Washington Post editorial "A victory for free speech on the Mall" calls the total withdrawal of proposed anti-protest regulations: "a full retreat by the Trump administration and, more important, a victory for the First Amendment." "Their plan to suppress protest,” said Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, “was met with the very force it was trying to suppress."

In an extraordinary victory for the people, the Trump Administration has announced that it is fully withdrawing its massive anti-democratic plan to block free speech and assembly through proposed regulations that would have crushed protest on federal land in the nation's capital.

Janine Jackson interviewed Mara Verheyden-Hilliard about Trump’s proposed new anti-protest rules for FAIR's CounterSpin. Read more

A truly amazing effort by everyone who joined together and flooded the National Park Service with over 140,000 comments! This is a powerful push back against the Trump administration's new rules designed to crush protest in the nation's capital. People across the United States have made it clear that they are not going to sit back and allow their First Amendment rights to be eviscerated.

Courthouse News Service: Trump Planning Tough New Rules for Protests Near White House. “Nearly all are registering outrage and opposition to this radical rollback of free speech rights. We view this as a full scale attack on constitutional rights, that’s why we’ve launched a campaign to defend them.” — Carl Messineo, PCJF Legal Director Read more

The Hill: Trump administration proposes tough rules on protests. “There’s never been such a large effort at rewriting these regulations. I don’t think there can be any question that these revisions will have the intent and certainly the effect of stifling the ability of the public to protest.” — Mara Verheyden-Hilliard Read more

WJLA (DC): New restrictions proposed for protests near the White House and National Mall “If you think about the 1963 March on Washington at the Lincoln Memorial, if these rules had been in place then, the government would have been able to assess massive costs on the organizers and stopped them from being able to have that important moment. All you have to do is think about what our society would be like if that speech had been stifled.” — Mara Verheyden-Hilliard Read more

The American Prospect asks: Will the Next Women’s March Be Taxed? Read more

Spreading the Word on the Save Free Speech Campaign — Mara Verheyden-Hilliard speaks to Pacifica's WPFW