Law Commons^™

Reynolds Revisited: The Original Meaning Of Reynolds V. United States And Free Exercise After Fulton, Clark B. Lombardi

Articles

This Article calls for a profound reevaluation of the stories that are being told today about the Supreme Court’s free exercise jurisprudence starting with the Court’s seminal 1879 decision in Reynolds v. United States and proceeding up to the present day. Scholars and judges today agree that the Supreme Court in Reynolds interpreted the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to protect only religious belief and not religiously motivated action. All casebooks today embrace this interpretation of the case, and the Supreme Court has regularly endorsed it over the past twenty years, most recently in 2022. However, this Article …

Anti-Press Bias: A Response To Andersen Jones And West's Presuming Trustworthiness, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Professors RonNell Andersen Jones and Sonja R. West’s Presuming Trustworthiness is a deeply depressing read. That is what makes it so good. The article is a clear-eyed, data-driven approach to assessing just how endangered the legal status of the free press is. Given the universality of the agreement that a free press is central to democracy, Andersen Jones and West’s message is vital. Presuming Trustworthiness should raise alarms.

In response, I hope this essay can serve as a bullhorn. I want to amplify what Andersen Jones and West’s research and data bear out. Not only has the Supreme Court ceased …

Regulating Social Media Through Family Law, Katharine B. Silbaugh, Adi Caplan-Bricker

Faculty Scholarship

Social media afflicts minors with depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, addiction, suicidality, and eating disorders. States are legislating at a breakneck pace to protect children. Courts strike down every attempt to intervene on First Amendment grounds. This Article clears a path through this stalemate by leveraging two underappreciated frameworks: the latent regulatory power of parental authority arising out of family law, and a hidden family law within First Amendment jurisprudence. These two projects yield novel insights. First, the recent cases offer a dangerous understanding of the First Amendment, one that should not survive the family law reasoning we provide. First Amendment jurisprudence …

The Ideology Of Press Freedom, Hannah Bloch-Wehba

Faculty Scholarship

This Article offers a critical account of the law of press freedom. American law and political culture laud the press as an institution that plays a vital role in democracy: guarding against corruption, facilitating self-governance, and advocating for free expression. These democratic functions provide justification for the law of press freedom, which defends the media’s autonomy and shields the press from outside interference.

But the dominant accounts of the press’s democratic role are only partly accurate. The law of press freedom is grounded in large part in journalism’s professional commitments to objectivity, public service, and autonomy. These idealized characterizations, flawed …

Law School News: Victorious Verdict 2-21-2024, Michelle Choate

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Review Of The Book The Fight Against Book Bans: Perspectives From The Field, John A. Drobnicki

Publications and Research

Review of the book The Fight against Book Bans: Perspectives from the Field, edited by Shannon M. Oltmann.

“We Do No Such Thing”: 303 Creative V. Elenis And The Future Of First Amendment Challenges To Public Accommodations Laws, David Cole

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court ruled that a business had a right to refuse to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple. But properly understood, the decision’s parameters are narrow, and the decision should have minimal effect on public accommodations laws.

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 …

The Worst Choice For School Choice: Tuition Tax Credits Are A Bad Idea And Direct Funding Is Wiser, Michael J. Broyde, Anna G. Gabianelli

Faculty Articles

School choice is on the rise, and states use various mechanisms to implement it. One prevalent mechanism is also a uniquely problematic one: the tax credit. Tax credits are deficient at equitably distributing a benefit like school choice; they are costly, and they invite fraud. Instead of using tax credits, states opting for school choice programs should use direct funding. Direct funding will more efficiently achieve the goals of school choice because it can be regulated like any other government benefit, even if it ends up subsidizing religious private schools.

Tax credits’ prevalence is not inexplicable, of course. It is …

Uncommon Carriage, Blake Reid

Publications

As states have begun regulating the carriage of speech by “Big Tech” internet platforms, scholars, advocates, and policymakers have increasingly focused their attention on the law of common carriage. Legislators have invoked common carriage to defend social media regulations against First Amendment challenges, making arguments set to take center stage in the Supreme Court’s impending consideration of the NetChoice saga.

This Article challenges the coherence of common carriage as a field and its utility for assessing the constitutionality and policy wisdom of internet regulation. Evaluating the post-Civil War history of common carriage regimes in telecommunications law, this Article illustrates that …

Risky Speech Systems: Tort Liability For Ai-Generated Illegal Speech, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Federal Question Jurisdiction Under Article Iii: “First In The Minds Of The Framers,” But Today, Perhaps, Falling Short Of The Framers’ Expectations, Arthur D. Hellman

Articles

As Chief Justice Marshall explained, “the primary motive” for creating a “judicial department” for the new national government was “the desire of having a [national] tribunal for the decision of all national questions.” Thus, although Article III of the Constitution lists nine kinds of “Cases” and “Controversies” to which the “judicial Power” of the United States “shall extend,” “the objects which stood first in the minds of the framers” were the cases “arising under” the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States. Today we refer to this as the federal question jurisdiction.

Of all federal question cases, the Framers …

Courting Censorship, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Has Supreme Court doctrine invited censorship? Not deliberately, of course. Still, it must be asked whether current doctrine has courted censorship — in the same way one might speak of it courting disaster.

The Court has repeatedly declared its devotion to the freedom of speech, so the suggestion that its doctrines have failed to block censorship may seem surprising. The Court’s precedents, however, have left room for government suppression, even to the point of seeming to legitimize it.

This Article is especially critical of the state action doctrine best known from Blum v. Yaretsky. That doctrine mistakenly elevates coercion …

Beyond Social Media Analogues, Gregory M. Dickinson

Faculty Articles

The steady flow of social-media cases toward the Supreme Court shows a nation reworking its fundamental relationship with technology. The cases raise a host of questions ranging from difficult to impossible: how to nurture a vibrant public square when a few tech giants dominate the flow of information, how social media can be at the same time free from conformist groupthink and also protected against harmful disinformation campaigns, and how government and industry can cooperate on such problems without devolving toward censorship.

To such profound questions, this Essay offers a comparatively modest contribution—what not to do. Always the lawyer’s instinct …

Constructing Ai Speech, Margot E. Kaminski, Meg Leta Jones

Publications

Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems such as ChatGPT can now produce convincingly human speech, at scale. It is tempting to ask whether such AI-generated content “disrupts” the law. That, we claim, is the wrong question. It characterizes the law as inherently reactive, rather than proactive, and fails to reveal how what may look like “disruption” in one area of the law is business as usual in another. We challenge the prevailing notion that technology inherently disrupts law, proposing instead that law and technology co-construct each other in a dynamic interplay reflective of societal priorities and political power. This Essay instead deploys …

The Violence Of Free Speech And Press Metaphors, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Today, our free speech marketplace is often overwhelming, confusing, and even dangerous. Threats, misdirection, and lies abound. Online firestorms lead to offline violence. This Article argues that the way we conceptualize free speech and the free press are partly to blame: our metaphors are hurting us.

The primary metaphor courts have used for a century to describe free speech—the marketplace of ideas—has been linked to violence since its inception. Originating in a case about espionage and revolution, in a dissent written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, a thrice-injured Civil War veteran, the marketplace has been described as a space where competition …

The Common Law And First Amendment Qualified Right Of Public Access To Foreign Intelligence Law, Laura K. Donohue

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For millennia, public access to the law has been the hallmark of rule of law. To be legally and morally binding, rules must be promulgated. Citizens’ knowledge of the law, in turn, serves as the lynchpin for democratic governance. In common law countries, it is more than just the statutory provisions and their execution that matters: how courts rule, and the reasoning behind their determination, proves central. Accordingly, in the United States, both common law and the right to petition incorporated in the First Amendment have long enshrined a presumed right of public right of access to Article III opinions …

Deplatforming, Ganesh Sitaraman

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Deplatforming in the technology sector is hotly debated, and at times may even seem unprecedented. In recent years, scholars, commentators, jurists, and lawmakers have focused on the possibility of treating social-media platforms as common carriers or public utilities, implying that the imposition of a duty to serve the public would restrict them from deplatforming individuals and content.

But, in American law, the duty to serve all comers was never absolute. In fact, the question of whether and how to deplatform-—to exclude content, individuals, or businesses from critical services—- has been commonly and regularly debated throughout American history. In the common …

Florida’S Stop Woke Act And Its Function As A Content-Based Restriction, Emily Kearns

GGU Law Review Blog

May 2023, Florida Governor Ron Desantis signed into law Florida Senate Bill 266 (SB 266) concerning changes to funding requirements for Florida State University System institutions.. Under SB 266, university undergraduate courses may not “distort significant historical events or include a curriculum that teaches identity politics…or is based on theories that systemic racism, sexism, oppression, and privilege are inherent in the institutions of the United States and were created to maintain social, political, and economic inequities”.

The bill is popularly known as the “Stop Woke Act” (hereafter “the Act”)—an attempt to curtail the apparent horrors of Critical Race …

(E)Racing Speech In School, Francesca I. Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Speech on race and racism in our nation’s public schools is under attack for partisan gain. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment teaches a lot about the wisdom and legality of laws that chill such speech in the classroom. But more importantly, a First Amendment analysis of these laws reveals profound insights about the health and meaning of our free speech doctrine.

Through a First Amendment analysis of “anti-critical race theory” laws, this essay illuminates the first principles of free speech law. Specifically, it shows that the First Amendment offers little refuge to teachers or parents looking to …

The ‘Weaponized’ First Amendment At The Marble Palace And The Firing Line: Reaction And Progressive Advocacy Before The Roberts Court And Lower Federal Courts, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

It once seemed that the First Amendment doctrine developed by the Supreme Court stood as a bulwark protecting grassroots struggles for social change. In the twenty-first century, however, particularly since the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in 2005, a number of observers have begun to view the Supreme Court’s First Amendment work as a “weaponized” redoubt of reaction.

This sense of the rightward tilt of Supreme Court decisions is rooted in reality. Examining 104 Supreme Court First Amendment cases decided during the 2005–2020 Terms, it turns out that successful litigants are four times as likely to come …

Montana Is Trying To Ban Tiktok. What Does The First Amendment Have To Say?, Deborah Pearlstein, John Dellamore

Online Publications

Last month, Montana became the first U.S. state to pass a bill banning TikTok from operating within its borders. If Governor Greg Gianforte signs some version of the bill, it will become the first statewide ban in the country to take direct aim at the popular social media app, which various U.S. government officials have warned poses a serious national security threat. But while Montana may be the first to act, significant gaps remain in the public debate surrounding both the nature of the threat that TikTok presents, and the constitutional questions that trying to regulate it might create.

Legal Scholars Weigh In On The Lasting Significance Of Dominion V. Fox, Samantha Barbas, Martin Garbus, Lyrissa Lidsky, Timothy Zick, Sandra Baron

Popular Media

No abstract provided.

A "Mere Shadow" Of A Conflict: Obscuring The Establishment Clause In Kennedy V. Bremerton, Ann L. Schiavone

Law Faculty Publications

In Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, the Roberts Court continued its move to carve out larger spaces for religious practice and expression in public spheres. But in so doing it left lower courts and school districts with many more questions than answers concerning what the Establishment Clause means and what it requires of them.

Comment, Francesca Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Let's start with the antecedent question that both the theme of this conference and all three papers in this session present. That is, before we ask how law schools might better advance the freedom of expression on campus, and even before asking what role law schools play in protecting or suppressing free speech more generally, we must ask the first order question: whether freedom of expression at U.S. law schools is indeed imperiled?

There is an underlying assumption in all three papers that something is amiss, that things are not quite at their optimal, that improve- ment is needed. And …

Foreword: New Supreme Court Cases: Duquesne Law Faculty Explains, Wilson Huhn

Law Faculty Publications

On September 30, 2022, several members of the faculty of the Thomas R. Kline School of Law of Duquesne University presented a Continuing Legal Education program, New Supreme Court Cases: Duquesne Law Faculty Explains, reviewing these developments. Duquesne Law Review graciously invited the faculty panel to contribute their analysis of these cases from the Supreme Court's 2021- 2022 term for inclusion in this symposium issue of the Law Review.

How Law Schools Can Fight For Fearless Speech, Mary Anne Franks

Articles

No abstract provided.

Mandating Repair Scores, Aaron Perzanowski

Articles

Restrictions on the repair of consumer goods have generated no shortage of policy proposals. This Article considers the empirical and legal case for one particular intervention—requiring firms to calculate and disclose their products’ scores on a uniform reparability index. These repair scores would provide consumers with salient information at or before the point of sale, enabling them to compare products on the basis of the ease and cost of repair. There is considerable empirical research, including assessments of France’s implementation of a similar requirement in recent years, suggesting that repair scores would both inform and empower consumers. Despite likely First …

Beyond The Watchdog: Using Law To Build Trust In The Press, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Declining trust in the American press has been longstanding and corrosive—both to our information environment and to democracy. It is tempting to think that if journalists could just repeatedly and brilliantly play their key role—that of watchdog—it might be redemptive. But doubling down on the watchdog function holds risks in our polarized climate. Research shows that some conservatives recoil from watchdog journalism, finding it too cynical and politicized.

This essay argues that a different journalistic function—one that has received far less attention and adulation from judges and legal scholars—should be encouraged and amplified. This is the press’s role as a …

Defamation 2.0, Cortelyou C. Kenney

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

There is a literal prohibition in the media bar that media lawyers cannot represent plaintiffs in suits for defamation. The stated principle behind this rule—a rule that can result in excommunication from the premier media law organization if it is violated—is that playing both sides of the defamation game is disloyal to traditional media actors because any chance of victory could inadvertently distort the law of defamation to increase the risk of frivolous suits against media outlets or other innocent third parties. But has the maxim finally gone too far?

Fueled by a new model where media profits are driven …