The Constitution’s guarantees mean nothing if they cannot be enforced against those who hold power. When government officials punish speech they dislike, retaliate against those who oppose them, or seek to silence critics through the instruments of public authority, the constitutional violation demands a response equal to the offense.

Sweigart Murdock, LLP represents individuals, public officials, and organizations whose First Amendment rights have been violated by state and local government actors. Our practice encompasses constitutional litigation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Anti-SLAPP defense, and challenges to government conduct and unconstitutional laws. We have defeated retaliatory lawsuits brought by political opponents seeking to silence public officials, obtained dismissals of government-initiated retaliation claims, and defended speakers against private litigation designed to punish protected expression. We pursue injunctive relief to stop unconstitutional conduct and damages to hold those responsible accountable.

Government Retaliation for Protected Speech

The First Amendment largely prohibits government officials from retaliating against individuals because of the content of their speech or the political positions they hold. That prohibition is frequently violated—by officials who use their authority to punish critics, by governing bodies that seek to discipline members for speaking publicly, and by employers who penalize employees for protected expression that they believe reflects poorly on those in charge.

The experience Sweigart Murdock brings to this work includes representing a public official sued by a political opponent whose purpose was to silence his public statements—a transparent attempt to weaponize civil litigation against protected speech. Sweigart Murdock’s attorneys also represented a public official whose own governing board sought to sanction and silence her for speaking to the press. In both cases, the underlying constitutional principle was the same: government actors may not use legal process or institutional authority as an instrument of political censorship.

These cases require counsel who understand both the constitutional doctrines and the political dynamics at work. Retaliation claims arising from government conduct involve overlapping bodies of law—First Amendment protections, qualified immunity defenses, Anti-SLAPP statutes, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983—and the strategic decisions made early in the litigation often determine the outcome. We bring experience across all of these frameworks to every matter we handle in this area.

Civil Rights Litigation Under § 1983

42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a federal cause of action against state and local government officials who violate constitutional rights under color of law. When a government official retaliates against an individual for protected speech, deprives a person of liberty or property without adequate process, discriminates in violation of the Equal Protection Clause, or otherwise deploys public authority to punish or harm those subject to it, § 1983 provides the mechanism for redress—including both injunctive relief to halt the unconstitutional conduct and damages to hold officials personally accountable.

Our § 1983 practice encompasses constitutional claims across the core guarantees implicated by government misconduct: free speech and political retaliation, procedural and substantive due process, and equal protection. We have litigated these matters at the trial and appellate levels, navigating qualified immunity defenses and the procedural obstacles that frequently accompany civil rights claims against government defendants. We pursue injunctive relief where the violation is ongoing and damages where accountability requires it.

Social Media, Public Forums, and the Digital Public Square

Government officials increasingly conduct public business through social media—and increasingly use those platforms to exclude, block, or silence individuals whose views they find inconvenient. The constitutional law governing this conduct has developed substantially in recent years, culminating in the Supreme Court's recognition that a government official's social media activity may constitute state action subject to First Amendment constraints.

The firm has litigated cases involving government officials who used their social media presence to block critics and exclude dissenting voices from public discourse. These cases sit at the intersection of First Amendment doctrine, qualified immunity analysis, and the rapidly evolving law of digital public forums. We bring specific experience with this body of law and the factual patterns — public accounts, official conduct, viewpoint-based exclusion — that determine whether a constitutional claim succeeds.

Anti-SLAPP Defense in First Amendment Matters

Private litigation is frequently used as an instrument of political retaliation. A lawsuit need not succeed to achieve its purpose—the cost, distraction, and reputational burden of defending a civil action can silence speech as effectively as any government order. Anti-SLAPP statutes exist precisely to address this abuse, providing early dismissal mechanisms, fee-shifting, and a structural disincentive against using litigation to punish protected expression.

Our Anti-SLAPP practice in the First Amendment context mirrors what we do in defamation matters: we identify the retaliatory purpose behind the litigation, move to dismiss at the earliest available opportunity, and pursue fee awards that impose real consequences on those who bring abusive claims. We have won Anti-SLAPP dismissals on behalf of public officials targeted for their political speech and on behalf of individuals whose public advocacy attracted litigation designed to punish rather than vindicate any legitimate legal interest.

Challenging Unconstitutional Laws and Government Conduct

State and local governments continue to enact laws and adopt policies that restrict speech, compel disclosure, or impose viewpoint-based burdens on expression. The current legislative environment—marked by aggressive state-level regulation of online speech, employment-related speech restrictions, and expanded use of government authority against advocacy organizations—has produced a growing body of constitutional challenges that require experienced First Amendment counsel.

The firm represents clients in constitutional challenges to government conduct and legislation that infringes on First Amendment rights, pursuing declaratory and injunctive relief in federal court. We also advise individuals and organizations on the First Amendment dimensions of employment retaliation, civil rights violations in the workplace, and the intersection of free speech and civil rights law where those doctrines converge in a single matter.

The Principle Behind the Practice

The First Amendment does not protect only popular speech, or speech directed at sympathetic targets, or speech that those in power find unthreatening. It protects expression precisely because government officials, left unchecked, will predictably seek to suppress what inconveniences them. The firm's First Amendment practice is built on that recognition.

We represent clients across a range of political contexts and fact patterns, but the common thread is consistent: our clients’ speech has been targeted by those who hold public authority, and the constitutional guarantee of free expression requires a vigorous response. We bring the doctrinal depth, litigation experience, and commitment to that principle that these matters demand.

The firm handles First Amendment and civil rights matters in federal and state courts nationwide. Our practice is selective by design—each matter receives the direct attention of the attorneys responsible for it, and we accept only those cases where we can provide the sustained, focused representation that constitutional litigation requires.