The work of Paul Alan Levy and Public Citizen has been significant in the area of discovery disputes. 

See, e.g., Dendrite Int’l, Inc. v. Doe No. 3, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2001); Doe v. Cahill, 884 A.2d 451 (Del. 2005); Highfields Cap. Mgmt., L.P. v. Doe, 385 F. Supp. 2d 969 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Indep. Newspapers, Inc. v. Brodie, 966 A.2d 432 (Md. 2009); Mobilisa, Inc. v. Doe, 170 P.3d 282 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007); Thomson v. Doe, 356 P.3d 727 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015); Krinsky v. Doe 6, 72 Cal. Rptr. 3d 231 (Ct. App. 2008); Solers, Inc. v. Doe, 977 A.2d 941 (D.C. 2009); Pilchesky v. Gatelli, 12 A.3d 430 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011); Mortgage Specialists, Inc. v. Implode-Explode Network, 160 N.H. 227, 999 A.2d 184 (2010).

The work of James Bopp has been significant in the area of express advocacy. 

See, e.g., FEC v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449 (2007); Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); McCutcheon v. FEC, 572 U.S. 185 (2014); Republican Party of Minn. v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002); Christian Legal Soc'y v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661 (2010); Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015); Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 141 S. Ct. 2373 (2021); N.C. Right to Life, Inc. v. Leake, 525 F.3d 274 (4th Cir. 2008); Colo. Right to Life Comm., Inc. v. Coffman, 498 F.3d 1137 (10th Cir. 2007); Real Truth About Abortion, Inc. v. FEC, 681 F.3d 544 (4th Cir. 2012). 

 My own work has included coker-garcia v blunt, stewart v taylor, majors v abell, williamson v marion county election board, rebecca majors v iec, stewart v profitt,  stewart v white, palmer v board, amicus in crawford v marion county election board. 

"Robbin Stewart also works in the area of election law and First Amendment rights." See, e.g., Majors v. Abell, 317 F.3d 719 (7th Cir. 2003) (Posner, J.), certified question answered, 792 N.E.2d 554 (Ind. 2003), and aff'd, 361 F.3d 349 (7th Cir. 2004); Crawford v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181 (2008) (Brief for Cyber Privacy Project et al. as Amici Curiae); State ex rel. Coker-Garcia v. Blunt, 849 S.W.2d 81 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993); Stewart v. Taylor, 953 F. Supp. 1047 (S.D. Ind. 1997); Williamson v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., 734 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); Rebecca Majors v. Ind. Election Comm’n, 733 N.E.2d 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000); Stewart v. Profitt, 754 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); Stewart v. White, 754 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001); Palmer v. Marion Cnty. Election Bd., No. 49A04-1002-PL-81 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 12, 2010). 

 The 9th circuit has ruled for anonymous speakers several times.

See, e.g., Am. Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Heller, 378 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 2004); Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9th Cir. 2009) (en banc); In re Anonymous Online Speakers, 661 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2011); Rosen v. Port of Portland, 941 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1991); but see Yamada v. Snipes, 786 F.3d 1182 (9th Cir. 2015); No on E v. Chiu, 62 F.4th 1163 (9th Cir. 2023).

 Other circuits have followed Talley and McIntyre. cases from circuit courts finding for anonymous speakers or against disclaimer rules