Eugene Volokh leaves UCLA for Hoover Institution amid free speech debates

In April 2024, Eugene Volokh, a prominent legal scholar, made the significant decision to leave his position at UCLA and join the Hoover Institution. This transition was highlighted during a roundtable discussion in celebration of Volokh's contributions to scholarship and law. His departure is seen as a loss for viewpoint diversity within American law schools, particularly as he has been an influential advocate for First Amendment rights. Notably, Volokh's extensive body of work includes legal briefs that challenged compelled speech in the context of antidiscrimination law. His arguments were pivotal in several high-profile Supreme Court cases involving speech rights and religious freedoms. One of his most notable contributions was in the cases of Elane Photography (2013), Masterpiece Cakeshop (2018), and 303 Creative (2023). In these cases, Volokh argued for the rights of service providers to refuse certain types of speech due to their First Amendment protections. Specifically, the Supreme Court ruled that a website designer was not engaging in discrimination when refusing to create websites for same-sex weddings. Instead, she was protected against compelled speech under the First Amendment, highlighting the court’s acknowledgment of individual rights over state interests in certain expressive acts. Volokh's perspective provided necessary breathing room for individuals' speech interests while still allowing the government to protect citizens from discrimination. Simultaneously, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated an inquiry into the moderation practices of social media platforms, questioning whether their activities amounted to unfair or deceptive acts under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. Chair Andrew Ferguson's approach has sparked significant debate over whether such moderation practices violate free speech principles protected by the First Amendment. Critics argue that this line of inquiry infringes upon the editorial discretion that these platforms possess, a principle reinforced by past Supreme Court rulings protecting such judgments. Legal experts contend that social media platforms' content moderation does not fall under unfair trade practices as they do not cause tangible consumer harm or violate lawful operational standards. The debate represents ongoing tensions between First Amendment rights and government oversight in the rapidly evolving digital landscape. The arguments surrounding Volokh's briefs and the FTC's inquiries highlight tensions between different interpretations of free speech and the responsibilities of businesses and government in moderating speech. As these discussions continue, they underscore the complexities of upholding free expression in both physical and digital realms, ultimately affecting how laws shape the relationships between individual rights, commercial entities, and broader societal expectations.