the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws violated the First Amendment. Since 2018, Corn-Revere has represented the Woodhull Freedom Foundation, Human Rights Watch, the Internet Archive, and certain individuals in a First Amendment challenge to the Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act, or FOSTA. In 2021, Corn-Revere won a ruling on behalf of independent filmmaker Gordy Price, holding a federal law that required commercial filmmakers to obtain a permit and pay a fee before conducting any filmmaking on federally-controlled land violated the First Amendment. In 2021, Corn-Revere filed an amicus brief on behalf of John and Mary Beth Tinker in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., a case where the Supreme Court reaffirmed the landmark 1969 students’ rights decision, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Posthumous Pardon of Comedian Lenny Bruce In 2003, Corn-Revere successfully petitioned New York Governor George Pataki to issue a posthumous pardon for comedian Lenny Bruce, who had been convicted for obscenity in 1964. It was the first posthumous pardon in New York history. The pardon effort was inspired by the book The Trials of Lenny Bruce, by Ronald Collins and David Skover. The petition effort was the subject of a front page New York Times story, and was profiled by SuperLawyers magazine in 2008. Report on the proposed Flag Desecration Amendment Between 1995 and 2006, Congress considered a number of proposals to amend the First Amendment to allow the government to criminalize burning the United States flag as a form of political protest. In 2005, Corn-Revere was commissioned by the Freedom Forum First Amendment Center to draft a legal analysis of the potential consequences of the proposal then pending in the 109th Congress. The resulting report, titled "Implementing a Flag-Desecration Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: An end to the controversy ... or a new beginning?," concluded that the proposed amendment would likely be challenged on collateral matters in ways that would require the courts, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court, to parse the exact meaning of ambiguous terms contained therein. The focus of the report was on the meanings that would be assigned to the phrases, "physical desecration" and "flag of the United States." The report concluded that concluded that the Supreme Court was likely to interpret this language narrowly, resulting in decisions that would not satisfy either proponents or opponents of the proposed amendment. The First Amendment Center distributed a copy