Law Commons^™

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Francis Fukuyama In Support Of Respondents In No. 22-277 And Petitioners In No. 22-555, Margaret E. O'Grady

Law Faculty Scholarship

The brief, in support of NetChoice, argues that the Texas and Florida “must carry” statutes violate the First Amendment in part because interoperability is a less restrictive means of achieving the goal of allowing diverse voices in the “town square” of the Internet.

Commentary: Divisive Concepts And Regulation By Threat Of Baseless Lawsuit, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "At the State House, attention has returned to New Hampshire's so-called 'divisive concepts' law. The law, enacted in 2021, bars public K-12 teachers from engaging in certain forms of instruction on issues of race, gender, and other forms of discrimination. The Legislature is presently considering bills both to repeal the law and to extend it to the higher education context.

Those who support repeal tend to emphasize the vital need for classroom conversations on topics near the periphery of the restraints on speech imposed by law. And rightly so. The law's purpose and effect are to deter teachers and …

'Divisive Concepts' Law And The Big Chill, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "Much Critical commentary concerning the so-called "divisive concepts" provisions in this year's budget legislation has focused on their restrictions on speech. These restrictions, among other things, forbid public K-12 teachers from instructing that some persons are "inherently superior or inferior to [others]", "inherently racist or sexist," "should be discriminated against," or "should not attempt to treat others equally" because of their "age, sex gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, mental or physical disability, religion, or national origin."

New Hampshire's 'Divisive Concepts' Law And The Big Chill, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "

Much critical commentary on the so-called “divisive concepts” provisions in this year’s budget legislation – the label comes from language in an earlier version of the bill – has focused on their content- and viewpoint-based restraints on speech. These speech restrictions prohibit state public employers, including public K-12 school teachers, from (among other things) instructing that persons are “inherently superior or inferior to [others]” “inherently racist or sexist,” “should be discriminated against,” or “should not attempt to treat others equally” because of their “age, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, race, creed, color, marital status, familial status, mental or …

The New Editors: Refining First Amendment Protections For Internet Platforms, Mailyn Fidler

Law Faculty Scholarship

This Article envisions what it would look like to tailor the First Amendment editorial privilege to the multifaceted nature of the internet, just as courts have done with media in the offline world. It reviews the law of editorial judgment offline, where protections for editorial judgment are strong but not absolute, and its nascent application online. It then analyzes whether the diversity of internet platforms and their functions alter how the Constitution should be applied in this new setting. First Amendment editorial privilege, as applied to internet platforms, is often treated by courts and platforms themselves as monolithic and equally …

Finding Freedom For The Thoughts We Hate, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

In his dissenting opinion in United States v. Schwimmer (1929), Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., famously defended tolerance as an indispensable constitutional value. He wrote: “[I]f there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought – not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate.”

Yet accepting that the Constitution protects the thought that we hate can be difficult, even during the best of times. And these are far from the best of times. Nuclear brinksmanship …

The Boundaries Of Partisan Gerrymandering, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] “In my most recent column, I expressed concern about the effectiveness of the constitutional decision rules that currently govern gerrymandering – the redrawing of electoral districts in a manner that favors the incumbent majority at the expense of those out of power.

Briefly, the Constitution has not been interpreted to prohibit redistricting with an eye toward advancing the interests of the political party in power. But it has been interpreted to bar legislators from redistricting on racial grounds – at least in most circumstances.

The problem is that voters from certain racial groups tend to vote overwhelmingly for …

The Trump Presidency And The Press, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "It is not difficult to understand why presidents frequently voice frustration with the press. Imagine being subjected to critical analysis 24/7 by reporters, bloggers and pundits who often lack complete and accurate information but face competitive pressure to publish quickly."

The Tension Between Equal Protection And Religious Freedom, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "The Constitution did not become our basic law at a single point in time. We ratified its first seven articles in 1788 but have since amended it 27 times. Many of these amendments memorialize fundamental shifts in values. Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that the Constitution is not an internally consistent document."

…

"Other constitutional provisions -- even provisions that were simultaneously enacted -- protect freedoms that can come into conflict with one another. The First Amendment, for example, promises both freedom from governmental endorsement of religion and freedom from governmental interference with religious practice. …

Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This brief Foreword explains that First Amendment law is fertile ground for analysis under choice of law principles. It then opines that the majority and dissenting opinions in Sorrell v. IMS Health are rooted in different choices of law that would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment and explanation.

Stolen Valor & The First Amendment: Does Trademark Infringement Law Leave Congress An Opening?, Susan Richey, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This paper elaborates an argument the authors presented in an amicus brief filed in United States v. Alvarez, the "Stolen Valor" case. The paper contends that Congress could constitutionally protect the Congressional Medal of Honor as a collective membership mark by means of trademark infringement legislation.

Brief Of The Intellectual Property Amicus Brief Clinic Of The University Of New Hampshire School Of Law As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Neither Party, Susan M. Richey, John M. Greabe, Keith M. Harrison, J. Jeffrey Hawley

Law Faculty Scholarship

Amicus brief filed by the Intellectual Property Amicus Brief Clinic of the University of New Hampshire School of Law with the United States Court Of Appeals For The Ninth Circuit regarding United States v. Xavier Alvarez, Docket No. 11-210