On July 16, 2026, Reason published an article by Eugene Volokh introducing Simona Grossi’s latest work in the Journal of Free Speech Law titled "Policing Expressive Governance: A Framework for Judicial Review of Executive Viewpoint Retaliation."

Grossi’s article addresses contemporary threats to expressive freedom that do not always manifest as statutes or criminal sanctions but increasingly appear through executive administrative actions such as procurement decisions, grant terminations, security-clearance revocations, and regulatory designations. These discretionary tools can be used to penalize disfavored viewpoints while maintaining the appearance of ordinary governance, a phenomenon Grossi terms "expressive governance."

The article highlights the difficulty courts face in addressing such cases due to longstanding deference to executive judgment. Grossi illustrates this with an example where a leading artificial intelligence company, after refusing to deploy its models for autonomous lethal weapons or mass surveillance and declining related contract terms, was designated a "supply-chain risk to national security" by the government—a label historically reserved for foreign adversaries—effectively blocking its federal defense contracts. While some may interpret this as disciplining a difficult counterparty, the sequence and disproportionate response suggest possible retaliation for protected expression.

To address this, Grossi proposes a judicial framework consisting of three interlocking tools: a clear-statement requirement, a burden-shifting rule, and an evidentiary presumption of systemic distortion when the executive targets expressive intermediaries. This framework aims to provide courts with an administrable method to review executive viewpoint retaliation consistent with First Amendment principles.

Sources