Digital Commons Network^™

Giving Dissenters Back Their Rights: How The White House Presidential Advance Manual Changes The First Amendment And Standing Debates, Kimberly Albrecht-Taylor

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Gatekeeping Vs. Balancing In The Constitutional Law Of Elections: Methodological Uncertainty On The High Court, Christopher S. Elmendorf, Edward B. Foley

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Essay examines the methodological upheaval created by the quartet of constitutional election law cases decided during October Term 2007. Prior to this Term, the ascendant analytic approach called for a threshold characterization of the burden on the plaintiff's rights, which characterization determined whether the court would apply strict scrutiny or lax, rational-basis-like review. The characterization was generally formal in nature. But in light of the Supreme Court's latest decisions, it is now open to a lower court adjudicating a First Amendment or Equal Protection challenge to an election law-absent a Supreme Court precedent squarely on point- (1) to engage …

Freedom To Err: The Idea Of Natural Selection In Politics, Schools, And Courts, Paul D. Carrington

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Changing State Laws To Prohibit The Display Of Hangman's Nooses: Tightening The Knot Around The First Amendment?, Allison Barger

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Metaphors And Modalities: Meditations On Bobbit's Theory Of The Constitution, Ian C. Bartrum

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Civil Procedure And The Establishment Clause: Exploring The Ministerial Exception, Subject-Matter Jurisdiction, And The Freedom Of The Church, Gregory A. Kalscheur

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

What sort of defense is provided by the ministerial exception to employment discrimination claims? The ministerial exception bars civil courts from reviewing the decisions of religious organizations regarding the employment of their ministerial employees. While the exception itself is widely recognized by courts, there is confusion with respect to the proper characterization of the defense provided by the exception: should it be seen as a subject matter jurisdiction defense, or as a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim? This Article argues that articulating the right answer to this question of civil procedure is crucial to a proper …

The Continuing Threshold Test For Free Exercise Claims, Andy G. Olree

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When a claimant challenges some governmental law or action under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, courts have long required the claimant to make out a prima facie case that the government has burdened the exercise of the claimant's sincerely held religious beliefs. This requirement has been referred to as the threshold test for free exercise claims, since claimants must make this showing as a threshold matter before courts will proceed to evaluate the burden and the governmental interest at stake under some standard of scrutiny. This Article argues that although the Supreme Court of the United States …

Justifying Motive Analysis In Judicial Review, Gordon G. Young

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Motives concern us in ordinary life and in the law of torts and crimes, and that concern is justified by consequentialist ethics. Despite occasional judicial protestations, motive analysis pervades large parts of constitutional law. Illegitimate motives aimed at suspect classes, or "designed to strike" at any number of rights identified as fundamental, presumptively invalidate the official actions that they animate. The consequentialist arguments for the use of motive review in this class of cases are relatively simple. Such illegitimate official motives tend to cause bad distributions of tangible benefits and burdens, or cause direct cognitive or emotional harm to the …

The Cross At College: Accomodation And Acknowledgment Of Religion At Public Universities, Ira C. Lupu, Robert W. Tuttle

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Falsity, Insincerity, And The Freedom Of Expression, Mark Spottswood

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Three decades ago, the Supreme Court announced that false statements of fact are devoid of constitutional value, without providing either a reasoned explanation for that principle or any supporting citations. This assertion has become one of the most frequently repeated dogmas of First Amendment law and theory, endlessly repeated and never challenged. Disturbingly, this idea has provided the theoretic foundation for a regime in which some speakers can be penalized for even honestly believed factual errors. Even worse, this dogma is flat wrong.

False statements often have value in themselves, and we should protect them even in some situations where …

Higher Education, Harassment, And First Amendment Opportunism, Kenneth L. Marcus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Free Expression And Education: Between Two Democracies, Stephen M. Feldman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Introduction: Universities And The First Amendment, William P. Marshall

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Intelligent Design In Public University Science Departments: Academic Freedom Or Establishment Of Religion, Frank S. Ravitch

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Lest We Regress To The Dark Ages: Holding Voluntary Surgical Castration Cruel And Unusual, Even For Child Molesters, Catherine Rylyk

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Whither Sexual Orientation Analysis?: The Proper Methodology When Due Process And Equal Protection Intersect, Sharon E. Rush

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article suggests that there is Proper Methodology that courts apply when reviewing cases at the intersection of due process and equal protection. Briefly, courts operate under a rule that heightened review applies if either a fundamental right or a suspect class is involved in a case, and that rational basis review applies if neither is involved (the "Rule"). Two primary exceptions to the Rule exist, and this Article identifies them as the "Logical" and "Ill Motives" Exceptions. The Logical Exception applies when a court need not apply heightened review because a law fails rational basis review. The Ill Motives …