Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amici Curiae Privacy And First Amendment Law Professors In Support Of Defendant-Appellant And Reversal, G. S. Hans, Hannah Bloch-Wehba, Danielle K. Citron, Julie E. Cohen, Mary Anne Franks, Woodrow Hartzog, Margot E. Kaminski, Gregory P. Magarian, Frank Pasquale, Neil Richards, Daniel J. Solove

Faculty Scholarship

STATEMENT OF INTEREST: Amici curiae are law professors and scholars of data privacy, constitutional law, and the First Amendment. Amici write to provide the court with scholarly expertise on the complexities of data privacy law and its intersection with the First Amendment. Amici have collectively written scores of academic articles and multiple books on data privacy, technology, the First Amendment, and constitutional challenges to state and federal privacy regulation.

Amici submit this brief pursuant to Fed. Rule App. P. 29(a) and do not repeat arguments made by the parties. No party’s counsel authored this brief, or any part of …

Court Rejects Web Designer’S Challenge To Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law, Arthur S. Leonard

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Second Thoughts About The First Amendment, Randy J. Kozel

Journal Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider — and depart from — its First Amendment precedents. In recent years the Court has marginalized its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has rejected its past decisions on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. And it has revised its earlier positions on union financing, abortion protesting, and commercial speech. Under the conventional view of constitutional adjudication, dubious precedents enjoy a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article …

Citizenship At Work: How The Supreme Court Politically Marginalized Public Employees, Ruben J. Garcia

Scholarly Works

Collective bargaining by public sector employees has been the subject of recent heated debates in the state legislatures of Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Indiana. The right of public sector employees to freedom of association, collective bargaining, and the right to participate in politics are among the “citizenship rights” of public employees. In many states, however, the citizenship rights of public employees are under threat both in state legislatures and in the courts. Paradoxically, the ability of public sector employees to change legislation has been hampered over the years by Supreme Court decisions, making it more difficult to organize politically by …

Government May Not Speak Out-Of-Turn, Steven H. Goldberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association5 was about whether government could compel individual beef producers to pay for general beef advertising credited to "America's Beef Producers;" even if they disagreed with the message and wanted to spend their advertising money to distinguish their certified Angus or Hereford beef. That "compelled subsidy" case became the unlikely authority for a doctrine invented in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum6 that government could discriminate, based on viewpoint, on a subject for which it had no power to act. Each case has been criticized in its own right, but the attempt to make Johanns precedent …

Astrachan And Easton: Fight Wikileaks Case In Court, Not In Cyberspace, James B. Astrachan, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

The Protection Of Religious Freedom Under The American Constitution, Robert A. Sedler

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

Symbolic Counter-Speech, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Beyond Campaign Finance: The First Amendment Implications Of Nixon V. Shrink Missouri Pac, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

This essay, however, is less concerned with the campaign finance aspects of Shrink than with the decision's broader implications. In the course of its decision, the Shrink Court not only obfuscated the standard of scrutiny applicable to contribution regulations, it effectively ignored the government's lack of factual support for the law, instead accepting the state's assertions at face-value. Consequently, Shrink is far more than a simple application of Buckley. Rather, it reflects fundamental problems with the Court's standards of review in First Amendment cases generally. The more global nature of Shrink's problems suggest that, despite scholarly focus on the Buckley …

Bringing Structure To The Law Of Injunctions Against Expression, Christina E. Wells

Faculty Publications

Part I of this Article reviews the Court's cases regarding injunctions against speech, focusing first on the increasing elevation of rhetoric (as opposed to analysis) in the Court's prior restraint decisions. Part I also reviews the Court's other decisions involving injunctions and demonstrates that they too contain little, if any, analysis concerning the appropriateness of injunctive relief against expression. Part II examines Madsen's interaction with the Court's previous decisions and discusses how Madsen furthers the incoherence of the Court's previous cases. Part III explains that content discrimination principles, although superficially attractive, are inappropriate with injunctive relief because the content-based/content-neutral distinction's …

Litigation As A Predatory Practice, Gary Myers

Faculty Publications

This article reviews and evaluates the sham litigation case law, finding that many courts have allowed immunity too readily or on inappropriate grounds. It attempts to develop comprehensive standards for antitrust claims based on sham litigation.

Restrictions On Public Broadcasters' Rights To Editorialize, Susan H. Williams

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.