Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery
Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery
Maine Law Review
When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court's decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled higher education.” …
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Maine Law Review
The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position, roughly …
Hate Speech - The United States Versus The Rest Of The World?, Kevin Boyle
Hate Speech - The United States Versus The Rest Of The World?, Kevin Boyle
Maine Law Review
The search for a commonly agreed upon international legal understanding of the meaning of free speech or freedom of expression, as an individual human right, was a major international preoccupation from the 1940s to the 1980s. During the Cold War it was, of course, also a highly ideological debate. There were three positions, broadly speaking: the Soviet Union and its allies, who had little enthusiasm for the idea at all; the United States, which believed in it—many thought—too much; and the rest, the other Western democracies and developing countries, who tried to hold the middle ground. These contrasting positions were …
“Frankly Unthinkable”: The Constitutional Failings Of President Trump’S Proposed Muslim Registry, A. Reid Monroe-Sheridan
“Frankly Unthinkable”: The Constitutional Failings Of President Trump’S Proposed Muslim Registry, A. Reid Monroe-Sheridan
Maine Law Review
On several occasions during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump endorsed the creation of a mandatory government registry for Muslims in the United States— not just visitors from abroad, but American citizens as well. This astonishing proposal has received little attention in legal scholarship to date, even though Trump has refused to renounce the idea following his election to the presidency. In this Article, I attempt to address President Trump’ s proposal in several ways. First, I aim to provide a thorough analysis demonstrating unequivocally that such a “ Muslim registry,” with the characteristics President Trump has endorsed, would violate …
Conant V. Walters: A Misapplication Of Free Speech Rights In The Doctor-Patient Relationship, Katharine M. Mccarthy
Conant V. Walters: A Misapplication Of Free Speech Rights In The Doctor-Patient Relationship, Katharine M. Mccarthy
Maine Law Review
In Conant v. Walters, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed the application of the First Amendment's right of free speech to a federal policy that prohibited the recommendation of medical marijuana by physicians. This class action suit, brought by physicians and severely ill patients, successfully enjoined the federal government from enforcing its policy revoking the federal prescriptive licenses of physicians who recommend or approve of marijuana use by patients suffering from certain severe illnesses. The federal government's policy, issued in 1996 through a statement of Barry McCaffrey, director of the Office of National Drug Control …
Mediated Images Of Violence And The First Amendment: From Video Games To The Evening News, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards
Mediated Images Of Violence And The First Amendment: From Video Games To The Evening News, Clay Calvert, Robert D. Richards
Maine Law Review
In July 2004, a federal district court struck down, on First Amendment grounds, a Washington state law that restricted minors' access to video games containing “realistic or photographic-like depictions of aggressive conflict in which the player kills, injures, or otherwise causes physical harm to a human form in the game who is depicted, by dress or other recognizable symbols, as a public law enforcement officer.” The decision was anything but surprising. It followed in the footsteps of recent opinions issued by two federal appellate courts that held unconstitutional similar legislation regulating minors' access to fictional images of violence in video …
Ideological Plaintiffs, Administrative Lawmaking, Standing, And The Petition Clause, Karl S. Coplan
Ideological Plaintiffs, Administrative Lawmaking, Standing, And The Petition Clause, Karl S. Coplan
Maine Law Review
Although Article I of the Constitution vests legislative power in the Congress, the lawmaking process in this country has evolved to involve all three branches. Congress enacts regulatory programs, but delegates to the executive branch the task of formulating and legislating the details of implementation through regulations. Once the executive branch agencies have acted, Article III courts routinely step in to review the consistency of these regulations with congressional mandates. In many cases, especially in the case of controversial regulations, the lawmaking process is not complete until judicial review. Entities burdened by such regulations-so-called "regulatory objects"-enjoy presumed standing to challenge …
Fighting The New Wars Of Religion: The Need For A Tolerant First Amendment, Leslie C. Griffin
Fighting The New Wars Of Religion: The Need For A Tolerant First Amendment, Leslie C. Griffin
Maine Law Review
Religious wars have broken out around the country about the legality of gay marriage, the consequences of gay ordination for property ownership, the funding of faith-based organizations and the placement of crosses and Ten Commandments (but not Seven Aphorisms) on public land. To resolve such impassioned disputes, Americans traditionally look to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment, which state "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Unfortunately, the Court's modern decisions interpreting those clauses have shed more heat than light on the discussion and have provoked ongoing controversy instead of …