Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Public Employee Speech, Categorical Balancing And § 1983: A Critique Of Garcetti V. Ceballos, Sheldon H. Nahmod
Public Employee Speech, Categorical Balancing And § 1983: A Critique Of Garcetti V. Ceballos, Sheldon H. Nahmod
University of Richmond Law Review
I propose to discuss Garcetti's First Amendment reasoning as well as the implications of the § 1983' setting in which Garcetti and other public employee free speech cases typically arise. After briefly setting out the Court's opinion and the three dissenting opinions, I begin by addressing the pros and cons of Garcetti, and in the course of so doing, I discuss the prior Pickering-Connick landscape that Garcetti so significantly altered. I consider the deeper First Amendment implications of Garcetti, including itsuse of categorical balancing to create an absolute immunity fromFirst Amendment liability for employer discipline based on job-required public employee …
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz
Section 1983 Civil Rights Litigation From The October 2006 Term, Martin Schwartz
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
Requiem For Section 1983, Paul D. Reingold
Requiem For Section 1983, Paul D. Reingold
Articles
Section 1983 no longer serves as a remedial statute for the people most in need of its protection. Those who have suffered a violation of their civil rights at the hands of state authorities, but who cannot afford a lawyer because they have only modest damages or seek only equitable remedies, are foreclosed from relief because lawyers shun their cases. Today civil rights plaintiffs are treated the same as ordinary tort plaintiffs by the private bar: without high damages, civil rights plaintiffs are denied access to the courts because no one will represent them. Congress understood that civil rights laws …