Law Commons^™

First Amendment Fetishism, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court, starting in 1971, has lit upon a reckless path of protecting speech that is, by any reasonable measure, appallingly vulgar, emotionally hurtful, and dangerous. Against the wishes of the community, the Court has protected a roster of extremely offensive speech:

• a rageful repetition of the F-word uttered by a teacher before children in a school auditorium

• a White skinhead’s cross burning on the front lawn of a Black family’s house

• the public burning of the American flag by an avowed Communist who hated the United States and who cared nothing for the emotional pain …

Why The Actual Malice Test Should Be Eliminated, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

Under traditional common law, a plaintiff could recover damages for libel if she could prove that the defendant had published a factual statement about the plaintiff that tended to injure the plaintiff’s reputation. The plaintiff, at most, was required to show negligence to recover damages for libel. While the amount of money that any given plaintiff could recover in damages was uncertain, one thing was clear: the First Amendment would not protect libel. In 1964, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court radically upended this received view of libel as unprotected speech. According to Sullivan, …

Arresting Assembly: An Argument Against Expanding Criminally Punishable Protest, Allison Freedman

Faculty Scholarship

ARRESTING ASSEMBLY: AN ARGUMENT AGAINST EXPANDING
CRIMINALLY PUNISHABLE PROTEST
ALLISON M. FREEDMAN

ABSTRACT

In recent years, public protests have shed light on societal inequities that had previously gone unheard. Yet instead of responding to protesters’ concerns, many state legislators are attempting to silence disenfranchised groups by introducing hundreds of “anti-protest” bills. This is a recent phenomenon and one that is accelerating—the largest wave of “anti-protest” bills was introduced on the heels of the most robust protest movement in recent history, Black Lives Matter during the summer of 2020.

Although it is clear that legislators are attempting to tamp down public …

Against Political Speech, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has dedicated itself to the proposition that political speech, more than any other category of speech, is deserving of the highest protection. A succession of cases amply supports this proposition. In Virginia v. Black, the Court announced that "lawful political speech [is] at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect." The Court similarly declared in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy that the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application" to political speech. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court held that "handing out leaflets in the advocacy of …

The Constitutional Costs Of School Policing, Maryam Ahranjani, Natalie Saing

Faculty Scholarship

Abstract

Responding to fears of violence and liability on K-12 campuses, local school boards and superintendents have made on-site or embedded school police omnipresent in American public schools. Yet, very little attention is paid to the many costs associated with their presence. When situating law enforcement’s presence squarely in the racist history of policing and school policing, the juxtaposition with the civic purpose of public education reveals significant constitutional costs. This Article builds on existing scholarship by bringing attention to the conflict between the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments and the dimensions of embedded school police. Ultimately, schools …

Race-Conscious Admissions, Diversity, And Academic Freedom, Vinay Harpalani

Faculty Scholarship

This Essay examines the First Amendment component to race-conscious admissions policies. It argues that these policies reflect a core First Amendment value: academic freedom. It illustrates that race-conscious admissions policies promote academic freedom in two ways. One aspect of a university’s academic freedom is the selection of its own student body. Justice Felix Frankfurter stated this explicitly in his concurrence in Sweezy v. New Hampshire (1957), which was later cited in Justice Lewis Powell's influential concurrence in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978). Additionally, the compelling interest in diversity has roots in the First Amendment. By …