Law Commons^™

Conant V. Walters: A Misapplication Of Free Speech Rights In The Doctor-Patient Relationship, Katharine M. Mccarthy

Maine Law Review

In Conant v. Walters, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the application of the First Amendment's right of free speech to a federal policy that prohibited the recommendation of medical marijuana by physicians. This class action suit, brought by physicians and severely ill patients, successfully enjoined the federal government from enforcing its policy revoking the federal prescriptive licenses of physicians who recommend or approve of marijuana use by patients suffering from certain severe illnesses. The federal government's policy, issued in 1996 through a statement of Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control …

Constitutional Law—Why Amending The Consitution To Overrule Citizens United Is The Wrong Way To Fix Campaign Finance In The United States, Zachary Hale

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disentangling The Right Of Publicity, Eric E. Johnson

Northwestern University Law Review

Despite the increasing importance attached to the right of publicity, its doctrinal scope has yet to be clearly articulated. The right of publicity supposedly allows a cause of action for the commercial exploitation of a person’s name, voice, or image. The inconvenient reality, however, is that only a tiny fraction of such instances are truly actionable. This Article tackles the mismatch between the blackletter doctrine and the shape of the case law, and it aims to elucidate, in straightforward terms, what the right of publicity actually is.

This Article explains how, in the absence of a clear enunciation of its …

On The Categorical Approach To Free Speech – And The Protracted Failure To Delimit The True Threats Exception To The First Amendment, Wayne Batchis

Pace Law Review

On June 1, 2015, the Supreme Court decided Elonis v. United States on statutory rather than constitutional grounds. In doing so, it turned away an important opportunity to provide needed clarification of true threats, a category of expression relegated to a lower level of protection by the Court almost a half-century ago. The categorical approach to free speech made its first explicit appearance in Supreme Court case law in 1942. Since that time, the Court has relied heavily on this method of constitutional interpretation, carving out discrete exceptions from the seemingly absolutist mandate of the First Amendment that Congress make …

The Continuing Vitality Of Louis D. Brandeis’S Free Expression Jurisprudence, Frederick M. Lawrence

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sports And The First Amendment: Ufc Is The Latest Challenger, Jason J. Cruz

Marquette Sports Law Review

None

Chilling Rights, Toni M. Massaro

University of Colorado Law Review

A persistent trope in free speech doctrine is that overbroad laws chill protected expression and compromise the breathing room needed for a vibrant marketplace of ideas. The conventional restrictions on facial challenges of measures that sweep beyond legitimate regulatory zones are relaxed. Whether and to what extent this liberal approach to judicial review actually governs in free speech law and not elsewhere, and whether this is constitutionally or normatively defensible, have been the subject of considerable and exceptionally insightful scholarship. Yet the United States Supreme Court has given the best of this work slight notice.

This Article proposes a new …