Digital Commons Network^™

Communication With Public Officials In The Modern Age Of Social Media: Does It Violate The First Amendment When Public Officials Block Private Individuals From Their Social Media Pages?, Emily Cohen

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In the modern world, social media dominates. It is considered an almost essential function of public officials, ranging from the President of the United States to local politicians, to maintain at least one social media page to keep the public updated on their policies and current events. As public officials shift toward social media to communicate with the public, these social media sites become the new spaces for public discourse, with members of the public often commenting on or responding to public officials' posts. As more public discourse occurs on these sites, and individuals begin to criticize their public officials …

The Shurtleff Conundrum: Resolving The Conflict In Government-Speech And Public Forum Analysis, James Walraven

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Shurtleff v. Boston is the Supreme Court's latest opportunity to clarify the murky line between the "government-speech" and "public forum" doctrines. The Court will decide whether the City of Boston violated the Free Speech Clause by refusing to fly a flag with Christian imagery in front of City Hall. The City had previously allowed the flying of numerous national and cultural flags by various organizations, but refused to fly a conservative social organization's "Christian flag" because of the City's fear of appearing to endorse a particular religion.

Under the public forum doctrine, private citizens' free speech is protected to varying …

Trouble With Names: Commercial Speech And A New Approach To Food Product Label Regulation, William Cusack

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Supreme Court has recognized First Amendment protection for “commercial speech” since 1975. Commercial speech doctrine seeks to balance advertiser interest in speech, consumer interest in information, and society’s interest that “economic decisions in the aggregate be intelligent and well-informed.” Regulations and compulsory disclosures of commercial speech play a part in ensuring consumers are well-informed. Yet, there continues to be consumer confusion surrounding the commercial speech doctrine’s application to food labeling. Lawmakers continue to pass regulations that are unnecessary or nonsensical. Regulators continue to enforce these regulations, even if the state interest in doing so is minimal or non-existent. There …

The Wrong Choice To Address School Choice: Espinoza V. Montana Department Of Revenue, Brooke Reczka

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

For many school-choice advocates, Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue is the chance to extend the Supreme Court’s decision in Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer in 2017. In Trinity Lutheran, the Supreme Court held that a state’s exclusion of a church from a public benefit program to resurface playgrounds discriminated against religion in violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Many school-choice proponents hope to extend the Trinity Lutheran holding from playgrounds materials to school funding and thus strike down religion-based exclusions in school voucher programs. However, Espinoza is the wrong vehicle to do so. In …

Let History Repeat Itself: Solving Originalism's History Problem In Interpreting The Establishment Clause, Neil Joseph

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

The Supreme Court's Establishment Clause jurisprudence is all over the place. The current justices have widely divergent views on the Establishment Clause's meaning, and the Lemon test has been widely panned by several justices. Originalist judges, however, have had a fairly consistent approach to interpreting the Establishment Clause. This largely stems from their reliance on history. This Note argues that their use of history in analyzing the Establishment Clause is flawed. Originalist Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been and is criticized for being unprincipled. And those criticisms are correct. Originalists encounter such criticism because the justices struggle to reconcile historical practice …

Legislator-Led Legislative Prayer And The Search For Religious Neutrality, Aishwarya Masrani

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Leading a group in prayer in a public setting blurs the line between public and private. Such blurring implicates a constitutional tension between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. This tension is magnified when the constitutionality of prayer is questioned in the context of democratic participation. Current Supreme Court precedent holds legislative prayer to be constitutional, but the relevant cases, Marsh v. Chambers and Town of Greece, NY v. Galloway, do not address the specific constitutionality of legislator-led prayer. There is currently a circuit split on the subject: in Bormuth v. County of Jackson, the United …

Gutting Public Sector Unions: Friedrichs V. California Teachers Association, Jake Wasserman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, public-sector unions face a constitutional challenge that could lead to their demise. In California, all public school employees are represented by a union--whether or not they are union members--and are required to pay an agency fee. This requirement seems to run contrary to the First Amendment, which generally prohibits the government from compelling citizens to support the speech and expressive activities of a private organization. This commentary argues that the Court should not overrule its decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education and uphold the validity of agency-shop agreements.

Keeping Civil Rights Debates Civil: Removing Opportunities For Prejudice, Steven Saracco

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion in employment decisions made by private employers. This commentary analyzes Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Abercrombie & Fitch, a case before the Supreme Court on the issue of whether a job applicant bears the burden of expressly notifying an employer of a conflict between the applicant’s religious beliefs and the employer’s policies before the employer must offer a reasonable accommodation. This case deals with a Muslim woman who was denied employment at a clothing store because her headdress was deemed to be a …

Knox V. Service Employees International Union: Balancing The First Amendment With Fairness Under Union-Shop Agreements, Donata Marcantonio

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Indecent Exposure: Fcc V. Fox And The End Of An Era, David Houska

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

It’S My Church And I Can Retaliate If I Want To: Hosanna-Tabor And The Future Of The Ministerial Exception, Brad Turner

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Hillary: The Movie, Corporate Free Speech Or Campaign Finance Corruption?, Aaron Harmon

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Davis V. Fec: The First Amendment Rights Of A Wealthy Candidate, Jeremy Earl

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Explaining Change And Rethinking Dirty Words: Fcc V. Fox Television Stations, Inc., Tobias Coleman

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Pleasant Grove City V. Summum: Identifying Government Speech & Classifying Speech Forums, Aaron Harmon

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

In Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, the Supreme Court must decide whether a privately-donated Ten Commandments monument currently on display in a city park is the private speech of the donor or the government speech of Pleasant Grove City. Summum, a religious organization, sued Pleasant Grove City in federal court claiming that because the city had displayed in a city park a donated Ten Commandments monument, the First Amendment compelled the city to also accept and display Summum's proposed "Seven Aphorisms of Summum" monument. If the Court decides it is the private speech of the donor, it will have to …