenging the constitutionality of the policy targeting noncitizen researchers and content moderation advocates.

Subscribe on Substack ↗

This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support