Law Commons^™

Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act Of 2000: The Land Use Provisions Are Both Unconstitutional And Unnecessary, Ada-Marie Walsh

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 was Congress 'response to the Supreme Court's striking down of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in City of Boerne v. Flores. In promulgating the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, Congress, inter alia, sought to protect the free exercise of religion from excessive governmental meddling while remedying discrimination suffered by religious individuals and groups in the area of land use. In dealing solely with land use provisions of the RLUIPA, the author argues that the Religious Land Use and lnstitutionalized Person Act is unconstitutional because it violates the Establishment …

Abridging The Freedom Of Non-English Speech: English-Only Legislation And The Free Speech Rights Of Government Employees, Margaret Robertson

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Political History Of The Establishment Clause, John C. Jeffries Jr., James E. Ryan

Michigan Law Review

Now pending before the Supreme Court is the most important church-state issue of our time: whether publicly funded vouchers may be used at private, religious schools without violating the Establishment Clause. The last time the Court considered school aid, it overruled precedent and upheld a government program providing computers and other instructional materials to parochial schools. In a plurality opinion defending that result, Justice Thomas dismissed as irrelevant the fact that some aid recipients were "pervasively sectarian." That label, said Thomas, had a "shameful pedigree." He traced it to the Blaine Amendment, proposed in 1875, which would have altered the …

The First Amendment And Speech-Based Torts: Recalibrating The Balance, Quin S. Landon

University of Miami Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech And True Threats, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

This article proposes a new test for determining what is a true threat - speech not protected by the First Amendment. Despite the importance of the true threats exception to the First Amendment, this is an underexplored area of constitutional law.

Even though the Supreme Court has made clear that true threats are punishable, it has not clearly defined what speech constitutes a true threat. To make this determination circuit courts have adopted inconsistent and inadequate tests including a reasonable listener test. The Supreme Court has never granted certiorari to resolve the issue.

The law surrounding threats has gained recent …

Section 6: First Amendment, Institute Of Bill Of Rights Law, William & Mary Law School

Supreme Court Preview

No abstract provided.

Has The Supreme Court Created A Constitutional Shield For Private Discrimination Against Homosexuals - A Look At The Future Remifications Of Boy Scouts Of America V. Dale, Erica L. Stringer

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

How To Apply The Religious Freedom Restoration Act To Federal Law Without Violating The Constitution, Gregory P. Magarian

Michigan Law Review

Learned commentators have called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 ("RFRA" or "the Act") "perhaps the most unconstitutional statute in the history of the nation" and "the most egregious violation of the separation of powers doctrine in American constitutional history." In the 1997 case of City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court struck down the Act in its applications to state and local governments, declaring that "RFRA contradicts vital principles necessary to maintain separation of powers and the federal balance." The Act's applications to federal law, however, survived Boerne, which means that plaintiffs with religious freedom claims against …

Prosecuting Conduit Campaign Contributions - Hard Time For Soft Money, Robert D. Probasco

Faculty Scholarship

In recent years, there have been several high-profile prosecutions for violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act, involving contributions nominally by one individual but funded or reimbursed by another individual deemed to be the true contributor. Prosecutions of these “conduit contribution” cases have been surprising in at least three significant respects. First, the prosecutions have been based on violations of FECA’s reporting requirements and may not have involved any violations of the substantive prohibitions or limitations of contributions. Second, the defendants were the donors rather than campaign officials who actually filed reports with FECA. Third, the cases were prosecuted as …

Religion And The First Amendment: Some Causes Of The Recent Confusion, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

The United States Supreme Court is surely guilty of making the matter of religion and the First Amendment harder than it ought to be. But it is others who have kept the debate over church/state relations either poisoned with culture-war rhetoric or so shrouded in mystery that seemingly only experts can untangle the juris-prudential snarls. By surrounding this venerable Amendment with a pseudocomplexity concerning the matter of religion these disinformation specialists create confusion, and confusion begets opportunities for further distortion and manipulation. Disagreements over the free exercise of religion and the no-establishment thereof are far simpler to resolve than these …

Rendering Unto Caesar Or Electioneering For Caesar--Loss Of Church Tax Exemption For Participation In Electoral Politics, Alan L. Feld

Faculty Scholarship

The restriction on church participation in political campaigns contained in the Internal Revenue Code operates uneasily. It appears to serve the useful purpose of separating the spheres of religion and electoral politics. But the separation often is only apparent, as churches in practice signal support for a particular candidate in a variety of rays that historically have not cost them their exemptions. Although the limited enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service has reflected the sensitive nature of the First Amendment values present, the federal government should provide more formal elaboration by statute or regulation. Focus on the use of funds …

Criminalization Of True Anonymity In Cyberspace, The, George F. Du Pont

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

The question of whether a state or the federal government can create a narrowly tailored restriction on cyberspace anonymity without violating the First Amendment remains unresolved[...]The Supreme Court has not directly addressed the issue, but it may soon consider the constitutionality of criminalizing certain kinds of cyber-anonymity in light of the unique nature of cyberspace. This comment explores the various forms of anonymity, examines the First Amendment status of anonymity in and outside of cyberspace, analyzes relevant scholarly commentary, and concludes that a narrowly tailored legislative restriction on "true" anonymity in cyberspace would not violate the First Amendment.

Hate And The Bar: Is The Hale Case Mccarthyism Redux Or A Victory For Racial Equality?, W. Bradley Wendel

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The application of the constitutional free expression guarantee to the activities of the organized bar is one of the most important unexplored areas of legal ethics. In this essay I will consider in particular the question of whether an applicant may be denied admission to the bar for involvement with hateful or discriminatory activities. This question reveals the tension between the first amendment principle, established after the agonizing struggles of the McCarthy era, that no one may be denied membership in the bar because of his or her beliefs alone, and the plenary authority of bar associations to make predictive …

The Framers' Establishment Clause: How High The Wall?, J. Clifford Wallace

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rewriting Near V. Minnesota: Creating A Complete Definition Of Prior Restraint, Michael I. Meyerson

Mercer Law Review

The Supreme Court's opinion in Near v. Minnesota was both a major step on the road to free expression and a missed opportunity. It represented the first time a law was struck down as violating the First Amendment's guarantee of free expression. Moreover, it placed the concept of "prior restraint" at the forefront of the theory of free expression. As one scholar noted: "Since the 1931 release of the Supreme Court's opinion in Near v. Minnesota, the doctrine of prior restraint has been an essential element of first amendment jurisprudence."

Unfortunately, the Court neither defined prior restraint, nor explained precisely …

Constitutionality Of "No-Citation" Rules, Salem M. Katsh, Alex V. Chachkes

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No-citation rules raise serious constitutional concerns. Assuming that it is constitutional to designate an opinion as nonprecedential, it is not constitutional to prohibit citing an opinion. No-citation rules are unconstitutional for two reasons. The first, citation prohibitions interfere with a litigant’s First Amendment right of speech and petition. Second, citation prohibitions violate the separation of powers.

The Price Of Vouchers For Religious Freedom, Laura S. Underkuffler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment Versus The World Trade Organization: Emergency Powers And The Battle In Seattle, Aaron Perrine

Washington Law Review

The 1999 World Trade Organization (WTO) ministerial meeting in Seattle was the target of highly organized, widely supported protest demonstrations. In response to the protests, city officials declared a state of emergency, ordering nighttime curfews and a daytime "no-protest zone" in downtown Seattle. They reasoned that the zone was necessary to protect the rights of WTO delegates and to restore public order. This Comment argues that mass nonviolent protests deserve more First Amendment protection than was afforded to demonstrators in Seattle. Even when violence occurs and public order is threatened, governments must narrowly tailor emergency orders to avoid trampling on …

Section 1983, The First Amendment, And Public Employee Speech: Shaping The Right To Fit The Remedy (And Vice Versa), Michael Wells

Scholarly Works

This Article is not about theories of free speech and how they bear on the public employment context, nor does it contribute to the academic debate over what the aims of public employee speech law ought to be. I take the Court at its word when it says that its aim is to give substantial weight to both the value of speech and the government's interest as an employer. Unlike Massaro and Ingber, I take it as a given that the government may insist on hierarchy and obedience to authority in the workplace. Unlike Rosenthal, I begin from the Court's …

Rewriting Near V. Minnesota: Creating A Complete Definition Of Prior Restraint, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The decision in Near v. Minnesota, while establishing the prior restraint doctrine as a critical element for First Amendment analysis, failed to give a definition of prior restraint. The result has been inconsistent and unpredictable application of the doctrine as well as diminished protection of free expression. This article takes the next critical step in the journey begun by Near v. Minnesota; it attempts to create a comprehensive definition of prior restraint using the principles of separation of powers. Because all three branches can create 'prior restraints,' the prevention of unconstitutional restraints will necessitate different safeguards depending on which branch …

Preserving The Establishment Clause: One Step Forward And Two Steps Back, Martha Mccarthy

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court And The Establishment Clause At The Dawn Of The New Millennium: "Bristl[Ing] With Hostility To All Things Religious" Or Necessary Seperation Of Church And State?, Charles J. Russo, Ralph D. Mawdsley

Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal

No abstract provided.

A Reply To Professor Krotoszynski, Steven H. Shiffrin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

A reply to Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr.'s review of the author's book, Dissent, Injustice, and the Meanings of America.

Filth, Filtering, And The First Amendment: Ruminations On Public Libraries’ Use Of Internet Filtering Software, Bernard W. Bell

Federal Communications Law Journal

Traditionally, whenever the government has sought to regulate speech, analysis of its action focused on conventional issues, such as the type of forum involved, whether the government acted in a regulatory or a proprietary role, and whether the regulation could be defined as a prior restraint. With the advent of the Internet and the opportunity for the widespread dissemination of viewpoints, however, new issues have arisen. This Article focuses on the complex questions public libraries face when filtering material, usually of a sexually explicit nature, from the public using filtering software. This Article contends that public libraries require a unique …

Accommodation And Equal Liberty, Lisa Schultz Bressman

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Jones V. Clinton: A Study In Politically Motivated Suits, Rule 1 1, And The First Amendment, Carol Rice Andrews

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Ninth Circuit's Exotic Dance With The Commercial Speech Doctrine, Andi Chang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Dale V. Boy Scouts Of America: Whether The Application Of New Jersey's Public Accommodations Law, Forcing The Boy Scouts To Include An Avowed Homosexual, Violates The Scouts' First Amendment Freedom Of Expressive Associations, Joseph M. Carpenter

Mercer Law Review

In Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, the United States Supreme Court held that the application of a New Jersey public accommodations law, forcing the Boy Scouts to extend membership to an avowed homosexual and gay rights activist, violated the Boy Scout's First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association. The Court held New Jersey's law burdens the Boy Scouts' right to oppose homosexual conduct, and New Jersey's interest in curbing discrimination does not justify the intrusion on the Boy Scouts' right to freedom of expressive association.

When Private Property Becomes A Public Forum, Becky Pintar

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Miranda, The Constitution, And Congress, David A. Strauss

Michigan Law Review

Are Miranda warnings required by the Constitution, or not? If they are, why has the Supreme Court repeatedly said that the rights created by Miranda are "not themselves rights protected by the Constitution"? If not, why can't an Act of Congress, such as 18 U.S.C. 3501, declare them to be unnecessary? These were the central questions posed by United States v. Dickerson. It is not clear that the majority opinion ever really answered them. The majority said that "Miranda is constitutionally based," that Miranda has "constitutional underpinnings," that Miranda is "a constitutional decision," and that Miranda "announced a constitutional rule." …