Law Commons^™

Leaving The Dale To Be More Fair: On Cls And First Amendment Jurisprudence, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

In Christian Legal Society of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez, the Supreme Court upheld the Hastings College of Law’s requirement that all recognized student groups have an open membership policy. The decision has been criticized for a variety of reasons, e.g., that the Court conflated the First Amendment tests for speech and association. What has not been adequately explored is the degree to which the Court has modified limited purpose public forum analysis in the university context over the past few decades, resulting in a jurisprudence that is virtually unrecognizable in light of the more …

A Family Affair? Domestic Relations And Involuntary Public Figure Status, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The constitutional limitations on defamation damages have changed greatly over the past five decades. Initially, only statements about public officials triggered such limitations, but the class of individuals triggering the most demanding standard was subsequently expanded. Over the past half century, members of the Court could neither agree about the kinds of people nor the kinds of statements that should be afforded constitutional protection. Even when ostensibly agreeing about the criteria to be used in defamation cases, members of the Court disagreed greatly about how the announced criteria should be applied in practice.

One of the most doctrinally confusing aspects …

Congress, Federal Courts, And Domestic Relations Exceptionalism, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Family law is often cited as a paradigmatic example of state law, and the Supreme Court has often trumpeted the “domestic relations exception” as a justification for preventing federal involvement in family matters. Yet, it is of course true that a variety of federal programs affect the family, so it is important to figure out which areas are reserved for the states and which are not. Further, the federal courts have heard a variety of cases involving family matters, so it is not as if the courts never have jurisdiction to hear such cases. The tests for determining when the …

The Next Battleground? Personhood, Privacy, And Assisted Reproductive Technologies, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Personhood statutes and amendments have been proposed in several states. As a general matter, they establish as a matter of state law that legal personhood begins at conception. Such laws may have implications for state policies concerning abortion and contraception, and will have implications for other areas of law including state policies related to assisted reproductive technologies. Yet, some of the ways in which these different areas of law might be affected are not well understood and thus are explored here.

Whistleblowing, Public Employees, And The First Amendment, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Recent revelations of extensive public wrongdoing illustrate the need for whistleblower protection so that governmental wrongdoing is more likely to come to light. While there is some statutory protection of whistleblowing as long as certain conditions have been met, a separate issue is the degree to which the Constitution protects whistleblowers under the First Amendment. Ironically, the constitutional protections for whistleblowers have decreased over the past several decades, leaving an impoverished system of protection for discussions of great public interest. This article analyzes the respects in which First Amendment protections for matters of great public import were once fairly robust …

The Onslaught On Academic Freedom, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The United States Supreme Court has long recognized the importance of academic freedom both within and outside of the classroom. However, in a case having nothing to do with the academy, Garcetti v. Ceballos, the Court cast into doubt the validity of an entire line of cases, almost inviting the circuits to rewrite First Amendment doctrine in the entire area. The circuits have responded, creating a jurisprudence that threatens to bring about the negative consequences discussed over the past half-century. This article explores the First Amendment protections of academic freedom, explaining how Garcetti and the courts interpreting it have eviscerated …

Making The Anomalous Even More Anomalous: On Hosanna-Tabor, The Ministerial Exception, And The Constitution, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

In Hosanna–Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Court held that the First Amendment incorporates the ministerial exception and, further, found that the plaintiff fell within that exception and so could not press her claim. However, courts and commentators hoping for clarification of Religion Clauses jurisprudence more generally or even for a firm constitutional grounding of the ministerial exception may well be disappointed. The Court has raised more questions than it has answered, and has provided such little helpful guidance to the lower courts that Hosanna-Tabor is likely to lead to greater confusion in the …

Sacred Disputes? On The Ministerial Exception And The Constitution, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Federal courts have long been hearing church disputes, for example, concerning conflicting claims regarding the rightful possession and use of church property. However, there is no clear understanding concerning the contours of the constitutional limitations on the courts when one of the parties in interest is a religious organization. The conflicting jurisprudence may be clarified in the 2011-2012 term when the Court hears and decides Hosanna–Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, although there is reason to be pessimistic that this will happen. This article lays out the relevant jurisprudence as presented by the United States …

Doma’S Bankruptcy, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Over the past few years, several federal courts have suggested or held that section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) violates constitutional guarantees. The courts have differed, however, both with respect to the appropriate standard of review and with respect to the particular constitutional guarantees that the section allegedly violates. Ironically, the resolution of these debates may ultimately have less import for the constitutionality of the section at issue than for the constitutionality of DOMA’s full faith and credit section and for the constitutionality of state same-sex marriage bans. This article addresses the constitutionality of section three of …

Ignore The Man Behind The Curtain: On The Government Speech Doctrine And What It Licenses, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

While federal and state governments have long been communicating to various audiences in multiple ways in a variety of contexts, the United States Supreme Court has only recently invoked the government speech doctrine to protect certain state acts and policies from First Amendment challenge. The contours of the doctrine are rather fuzzy—there are no clear criteria by which to determine when the government is speaking or what, if anything, the government must be saying in order for the doctrine’s protections to be invoked. This lack of clarity has caused great confusion in the lower courts—judges seem not to know how …

Funeral Protests, Privacy, And The Constitution: What Is Next After Phelps?, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

In Snyder v. Phelps, the United States Supreme Court struck down a damages award against Reverend Fred Phelps Sr. and the Westboro Baptist Church for picketing a funeral. In a relatively short opinion, the Court suggested that the legal issues were straightforward—the First Amendment precludes the imposition of tort damages when the comments at issue involve matters of public concern. Yet, the Court failed to explain whether those comments that were not of public concern were somehow immunized by those that were, and also failed to explain how the holding fits into the current defamation and privacy jurisprudence. The opinion …

Same-Sex Marriage And The Right To Privacy, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Over the past decade, several state appellate courts have analyzed whether their respective state constitutions protect the right to marry a same-sex partner. Those courts addressing the issue have differed both in their analyses and in their ultimate conclusions, although there have been striking similarities among those courts upholding same-sex marriage bans and among those striking them down, differences in wording among the respective state constitutional provisions notwithstanding. This article focuses on the due process analyses offered by the different courts, concluding that all of these decisions help demonstrate why the right to marry a same-sex partner should be found …

On Same-Sex Marriage And Matters Of Conscience, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

In our increasingly diverse society, it is ever-more important to teach tolerance of and respect for those having differing sexual orientations and religious beliefs. It thus might seem an ideal solution to include conscience clauses in legislation affording same-sex couples the right to marry, whereby individuals with religious qualms about being in any way associated with such marriages may be legally excused from doing so. Yet, by creating one exception specifically for same-sex marriages rather than a more generalized exception for those with religious qualms about facilitating or being associated with marriages contrary to belief, the state may be undermining …

You Take The Embryos But I Get The House (And The Business): Recent Trends In Awards Involving Embryos Upon Divorce, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Various state courts have been asked to decide who should have control of remaining frozen embryos upon divorce. Different models have been proposed, ranging from enforcement of prior agreements to balancing the needs and desires of the parties to requiring both parties to agree before implantation can take place. This article discusses some of these models, concluding both that the enforcement of the initial agreement model is preferable to the others proposed and that one of the most popular current models--the contemporaneous consent model—is a public policy disaster that should be repudiated at the earliest opportunity.

State Funding Of Devotional Studies: A Failed Jurisprudence That Has Lost Its Moorings, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

The Court’s attitude toward the public funding of devotional studies can best be described as ambivalent. Not long ago, devotional studies were viewed as one of the few kinds of study that the state clearly could not fund. Then, the Court did an about-face, implying that public funding of devotional studies does not violate constitutional guarantees, because that kind of study cannot be distinguished for constitutional purposes from other kinds of permissibly funded areas of study. Still more recently, the Court has changed course yet again, suggesting that states may but need not refuse to fund such studies, reverting to …

Death By A Thousand Cuts: The Illusory Safeguards Against Funding Pervasively Sectarian Institutions Of Higher Learning, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Death by a Thousand Cuts: The Illusory Safeguards against Funding Pervasively Sectarian Institutions of Higher Learning

Tilton v. Richardson, Hunt v. McNair, and Roemer v. Board of Public Works are often thought to offer a coherent view of the Establishment Clause limitations on funding religiously affiliated institutions of higher learning. But the decisions themselves offer inconsistent analyses of Establishment Clause limitations and, further, were the analyses in these cases applied more generally, Establishment Clause guarantees would be even less robust than they are currently thought to be.

The difficulties for the Court in offering a coherent approach to public funding …

Repudiating Everson: On Buses, Books, And Teaching Articles Of Faith, Mark Strasser

Mark Strasser

Ever since deciding Everson v. Board of Education, the Court has wrestled with the proper way to characterize the limitations imposed on the states by the Establishment Clause. Many of the cases have involved the extent to which the state can give aid to the parents of children attending primary and secondary sectarian schools. The Court’s understanding of the limits on this kind of aid has changed markedly over the past sixty years, having first involved an analysis of the degree to which the state would be aiding religious teaching and then having changed to an analysis of whether the …