Law Commons^™

The First Amendment To The Constitution, Associational Freedom, And The Future Of The Country: Alabama’S Direct Attack On The Existence Of The Naacp, Helen J. Knowles-Gardner

Seattle University Law Review

Sixty years ago, on Wednesday, April 8, 1964, Professor Harry Kalven, Jr., gave the second of three lectures at The Ohio State University College of Law Forum. These lectures were published two years later in a book entitled The Negro & the 1st Amendment. In the second lecture, Kalven distinguished between direct and indirect threats to the associational freedom of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). Kalven categorized the 1958 decision in NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson as an indirect effort to control the NAACP.

With the benefit of material obtained from numerous archival sources, …

Keynote Address, Justin Hansford

Seattle University Law Review

Keynote Address by Justin Hansford

The Press, National Security, And Civil Discourse: How A Federal Shield Law Could Reaffirm Media Credibility In An Era Of “Fake News”, Jenna Johnson

Texas A&M Law Review

The Constitution expressly provides protection for the freedom of the press. Yet there is one area in which the press is not so free: the freedom to refuse disclosing confidential sources when subpoenaed by the federal government. Currently, there is no federal reporter’s privilege. The Supreme Court has held the First Amendment provides no such protection, and repeated congressional attempts to codify a reporter’s privilege in a federal shield law have failed.

Arguments against a shield law include national security concerns and the struggle to precisely define “journalist.” Such concerns were evident in the most recently proposed shield law, the …

Texas Indian Holocaust And Survival: Mcallen Grace Brethren Church V. Salazar, Milo Colton

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

When the first Europeans entered the land that would one day be called Texas, they found a place that contained more Indian tribes than any other would-be American state at the time. At the turn of the twentieth century, the federal government documented that American Indians in Texas were nearly extinct, decreasing in number from 708 people in 1890 to 470 in 1900. A century later, the U.S. census recorded an explosion in the American Indian population living in Texas at 215,599 people. By 2010, that population jumped to 315,264 people.

Part One of this Article chronicles the forces contributing …

Being Forced To Code In The Technology Era As A Violation Of The First Amendment Protection Against Compelled Speech, Adrianna Oddo

Catholic University Law Review

Over the past several decades, technological advancements led several courts to hold that computer code is protected as speech under the First Amendment of the Constitution. However, after fourteen people were killed in the 2015 San Bernardino massacre the U.S. Government sought to ignore those findings when it ordered Apple, Inc. to write a computer code to bypass the encryption software on the shooter’s cell phone. To access this particular phone Apple would need to write a code that could potentially compromise its customers’ data and personal information. Apple vehemently opposed the Government’s order and claimed that compelling it to …

Today's Porn: Not A Constitutional Right; Not A Human Right, Patrick Trueman

Dignity: A Journal of Analysis of Exploitation and Violence

No abstract provided.

Protecting Public Employee Trial Testimony, Joseph Deloney

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In a number of jurisdictions around the United States, police officers and other public employees that regularly testify as part of their ordinary job duties can be placed in compromising positions. Because these types of employees regularly testify as part of their ordinary job duties, such testimony is considered “employee speech” and therefore unprotected by the First Amendment. Consequently, governmental employers can take adverse employment actions against an employee based on his or her truthful trial testimony without violating the employee’s First Amendment rights. Drawing from the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Lane v. Franks and other circuit court cases, …

Silencing Grand Jury Witnesses, R. Michael Cassidy

Indiana Law Journal

This Article addresses one crucial aspect of the ongoing debate about grand jury transparency. Assuming that well over half the states and the federal government continue to employ the grand jury to investigate felony offenses, and assuming that these proceedings continue to be shielded from public view, should witnesses themselves be allowed to discuss their testimony with the press or with each other? This larger question raises two narrow but very important subsidiary issues. First, does a prosecutor who conditions a written proffer or cooperation agreement with a grand jury witness on the witness’s promise not to inform other targets, …

Court Of Appeals Of New York, Watson V. State Commission On Judicial Conduct, Denise Shanley

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Peculiar Case Of State V. Terry Lynn Nichols: Are Television Cameras Really Banned From Oklahoma Criminal Proceedings?, Robert D. Nelon

Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment & Technology Law

The truck bomb ripped into A.P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, at 9:02 a.m. One hundred sixty-eight men, women, and children died. None knew Timothy McVeigh or Terry Lynn Nichols, nor did McVeigh and Nichols know them. In fact, Nichols was not even in Oklahoma City when the bombing occurred. He is now--occupying a special cell in the Oklahoma County Jail, awaiting trial on state charges of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and aiding in placing a bomb near a public building.

Nichols' trip to Oklahoma City was circuitous. Initially, separate federal proceedings against McVeigh and Nichols were …

What's In A Word? A Comparative Analysis Of Article I, § 12 Of The New York State Constitution And The Fourth Amendment To The United States Constitution As Interpreted By The New York Court Of Appeals And The United States Supreme Court, Douglas Holden Wigdor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Double Jeopardy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Speaking And Writing Against Hate, Martha Minow

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Judicial Performance Of Robert H. Bork In Administrative And Regulatory Law, Richard B. Stewart

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Judge Robert H. Bork's Decisions In Which He Wrote No Opinion: An Analysis Of The Regulatory And Benefit Cases, Robert A. Anthony

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Gannett Co. V. Depasquale, 99 S. Ct. 2898 (1979), Margot Pequignot

Florida State University Law Review

Criminal Procedure-FAIR TRIAL-CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GRANT AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT OF ACCESS TO A PRETRIAL PROCEEDING WHEN ALL PARTICIPANTS AGREE IT SHOULD BE CLOSED TO PROTECT DEFENDANT'S FAIR TRIAL RIGHTS