Key Takeaways
- • Akin Gump partners Julius Chen and Pratik Shah secured a First Amendment victory for PBS on March 31, 2026, obtaining a permanent injunction against enforcement of a May 2025 executive order that directed federal agencies to terminate all PBS funding.
- • The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the executive order violated the First Amendment by suppressing PBS's protected speech and constituted retaliation, resulting in a declaration of illegality and permanent injunction against federal officials and agencies.
- • The litigation team also included congressional investigations co-head Abigail Kohlman; the case was initiated in May 2025 when PBS and a local PBS station filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the funding termination directive.
- • The American Lawyer's Litigation Daily recognized the Akin team with a "Litigator of the Week" award, highlighting the significance of the First Amendment precedent in the landmark case.
Summary
Akin Gump Supreme Court & appellate partner Julius Chen and practice head Pratik Shah have earned recognition from The American Lawyer's Litigation Daily for securing a landmark First Amendment victory on behalf of PBS. On March 31, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the public broadcasting service in a case challenging an executive order that sought to eliminate all federal funding for PBS.
The dispute originated in May 2025 when PBS and a local PBS station filed suit against a May 1 executive order instructing federal agencies to terminate federal funding to PBS. The plaintiffs argued that the funding cutoff violated both federal law and First Amendment protections. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court agreed, determining that the executive order violated the First Amendment because it suppressed PBS's views and constituted retaliatory action against the organization for its protected speech.
The court issued both a declaration of illegality and a permanent injunction against various federal officials and agencies from enforcing the executive order. The legal team representing PBS included congressional investigations co-head Abigail Kohlman alongside Chen and Shah. The outcome represents a significant precedent in First Amendment jurisprudence, particularly regarding government restrictions on federal funding as a mechanism to suppress protected speech.
The dispute originated in May 2025 when PBS and a local PBS station filed suit against a May 1 executive order instructing federal agencies to terminate federal funding to PBS. The plaintiffs argued that the funding cutoff violated both federal law and First Amendment protections. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the court agreed, determining that the executive order violated the First Amendment because it suppressed PBS's views and constituted retaliatory action against the organization for its protected speech.
The court issued both a declaration of illegality and a permanent injunction against various federal officials and agencies from enforcing the executive order. The legal team representing PBS included congressional investigations co-head Abigail Kohlman alongside Chen and Shah. The outcome represents a significant precedent in First Amendment jurisprudence, particularly regarding government restrictions on federal funding as a mechanism to suppress protected speech.
Go deeper than the headline
Research every firm in this story, track the ones that matter and get the daily briefing — free for 7 days.