Law Commons^™

Immigration Detention And Dissent: The Role Of The First Amendment On The Road To Abolition, Alina Das

Georgia Law Review

The movement to abolish slavery relied heavily on the exercise and protection of enslaved and formerly enslaved people’s freedom of speech against robust efforts to suppress their messaging. The same is true in the context of the movement to abolish immigration detention. For decades, people in immigration detention, formerly detained people, and their allies have exercised their First Amendment rights to expose the conditions of their confinement and demand their freedom. In response to their protests and other forms of individual and collective expression, detained and formerly detained immigrants have faced suppression and retaliation, threatening not only their right to …

Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh

Georgia Law Review

Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …

Discrimination, Trump V. Hawaii, And Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christopher C. Lund

Georgia Law Review

This short symposium piece is a comment on two of the Supreme Court’s recent religion cases. The first is Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case, where the Court rejected the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.1 The second is Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case about the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, where the Court accepted the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against a conservative Christian.2 One case finds discrimination, while the other rejects it. Yet more fundamentally, the pairing suggests differences in how we perceive or react to evidence of discrimination. Both on …

Centering Noncitizens' Free Speech, Gregory P. Margarian

Georgia Law Review

First Amendment law pays little attention to noncitizens’ free speech interests. Perhaps noncitizens simply enjoy the same First Amendment rights as citizens. However, ambivalent and sometimes hostile Supreme Court precedents create serious cause for concern. This Essay advocates moving noncitizens’ free speech from the far periphery to the center of First Amendment law. Professor Magarian posits that noncitizens epitomize a condition of speech inequality, in which social conditions and legal doctrines combine to create distinctive, unwarranted barriers to full participation in public discourse. First Amendment law can ameliorate speech inequality by promoting an ethos of free speech obligation, amplifying the …

A First Amendment Law For Migrant Emancipation, Daniel Morales

Georgia Law Review

The First Amendment promises to change our world, but like any legal doctrine, its radical potential is stymied by the status quo bias of the legal system that administers it. For migrants, I urge here, this guarantor of free speech and expression does even less than it does for other subordinated groups. The formal and informal disabilities that migrants face in the public square—like the omnipresent threat of deportation—make existing First Amendment doctrine a weak and unreliable ally in the fight for migrants’ rights. It is possible to imagine another, emancipatory First Amendment law that might better facilitate the alteration …

Regulatory Constitutional Law: Protecting Immigrant Free Speech Without Relying On The First Amendment, Michael Kagan

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has long deprived immigrants of the full protection of substantive constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, leaving undocumented immigrants exposed to detention and deportation if they earn the government’s ire through political speech. The best remedy for this would be for the Supreme Court to reconsider its approach. This Essay offers an interim alternative borrowed from an analogous problem that arises under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has indicated that illegally obtained evidence may be suppressed in a removal proceeding only if the Fourth Amendment violation was “egregious.” Yet, some circuit …

The Contested "Bright Line" Of Territorial Presence, Shalini Ray

Georgia Law Review

For this symposium on “Immigrants and the First Amendment,” this Essay considers the current scope of First Amendment protection for noncitizens abroad. Courts have interpreted the constitutional rights of noncitizens to vary with factors including status, ties, and location. But in a recent case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment simply does not apply to noncitizens abroad. This Essay considers this new rule and its implications, concluding that a bright-line rule based on territorial presence masks more complex questions about the meaning of “here” and “abroad.”

Fear Foreigners, And Free Expression: A Brief Reflection On Ideological Exclusion And Deportation In The United States, Julia Rose Kraut

Georgia Law Review

“Why should we be afraid of this man and his ideas?” asked Secretary of State William P. Rogers, referring to Belgian, Marxist economist Ernest Mandel.1 In 1969, Mandel applied for a nonimmigrant visa to visit the United States after receiving invitations to speak at several American colleges and universities, including Amherst College, Columbia University, Princeton University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and the New School for Social Research.2 Mandel had received visas to visit the United States twice before: one in 1962 and another in 1968.3 Yet, this time, Mandel’s application for a visa was denied.4

The State Department informed Mandel …

“A Kind Of Continuing Dialogue”: Reexamining The Audience’S Role In Exempting Academic Freedom From Garcetti’S Employee Speech Doctrine, Michael A. Sloman

Georgia Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos
put further restraints on public employee speech by exempting
from First Amendment protection speech made pursuant to the
“official duties” of public employees. This limitation, if applied
to the speech of college professors, would constrain their
academic freedom of instruction and scholarship by permitting
overbearing institutional oversight. This constraint would be
detrimental not only to the employed professors, but also to
their students and the post-secondary educational system as a
whole. Courts should not apply Garcetti to academic freedom
in the post-secondary education context, and they should avoid
further limitations on …

State Of The Unions: The Impact Of Janus On Public University Student Fees, Jonathan Kaufman

Georgia Law Review

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the U.S.
Supreme Court overruled forty-one years of precedent
that had allowed public-sector unions to collect
agency-shop fees from nonmembers. The Court ruled this
mandatory fee collection unconstitutional as a violation
of nonmember First Amendment rights. This decision
may pose problems for other public entities, such as
public universities, who also collect mandatory fees that
support political speech.

Free Speech And Off-Label Rights, Amy J. Sepinwall

Georgia Law Review

When a litigant invokes a constitutional right to
protect interests different from the ones underpinning
the right, he engages in what this Article calls an
off-label rights exercise. The Free Speech Clause has
recently become an especially prominent, and troubling,
site of off-label rights exercises. Two of the most
prominent cases in the Supreme Court’s last term
involved litigants who invoked their constitutional
rights to free speech to protect interests unrelated to
speech or expression. In Janus v. American Federation
of State, County, & Municipal Employees, a state
employee argued that forcing him to pay for the union’s
bargaining activities …

Talk Isn't Cheap: Protecting Freedom Of Speech In Light Of Georgia's Anti-Boycott Legislation, Maria Kachniarz

Georgia Law Review

Historically,political boycotts have occupied a central
place in American tradition, going as far back as the
Founding. However, the years of 2016 and 2017 have
marked a sudden influx of state anti-boycott legislation.
Georgia was no exception, passing a statute in 2016
prohibiting those who boycott Israel from contracting
with the state. This statue violates the FirstAmendment
guaranteesof freedom of speech. First, boycotts of Israel,
or BDS as they are collectively called, are protected
political speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
protected politically motivated boycotts, despite their
detrimental economic effects. Further, Georgia's anti-
boycott legislation impermissibly stifles that protected
speech …

The First Amendment Case Against Partisan Gerrymandering, Emmet J. Bondurant Ii, Ben W. Thorpe

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court recognizes that "[p]artisan
gerrymanders... [are incompatible] with democratic
principles."I This makes good sense. The fundamental
objective of redistrictingis to "establish 'fairand effective
representation for all citizens. '2 And partisan
gerrymandering-whichthe Supreme Court defines as
"drawing... district lines to subordinate adherents of
one political party and entrench a rival party in
power'--runs counter to that fundamental objective.
Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has yet to invalidate
a redistricting plan solely as an unconstitutional
partisan gerrymander. This Symposium issue of the
Georgia Law Review, however, comes at a crucial
moment in the Court's treatment of that question. A case
now …

You Have The Right To Free Speech: Retaliatory Arrests And The Pretext Of Probable Cause, Katherine G. Howard

Georgia Law Review

An important question about an individual's First
Amendment freedoms arises when a citizen or journalist is
arrested while verbally challenging, filming, or writing
about police actions. Did the police officer have legitimate
law enforcement reasons for the arrest, or was the arrest in
retaliationfor engaging in First Amendment activities the
officer did not like? Courts have grappled with the best
way to resolve this question, often importing the Fourth
Amendment's bright-line rule about probable cause into
analyses of FirstAmendment retaliatoryarrest claims and
barringthose claims were the officer had probable cause to
arrest. This Note argues that when retaliatory arrest
claims …

Digital Medicine, The Fda, And The First Amendment, Adam Candeub

Georgia Law Review

Digital medicine might transform healthcare more fundamentally than the introduction of anesthesia or germ basis theory of disease. Already, tens of thousands of "medical apps" are available for smartphones. These computer applications can measure blood pressure, pulse, lung function, oxygenation level, sugar level, breathing rate and body temperature-and can even diagnose skin cancer, analyze urine, and take an echocardiogram. In fall 2013, the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) asserted regulatory authority over mobile medical applications and other digital medical services, threatening to chill, if not, destroy this innovation. This Article argues that the FDA stands on firm legal ground regulating medical …

Without A Pilot: Navigating The Space Between The First Amendment And State And Federal Directives Affecting Drone Journalism, Leah M. Davis

Georgia Law Review

A new player in American airspace, the drone, creates greater opportunities for news gathering. But with new opportunities, come new rules. Current legislatures, regulators and courts face the challenge of creating and enforcing a legal framework by which this new technology can be integrated into American airspace. The debate surrounding proper drone directives is influenced by competing policies of privacy, security, and First Amendment concerns. This Note surveys past and present state and federal directives on drone use, and argues for the creation of a separate set of guidelines for Press drones. Separate directives would ensure that news outlets are …

The Stealth Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Georgia Law Review

As we reflect on the 50th anniversary of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, there will likely be many tributes to Sullivan as one of the Supreme Court's most significant press cases. Yet Sullivan was not really a "press" case. The Supreme Court, in its opinion, granted all speakers greater protection against defamation liability regardless of whether they were a member of the press. Sullivan is not the only famous so-called "press" case that was not just about the press. Several more "not-just-the-press" victories followed in Sullivan's wake. New York Times Co. v. United States (the "Pentagon Papers case"), for …

Institutional Actors In New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Paul Horwitz

Georgia Law Review

Like all major cases, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which has now reached its fiftieth anniversary, is capable of multiple readings. This is less true of Sullivan than of some other epochal cases, especially those cases that continue to have a powerful political valence. Brown v. Board of Education, in particular, which will mark its sixtieth anniversary this year, continues to provoke fierce debates about its meaning and, in a deeper sense, its ownership. Sullivan is unquestionably one of the most important decisions in First Amendment jurisprudence. It has certainly produced debate. But arguments about Sullivan generally focus on …

Journalism Standards And "The Dark Arts": The U.K.'S Leveson Inquiry And The U.S. Media In The Age Of Surveillance, Lili Levi

Georgia Law Review

In July 2011, the British newspaper The Guardian reported that journalists and private investigators working for Rupert Murdoch's tabloid News of the World had hacked into the mobile phone messages of teenage murder victim Milly Dowler after her reported abduction in 2002, thereby giving her parents and friends the false hope that she had accessed her phone and was still alive. While journalistic "dark arts"-such as phone hacking, covert surveillance, blagging had been used by the British tabloid press vis-A-vis celebrities and public persons for some time without triggering much press interest or public outrage, the Dowler story enraged the …

In New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, The Supreme Court Got It Right Then- And Now, David G. Savage

Georgia Law Review

On April 5, 1960, Ray Jenkins, a city editor for the Alabama Journal,the afternoon paper in Montgomery, was having lunch at his desk and skimming through the old papers that had piled up. They included a week-old copy of the New York Times. He spotted an item that had a local angle, and he wrote a thirteen-paragraph story for that day's paper. "Sixty prominent liberals, including [former First Lady] Eleanor Roosevelt, have signed a full page advertisement in the New York Times appealing for contributions to 'The Committee to Defend Martin Luther King and the Struggle for Freedom in the …

The Dangers Of Press Clause Dicta, Ronnell A. Jones

Georgia Law Review

If an attorney, scholar, or citizen opened the 448th volume of the U.S. Reports to page 573, she would find herself midway through a case captioned Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. Context would make clear that the case was brought by a newspaper that wished to report on a criminal trial but was precluded from doing so when the trial judge closed the proceedings. The tenor of the analysis would foreshadow that the newspaper was on its way to a 7-1 victory and a holding that gave it the access it sought to the judicial proceeding. And the tone of …

Citizen-Critics, Citizen Journalists, And The Perils Of Defining The Press, William E. Lee

Georgia Law Review

Media lawyers frequently describe New York Times Co. v. Sullivan as a great win for the press. Certainly the Court's ruling saved the New York Times from financial ruin. However, four Alabama ministers active in the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), Ralph D. Abernathy, Joseph E. Lowery, Fred L. Shuttlesworth, and S.S. Seay Sr., were also targeted by Sullivan as defendants. Despite testimony that the ministers had not authorized the use of their names in the advertisement, "Heed Their Rising Voices," and learned of the ad only when Sullivan asked them for a retraction, the jury found each liable for …

Scandal! Early Supreme Court News Coverage And The Justice-Journalist Divide, Amy Gajda

Georgia Law Review

In January of 1900, United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Henry Brown (author of Plessy v. Ferguson) had apparently just about had it with the press. He gave what was called "[t]he principal address" before members of the New York State Bar Association in Albany and focused not principally on law, but on what he called journalism's sensationalistic methods.' "Ugly stories are told," he told the gathered attorneys, "of spies put upon houses to unearth domestic scandals or upon the steps of public men to ferret out political secrets," including early reports of court decisions. The greatest of the cruelties …

Fast Forward Fifty Years: Protecting Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open Debate After New York Times Co. V. Sullivan, Amy K. Sanders

Georgia Law Review

In September 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 606, criminalizing attempts to photograph or videotape a child if the reason for doing so was because the child's parent is a celebrity or public official. Not surprisingly, the measure garnered significant support from Hollywood's elite, including legislative testimony from actress-moms Halle Berry and Jennifer Garner. Against the outcry of the California Broadcasters Association and the California Newspaper Publishers Association, the California Legislature approved the measure, which raises current penalties for first-time offenders to one year of incarceration and/or a $10,000 fine (up from a maximum of six months …

Liability For Massive Online Leaks Of National Defense Information, Rodney A. Smolla

Georgia Law Review

Imagine that a group of activist American journalists and lawyers launch a new Internet site called "AmeriLeaks." The site is incorporated as a nonprofit organization with its principal place of business in Washington, D.C. The announced purpose of the site is to provide an American alternative to the WikiLeaks site led by Julian Assange. AmeriLeaks encourages whistleblowers across the United States to post documents on the site exposing corruption and crime in government, with an emphasis on American foreign policy and national security issues. "American universities have launched Moocs-Massive Open Online Courses-and we are now launching a site for American …

The Impact Of Clapper V. Amnesty International Usa On The Doctrine Of Fear-Based Standing, Amanda M. Mcdowell

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court's 2013 decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA dealt with the government's electronic surveillance authority under the Foreign Intelligence SurveillanceAct (FISA) Amendments. In a 5- 4 opinion, the Court held that a variety of U.S. persons, including attorneys and media organizations, did not have standing to challenge the constitutionality of the FISA Amendments because the plaintiffs' fear of future unlawful surveillance was not "certainly impending." Depending on how lower courts choose to interpret Clapper, the decision could have a significant impact on the doctrine of fear-based standing, which allows plaintiffs to establish standing based on fear of …

War Of The Words: Why False Statements Should Be Guaranteed First Amendment Protection, Virginia R. Priddy

Georgia Law Review

In Haley v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld
the conviction of Andrew Scott Haley for making a false
statement. Haley created a username and posted videos to
the Internet in which he claimed to have committed a
series of murders, goading his audience to try to solve the
"mysteries." Haley was convicted under a Georgia statute
that proscribes the making of a false statement within the
jurisdiction of an agency or department of state of Georgia.
After discussing the historical legal and philosophical
underpinnings of the First Amendment right to free
speech, this Note argues that the Georgia statute …

Endorsement Clauses In A Post-White Legal System: Why These Restrictions Do Not Violate A Judicial Candidate's First Amendment Right To Free Speech, Shawna M. Portner

Georgia Law Review

Elections have remained an integral method of state
judicial appointments for over two centuries. However,
because the Founding Fathers imposed upon judges the
duty to neutrally uphold the U.S. and state constitutions,
state legislatures, per the recommendation of the ABA,
have imposed certain restrictions on the speech and
actions of judicial candidates to maintain impartiality. In
2002, the Supreme Court struck down one category of
these provisions in Republican Party of Minnesota v.
White. The Court declared Minnesota's announce clause,
which prohibited judicial candidates from voicing their
opinions on issues likely to come before the bench, to be an
unconstitutional …

The First Amendment, Public School Students, And The Need For Clear Limits On School Officials' Authority Over Off-Campus Student Speech, Rory A. Weeks

Georgia Law Review

When, if ever, can school officials punish a student's off-
campus speech? The Supreme Court's student-speech
jurisprudence does not provide a clear answer. But this
much is clear: School officials do not possess absolute
authority over students' on-campus speech. Public school
students do not shed their First Amendment rights at the
schoolhouse gate. And yet during school or school-related
activities, public school students do not have coequal First
Amendment rights with adults in other contexts. During
school or school-related activities, school officials may
proscribe otherwise-permitted speech in order to fulfill the
school's basic educational mission, which includes
instructingstudents in civility. …