If you read the judgment you'll find that it has nothing whatsoever to do with freedom of speech. This judgment is about jurisdiction, pure and simple. Sallen established that the US federal courts, along with competent courts in every applicable jurisdiction, can review UDRP decisions de novo. That's all. In fact in giving its judgment, the Court wrote:

"Whether or not Sallen can win his claim under § 1114(2)(D)(v) is a separate question which does not bear on jurisdiction unless Sallen's claim is "wholly insubstantial and frivolous." Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 (1946) "

Sallen's claim was justified under the ACPA - I completely agree. Whether Sallen actually is a cybersquatter or not is a question to be decided by the lower court. That court may agree with the UDRP panel, or it may differ. IMHO the crucial point will be what the Court decides were Sallen's motives in uploading those biblical references. In the light of his cruziero.com registration, I suggest Sallen is on the backfoot in attempting to give credible evidence on the point. But that's my opinion FWIW.

I challenge anyone to find a quote from the judgment in question that supports the absurd notion that USCA, in remitting this case back to the lower court for a decision, in any way support the notion that Sallen's position is strengthened by free speech arguments. I've read it all and kind find nothing that would suggest that.

mjr