Raven v Smithsonian -Roberts, Bunch, Kurin & Regents

---

IN RE: JULIAN MARCUS RAVEN
URGENT REQUEST FOR DECLARATIVE RULING AND IMMEDIATE INTERVENTION

Applicant Julian Marcus Raven, pro se, respectfully submits this emergency appeal seeking immediate intervention and a declarative ruling on the legal status of the Smithsonian Institution. This appeal is necessitated by the ongoing deprivation of Petitioner’s First Amendment free speech rights and the judiciary’s failure to resolve fundamental constitutional questions raised in Petitioner’s prior and ongoing litigation: 2017-CV-01240 TNM and 22-CV-2809 CRC.

Applicant Julian Marcus Raven, an artist and U.S. citizen, has faced unconstitutional suppression of his speech stemming from the Smithsonian Institution’s rejection of his artwork and subsequent actions to silence dissent on public social media platforms, including ‘X’ formerly called Twitter. The U.S. Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in case 2017-CV-01240 TNM, where Your Honor recused himself, left unresolved questions of federal law and perpetuated critical legal inconsistencies concerning the Smithsonian’s status as either a private trust or a federal entity.

Petitioner’s subsequent case, 22-CV-2809 CRC, is now languishing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which has refused to issue a ruling nine months after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lindke v. Freed(2024), a case that vindicates Petitioner’s claims. The court had denied Respondent’s motion to dismiss in July of 2023 pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Lindke v Freed that was before the Supreme Court. Despite filing motions for resolution, Applicant’s First Amendment rights remain deprived, as Raven remains blocked from the Smithsonian National Portrait Director’s ‘X’, formerly called Twitter page, due to judicial inaction and a lack of clear guidance on the Smithsonian’s constitutional obligations.

1. Status of the Smithsonian Institution
   • The Smithsonian Institution was established as a private trust under the 1846 Act of Congress, yet it is governed by federal officials and funded by $700 million in taxpayer money annually.
   • In Lebron v. Amtrak (1995), this Court held that federally created entities under government control are bound by constitutional protections, including the First Amendment. Similarly, Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusts (1959) affirmed that private trusts administered by the government are subject to constitutional accountability. The lower courts' failure to apply these precedents perpetuates constitutional violations.

1. Government Speech Doctrine Misapplied
   • In 2017-CV-01240 TNM, the District Court declared the Smithsonian "the government through and through," and dismissed Petitioner’s claims under the government speech doctrine. This perpetuated paradox undermines trust law and constitutional principles, as government-controlled private trusts cannot evade scrutiny by invoking government speech protections.
   • Current speech confusion is at odds even with Washington’s D.C.’s archive of historic newspapers including The Sunday Star from November 14h, 1926 whose front page declared the Smithsonian Institution’s status to be completely a private, “..it is privately endowed and privately financed, the government of the United States is merely the trustee to carry out the design of the testator.” The Smithsonian cannot and does not speak for the Federal Government; the Smithsonian Institution speaks for James Smitson, the testator.

1. Delay in Ruling Post-Lindke v. Freed
   • In Lindke v. Freed, this Court reaffirmed that public entities performing governmental functions must respect constitutional protections for free speech. Despite this ruling, and Raven’s claims cleary passing the 2 pronged test established in the Lindke ruling,  the District Court in 22-CV-2809 CRC has delayed resolving Petitioner’s claims for over nine months, violating this Court’s mandate for expedient rulings in First Amendment cases (New York Times v. United States, 1971; Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969).

1. First Amendment Violations
   • Petitioner’s speech remains unconstitutionally suppressed, and motions to compel resolution have gone unanswered. This prolonged deprivation contradicts fundamental constitutional guarantees and erodes public trust in judicial accountability.

1.  Separation of Powers Violations
   • The Smithsonian’s governance by members of Congress, the Executive, and the Judiciary raises serious concerns about the separation of powers. This structure allows the Institution to avoid clear classification, undermining constitutional principles and public trust. Government speech ruling in 17-cv-01240 creates an unaccountable three-headed beast.
   • 
     

Petitioner respectfully requests the U.S. Supreme Court to:

1. Issue a Declarative Ruling clarifying the Smithsonian Institution’s legal status as either a private trust bound by the U.S. Constitution or a federal entity bound by constitutional protections, particularly the First Amendment. 
2. Issue an Emergency Order of re-hearing in case number 17-cv-01240-TNM
3. Mandate Timely Adjudication in 22-CV-2809 CRC, compelling the lower court to rule expeditiously on Petitioner’s claims in light of Lindke v. Freed.
4. Protect First Amendment Rights by reaffirming that federally administered private trusts cannot suppress speech through government speech doctrine abuses and declare that it is James Smithson the Smithsonian Institution’s founder who speaks through the privately endowed and established trust.
5. 
   

1. Lebron v. Amtrak, 513 U.S. 374 (1995)
2. Pennsylvania v. Board of Trusts, 353 U.S. 230 (1959)
3. Lindke v. Freed (2024)
4. New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971)
5. Tinker v. Des Moines, 393 U.S. 503 (1969)