Digital Commons Network^™

The Antidote Of Free Speech: Censorship During The Pandemic, Christopher Keleher

Catholic University Law Review

Free speech in America stands at a precipice. The nation must decide if the First Amendment protects controversial, unconventional, and unpopular speech, or only that which is mainstream, fashionable, and government-approved. This debate is one of many legal battles brought to the fore during Covid-19. But the fallout of the free speech question will transcend Covid-19.

During the pandemic, the federal government took unprecedented steps to pressure private entities to push messages it approved and squelch those it did not. The Supreme Court will soon grapple with the issue of censorship during the pandemic. This article examines this litigation, along …

"Trans Talk" And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

The rights of transgender youth and their families have increasingly come under attack. In addition to barring transgender youth from participation in sports teams, from accessing bathrooms that match their gender identity, and from receiving gender-affirming healthcare, states are increasingly restricting speech and expression related to transgender issues. Courts and scholars have begun addressing the First Amendment implications of some of these restrictions, including the removal of books related to transgender issues; restrictions upon teachers' classroom speech regarding such issues; school discipline imposed upon students whose social transition includes forms of gender expression that differ from their assigned sex at …

Intervenor St. Isidore Of Seville Catholic Virtual School's Brief In Response To Petitioner's Application And Petition, Michael H. Mcginley, Steven A. Engel, M. Scott Proctor, John A. Meiser, Michael R. Perri, Socorro Adams Dooley

Court Briefs

No. MA-121694
Gentner Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

From the Arguments and Authorities

The Petition fails on the merits. Nothing in the Oklahoma Constitution prohibits the State from contracting with a religious school to provide new educational opportunities. And any state law purporting to do so would violate ORFA and the First Amendment.

St. Isidore Of Seville Catholic Virtual School's Motion To Intervene, Michael H. Mcginley, Steven A. Engel, M. Scott Proctor, John A. Meiser, Michael R. Perri, Socorro Adams Dooley

Court Briefs

No. 121694
Gentner Drummond v. Oklahoma Statewide Virtual Charter School Board

From the Argument and Authority

This Motion to Intervene is both timely and amply supported. Courts assess the timeliness of a motion to intervene "in light of all the circumstances," including "the length of time since the movant knew of its interests in the case; prejudice to the existing parties; prejudice to the movant; and the existence of any unusual circumstances." Tulsa Indus. Auth. v. City of Tulsa, 2011 OK 57, ¶ 31, 270 P.3d 113, 128 (citation omitted) (looking to federal case law for guidance). Courts have …

Appellant's Opening Brief, Zack Greenamyre, W. Gerald Weber, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 23-10332
Rev. Stephen Jarrard v. Sheriff of Polk County

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia No. 4:20-cv-00002-MLB

From the Summary of the Argument

This is an unusual appeal. Sheriff Johnny Moats and Chief Jailer Al Sharp all but admitted that they retaliated against Jarrard and barred him from Polk County Jail’s volunteer ministry program because they disagree with his religious belief that baptism is required for salvation. Indeed, Moats told Jarrard in writing that Jarrard’s beliefs are “contrary to the teaching of the Bible” and that he would not be allowed to …

Brief Of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 22-741
Faith Bible Chapel International v. Gregory Tucker

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment demands that courts refrain from intruding into disputes over a religious organization’s selection of important leaders. The ministerial exception enforces that demand. And thus, nearly every court to consider the issue has agreed: the ministerial exception promises something akin to an immunity from suit, which must be resolved early in litigation to be effective.

Brief Amicus Curiae Of The Becket Fund For Religious Liberty, John A. Meiser, Francesca Matozzo

Court Briefs

No. 22-1876
Mohamed Solah Mohamed A Emad v. Dodge County

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, Honorable Lynn Adelman (19-cv-0598)

From the Summary of Argument

Cases concerning the expression of constitutional rights in prison settings often pose difficult questions regarding the appropriate balance between the government’s penological interests and the prisoner’s fundamental freedoms. This case does not. Mohamed Salah Ahmed Emad did not ask the Dodge County Detention Facility (nor does he ask this Court) to locate the appropriate degree to which a prison must accommodate a novel or historically unusual religious exercise. …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative, Megan M. Wold, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 22-cv-000067
Columbus City School District v. State of Ohio

Judge Jaiza N. Page

From the Summary of Argument

Under Count 4 of their complaint, the plaintiffs ask this Court to do something that it unquestionably may not: invalidate Ohio's longstanding EdChoice Scholarship Program on the theory that it violates the "no-funding" provision of Article VI, § 2 of the Ohio Constitution, which bars any "religious or other sect" from receiving "any part of the school funds of this state." See Compl. ¶¶ 142-52. Under both state and federal law, this Court must dismiss that claim.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Catholic Medical Association And Coptic Medical Association Of North America In Support Of Appellees, Eric N. Kniffin, John A. Meiser, Francesca M. Genova

Court Briefs

No. 2021CA1855
Barbara Morris v. Centura Health Corporation

Appeal from: Colorado District Court, Arapahoe County Case No. 2019CV31980 (Hon. Peter Frederick Michaelson)

From the Summary of Argument

At its core, this case concerns a religious hospital’s right to provide care in accordance with its faith commitments. Centura Health is a Christian healthcare system that is composed of Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist hospitals, including St. Anthony Hospital, the Catholic Hospital for which Dr. Morris worked. In service of their religious mission, Centura Health and St. Anthony Hospital (collectively, “Centura”) require their doctors to abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives for …

Proving Racism: Gibson Bros. Inc. V. Oberlin College And The Implications On Defamation Law, Liam H. Mcmillin

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioner, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Francesca Genova Matozzo, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley

Court Briefs

No. 21-418
Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This case offers the Court a much-needed opportunity to resolve the longstanding confusion caused by its conflicting and erroneous interpretations of the Establishment Clause. Although recent decisions clarify that the government may not suppress private religious expression, the Court has yet to clear away an undergrowth of older precedents that are often read to suggest the opposite. Rather than permit those outdated decisions to persist and perpetuate confusion, the Court should …

Why Arkansas Act 710 Was Upheld, And Will Be Again, Mark Goldfeder

Arkansas Law Review

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. - ironically, not Mark Twain The recent Eighth Circuit ruling in Arkansas Times LP v. Waldrip, the lawsuit revolving around an Arkansas antidiscrimination bill, has led to a lot of (at best) confusion or (at worst) purposeful obfuscation by people unwilling or unable to differentiate between procedural issues and the constitutional merits of a case. In other words, reports of the bill’s death have been very much exaggerated.

Reflections On Nomos: Paideic Communities And Same Sex Weddings, Marie A. Failinger

Touro Law Review

Robert Cover’s Nomos and Narrative is an instructive tale for the constitutional battle over whether religious wedding vendors must be required to serve same-sex couples. He helps us see how contending communities’ deep narratives of martyrdom and obedience to the values of their paideic communities can be silenced by the imperial community’s insistence on choosing one community’s story over another community’s in adjudication. The wedding vendor cases call for an alternative to jurispathic violence, for a constitutionally redemptive response that prizes a nomos of inclusion and respect for difference.

Keynote Address, Justin Hansford

Seattle University Law Review

Keynote Address by Justin Hansford

The Long Shadow Of United States V. Rosenberg: A Biographical Perspective On The Hon. Irving Robert Kaufman, Rodger D. Citron

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, John A. Meiser, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley, Eric D. Hageman, Justin M. Romeo, Lincoln Davis Wilson

Court Briefs

No. 20-1800
Harold Shurtleff v. City of Boston

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Invoking the specious rationale of “government speech,” the City of Boston unconstitutionally singled out religious expression for hostile treatment. By lumping speech based on “religion” together with speech deemed “inappropriate,” “offensive,” “discrimin[atory],” or “prejudice[d],” Pet.App.20, the City adopted the increasingly common view that promoting our Nation’s vibrant pluralism requires the exclusion of religious perspectives from the public square. But that view is antithetical to the Founders’ conception of religion as central—not peripheral—to …

Justifying The Supreme Court’S Standards Of Review, R. Randall Kelso

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

(Anti)-Slapp Happy In Federal Court?: The Applicability Of State Anti-Slapp Statutes In Federal Court And The Need For Federal Protection Against Slapps, Caitlin Daday

Catholic University Law Review

In recent years, lawsuits known as Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, or SLAPPs, have become increasingly common. These suits seek to intimidate and punish people for exercising their First Amendment rights. In response to SLAPPs, over half of the states have enacted anti-SLAPP statutes to protect the targets of SLAPPs. They do so by providing a mechanism for the target to dismiss the lawsuit more quickly than they would normally be able to. In federal courts, the question has arisen as to whether anti-SLAPP statutes should be applied in diversity suits given their close alignment to Federal Rules 8, 12, …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Benedictine College And Franciscan University Of Steubenville In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 21-145
Gordon College v. Margaret DeWeese-Boyd

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

From the Summary of Argument

This Court should grant certiorari to make clear that the First Amendment guarantees religious colleges and universities the same vital protections that safeguard a religious grade school’s freedom to select the teachers who personify and teach its faith. Despite this Court’s recent admonition that such protections apply to a religious school’s selection of “any ‘employee’ . . . who serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith,” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. …

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Theses

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …

The Second Founding And The First Amendment, William M. Carter Jr.

Articles

Constitutional doctrine generally proceeds from the premise that the original intent and public understanding of pre-Civil War constitutional provisions carries forward unchanged from the colonial Founding era. This premise is flawed because it ignores the Nation’s Second Founding: i.e., the constitutional moment culminating in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and the civil rights statutes enacted pursuant thereto. The Second Founding, in addition to providing specific new individual rights and federal powers, also represented a fundamental shift in our constitutional order. The Second Founding’s constitutional regime provided that the underlying systemic rules and norms of the First Founding’s Constitution …

Transparency In Plea Bargaining, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

lea bargaining is the dominant method by which our criminal justice system resolves cases. More than 95% of state and federal convictions today are the product of guilty pleas. Yet the practice continues to draw widespread criticism. Critics charge that it is too coercive and leads innocent defendants to plead guilty, that it obscures the true facts in criminal cases and produces overly lenient sentences, and that it enables disparate treatment of similarly situated defendants.

Another feature of plea bargaining — its lack of transparency — has received less attention, but is also concerning. In contrast to the trials it …

Brief Of The Muslim Public Affairs Council, Religious Freedom Institute's Islam And Religious Freedom Action Team, And Asma Uddin, Stephanie Barclay

Court Briefs

No. 20-A90
Agudath Israel of America v. Andrew M. Cuomo

Including the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Applicant by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Religious Freedom Institute's Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, and Asma Uddin (i–iii).

From the Summary of Argument

Since ancient times, peoples around the world have symbolically vested the perceived wrongdoings of their community onto “scapegoats,” who are sacrificed in the hope that those wrongdoings will be expiated, and the hard times will pass. Too often, religious minorities have served as scapegoats in times of sickness, war, and fear—from Jews …

Brief Of The Muslim Public Affairs Council, Religious Freedom Institute's Islam And Religious Freedom Action Team, And Asma Uddin As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Plaintiffs, Stephanie H. Barclay

Court Briefs

No. 1:20-cv-01284-GLS-DJS, Hon. Gary L. Sharpe
Yitzchok Lebovits v. Andrew M. Cuomo

From the Summary of Argument

Since ancient times, peoples around the world have symbolically vested the perceived wrongdoings of their community onto “scapegoats,” who are sacrificed in the hope that those wrongdoings will be expiated, and the hard times will pass. Too often, religious minorities have served as scapegoats in times of sickness, war, and fear— from Jews during the Black Death, to Jehovah’s Witnesses During WWII, to Muslims after 9/11. Latest in a long and troubling line of such incidents are the statements and policies of Governor …

Democracy, Deference, And Compromise: Understanding And Reforming Campaign Finance Jurisprudence, Scott P. Bloomberg

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court interpreted the government’s interest in preventing corruption as being limited to preventing quid pro quo— cash-for-votes—corruption. This narrow interpretation drastically circumscribed legislatures’ abilities to regulate the financing of elections, in turn prompting scholars to propose a number of reforms for broadening the government interest in campaign finance cases. These reforms include urging the Court to recognize a new government interest such as political equality, to adopt a broader understanding of corruption, and to be more deferential to legislatures in defining corruption.

Building upon that body of scholarship, this Article begins with a descriptive …

Signed Opinions, Concurrences, Dissents, And Vote Counts In The U.S. Supreme Court: Boon Or Bane? (A Response To Professors Penrose And Sherry), Joan Steinman

Akron Law Review

Some commentators recently have argued for changes in how United States Supreme Court Justices communicate with everyone except perhaps other Justices of the Supreme Court and the Justices' assistants. Specifically, some commentators have urged that signed opinions and separate opinions, such as concurrences and dissents, stop being published in the official reports. One commentator also has advocated non‑publication of the vote count in Supreme Court decisions. Another has demanded unanimity, as required by due process.

In this piece, I offer my thoughts in response to these proposals.

I argue several reasons to doubt that a prohibition on publication of concurring …

First Amendment “Harms”, Stephanie H. Barclay

Indiana Law Journal

What role should harm to third parties play in the government’s ability to protect religious rights? The intuitively appealing “harm” principle has animated new theories advanced by scholars who argue that religious exemptions are indefensible whenever they result in cognizable harm to third parties. This third-party harm theory is gaining traction in some circles, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s pending cases in Little Sisters of the Poor and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. While focusing on harm appears at first to provide an appealing, simple, and neutral principle for avoiding other difficult moral questions, the definition of harm …

The Law Of Obscenity In Comic Books, Rachel Silverstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Arms Dealer Who Cries, :“First Amendment”, Gustave Passanante

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.