WASHINGTON - eTradeWire -- Renowned artist Julian Raven has filed an emergency appeal to Chief Justice John G. Roberts, in his capacity as the U.S. Supreme Court's Chief Justice and Circuit Justice for the District of Columbia. This appeal arises from a nine-month delay in the District Court's ruling on Raven's case, 22-CV-2809, where he alleges unconstitutional suppression of his First Amendment rights by the director of the Smithsonian National Portrait Gallery, Kim Sajet, by blocking him on 'X' formerly called Twitter.

Prolonged Delays Despite Favorable Precedent

Raven's case was initially stalled by Judge Christopher Cooper of the District Court, who declined to dismiss Raven's claims but deferred a ruling pending the Supreme Court's decision in Lindke v. Freed (2024). That decision, issued in March 2024, clearly supports Raven's argument that public entities, including the Smithsonian, cannot evade First Amendment protections when performing government-like functions. Despite this favorable precedent, and Raven's case languishing on the federal docket, the District Court has failed to issue a ruling for over nine months, effectively leaving Raven's free speech rights in limbo. The court had denied the Smithsonian Director's motion to dismiss pending the outcome of Lindke v Freed and yet has refused to issue a decision now nine months after the Lindke ruling.

More on eTradeWire News

• Unlock the Secrets to Acting Success with "Trade Secrets: Real-time Roadmap to Acting"
• DonnaInk Publications: Your Gateway to Literary Success
• Whilly Bermudez Publishes Inspirational Book "Quotes of the Sun"
• How Google Can Help LA Fire Victims Now
• Addressing Consultancy Name Conflict: Two UK companies in the same sector share an identical name

This delay flagrantly violates established Supreme Court mandates requiring expedited rulings in First Amendment cases. In New York Times v. United States (403 U.S. 713, 1971), the Court stated:

"Any delay in the judicial process that impairs the exercise of First Amendment freedoms carries a high societal cost."

Similarly, in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (393 U.S. 503, 1969) Both cases affirm the principle that First Amendment disputes must be resolved expeditiously to prevent chilling effects on free expression.

Emergency Appeal to Define the Smithsonian's Status

As part of his emergency appeal, Raven seeks Supreme Court intervention to compel the District Court to issue a ruling in his case. The appeal also asks the Supreme Court to address unresolved constitutional questions regarding the Smithsonian Institution's legal status as either a private trust or a federal entity. These ambiguities have far-reaching implications for governance and accountability, particularly given the Smithsonian's significant reliance on taxpayer funding.

More on eTradeWire News

• Boeing's Commercial Airline AS9100 Delay, FAA Self-Certification, Fatal Crashes, And Conflicts Exposed: By QA Expert Daryl Guberman
• The Difference Between Commercial Ac And Home Ac?
• Top Book Printer in Central Ohio announces expansion
• MLB Starting Pitcher, Jesus Luzardo, Hosts Celebrity Golf Event for Charity in Parkland, FL
• Baby Boomers Redefine Retirement: Finding Purpose in Post-Retirement Careers

A Fight for Justice and Accountability

Raven's case has drawn national attention, particularly in light of his ongoing legal battles and advocacy for transparency at the Smithsonian. His book, Odious and Cerberus: An American Immigrant's Odyssey and His Free Speech Legal War Against Smithsonian Corruption, details the systemic issues and constitutional violations he has encountered.

This emergency appeal represents a critical moment in Raven's fight for justice and serves as a broader call for accountability within institutions entrusted with public funds and trust.