Law Commons^™

First Amendment Scrutiny: Realigning First Amendment Doctrine Around Government Interests, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article proposes a simpler way to frame judicial analysis of First Amendment claims: a government restriction on First Amendment expression or action must advance a compelling interest through narrowly tailored means and must not excessively burden the expression or action relative to the interest advanced. The test thus has three prongs: (1) compelling interest; (2) narrow tailoring; and (3) proportionality.

Part I explores how current First Amendment doctrine too often minimizes or ignores a meaningful assessment of the government’s purported interest in limiting First Amendment liberties. Part II shows how First Amendment inquiry is further confused by threshold inquiries …

Centering Noncitizens’ Free Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

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 …

Covid-19, Churches, And Culture Wars, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause often requires courts to balance competing interests of the highest order. On the one hand, the Constitution recognizes the free exercise of religion as a fundamental right. On the other hand, the government sometimes has compelling reasons for limiting free exercise, especially in situations involving dangers to health and safety. The shutdown and social distancing orders issued during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic not only restricted free exercise but also limited what many people consider to be the core of that exercise: religious worship. But the orders did so in order to …

Kent State And The Failure Of First Amendment Law, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Since the U.S. Supreme Court decided its first free speech case 100 years ago, two very different eras have defined First Amendment law. For a half century, before 1970, the Supreme Court focused on protecting the expressive freedom of political dissidents and social reformers. In 1970, amid protests against the Vietnam War, the Ohio National Guard senselessly gunned down four students at Kent State University. The Kent State massacre exposed the fragility in our country of political protest, free speech, and democracy itself. That atrocity should have inspired First Amendment law to affirm and enhance its protection of dissenters and …

Beyond Unreasonable, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The concept of “reasonableness” permeates the law: the “reasonable person” determines the outcome of torts and contracts disputes, the criminal burden of proof requires factfinders to reach conclusions “beyond a reasonable doubt,” and claims of self-defense succeed or fail on reasonableness determinations. But as any first-year law student can attest, the line between reasonable and unreasonable is not always clear. Nor is that the only ambiguity. In the realm of the unreasonable, many of us intuit that some actions are not only unreasonable but beyond the pale—we might say they are beyond unreasonable. Playing football, summiting Nanga Parbat, and attempting …

Taking Stock Of The Religion Clauses, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

After a few decades of relative quiet, the Supreme Court has in recent years focused once again on the religion clauses and related statutes.

Conflicting Reports: When Gun Rights Threaten Free Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

This Article catalogs and analyzes collisions between free speech and gun rights. The most important and hotly debated of those collisions is the clash between the First Amendment rights to assemble and speak in public political protests and the asserted Second Amendment right to carry firearms openly in public places. Beyond protests, public university students’ First Amendment rights to speak and learn clash with the asserted Second Amendment right to carry concealed weapons on university campuses; First Amendment interests in robust political deliberation clash with Second Amendment interests in promoting and securing the right to keep and bear arms; and …

Political And Non-Political Speech And Guns, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Constitutional rights depend on justifications. Some combination of theory, his- tory, and practical reasoning needs to establish why and to what extent a given right warrants legal protection. The justifications that courts and theorists articulate for a given right determine the right’s breadth and the specific contours of its protection. Justification has particular importance at the formative stage of a newly recognized constitutional right. At present, courts are building doctrine around the Second Amendment “right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”1 recognized as an individ- ual right just over a decade ago in District of Columbia v. Heller.2 …

When Audiences Object: Free Speech And Campus Speaker Protests Articles & Essays, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

In March 2017, conservative author Charles Murray arrived to speak at Middlebury College in Vermont, invited by a student affiliate of the American Enterprise Institute. Murray planned to discuss his 2013 book, Coming Apart: The State of White America, 1960-2010. Many Middlebury students and faculty, however, deplored Murray for an earlier book, 1994’s The Bell Curve, where he drew specious connections between race and intelligence. Others simply considered Murray an intellectual lightweight who didn’t warrant a speaking slot at the prestigious college. Murray’s critics objected to the Political Science Department’s co-sponsorship of his ppearance and the college president’s plan to …

Data-Driven Constitutional Avoidance, Gregory P. Magarian, Lee Epstein, James L. Gibson

Scholarship@WashULaw

This article uses a case study to explain how empirical analysis can promote judicial modesty. In Matal v. Tam, the U.S. Supreme Court invoked the First Amendment to strike down the Lanham Act's bar on federal registration of "disparaging" trademarks. The Tam decision has great constitutional significance. It expands First Amendment coverage into a new field of economic regulation, and it deepens the constitutional prohibition on viewpoint-based speech regulations. This article contends that empirical analysis could have given the Court a narrower basis for the Tam result, one that would have avoided the fraught First Amendment issues the Court decided. …

Forward Into The Past: Speech Intermediaries In Television And Internet Ages Symposium: Falsehoods, Fake News, And The First Amendment: Panel 3: The Brave New World Of Free Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Communication constructs society. By speaking to, with, and among one another, people and groups build relationships that allow us all to live more fully, understand the world better, and govern ourselves collectively. As societies grow, expression and engagement become more challenging. The presence of more ideas, larger and more diverse potential audiences, and more powerful and remote institutions threatens to reduce communication to a futile exercise. Whatever normative goals different people and groups may want public discourse to serve, pursuing those goals gets harder.

The View From My Window: The Roberts Court's First Amendment Symposium, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

The experience of writing a book and then reading what some very smart and knowledgeable people have to say about the subject matter is humbling and a little dizzying. In Managed Speech: The Roberts Court's First Amendment, I try to make some sense of the present Supreme Court's decisions over the past decade about the First Amendment's protections for free expression.' The book argues that those decisions, taken as a whole, excessively constrain free speech within a particular managerial framework. Rather than helping speech to flourish in all its noisy, messy glory, the Roberts Court favors First Amendment claims from …

A Tricky Negotiation: Free Speech Versus Insensitivity, Melvin Dilanchian

Washington University Undergraduate Law Review

The central question presented in this paper is whether specialty license plates constitute government speech, and are thus subject to disapproval by the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. The core concerns reviewed in this research, largely focus on defining whose speech specialty license plates are. The purpose is to investigate and analyze the precedent established as a result of a recent case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans. The paper thoroughly reviews the arguments made in the majority opinion, as well as those of the dissenting opinion, with an interdisciplinary approach. The argument presented …

The Marrow Of Tradition: The Roberts Court And Categorial First Amendment Speech Exclusions, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

INTRODUCTION The Roberts Court has made a lot of First Amendment law. Since Chief Justice John Roberts took the Supreme Court’s helm in 2006, the Court has issued decisions on the merits in about thirty-five free speech cases. With greater vigor than the late Rehnquist Court, the present Justices have waded into free speech controversies ranging from violent video games to commercial speech to campaign fi- nance regulation. In all those areas, the Court has handed import- ant victories to First Amendment claimants. Free speech advocates’ conventional (not to say universal) view of this Court is adoring. Renowned First Amendment …

Hobby Lobby In Constitutional Waters: Two Life Rings And An Anchor, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Hobby Lobby's challenge to the contraception coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is the first Supreme Court case to test an application of RFRA to a federal law. For an introductory case, Hobby Lobby pushes RFRA·s conceptual envelope. Never before, under any constitutional or statutory provision, has the Court exempted a private, for profit business from the obligation to obey a generally applicable law. Most successful religious accommodation claims, whether constitutional or tatutory, have involved individual religious believers or groups of similarly situated believers. Religious institutions have occasionally but less frequently brought successful accommodation claims. Whatever …

Speaking Truth To Firepower: How The First Amendment Destabilizes The Second, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

When the Supreme Court in District of Columbia v. Heller declared that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, it set atop the federal judicial agenda the critical task of elaborating the new right’s scope, limits, and content. Following Heller, commentators routinely draw upon the First Amendment’s protections for expressive freedom to support their proposals for Second Amendment doctrine. In this article, Professor Magarian advocates a very different role for the First Amendment in explicating the Second, and he contends that our best understanding of First Amendment theory and doctrine severely diminishes the Second Amendment’s …

Religious Argument, Free Speech Theory, And Democratic Dynamism, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Political theorists have long debated whether liberal democratic norms of public political debate should constrain political arguments grounded in religious beliefs or similar conscientious commitments. In this article, Professor Magarian contends that normative insights from free speech theory have salience for this controversy and should ultimately lead us to reject any normative constraint on religious argument. On the restrictive side of the debate stand prominent liberal theorists, led by John Rawls, who maintain that arguments grounded in religion and other comprehensive commitments threaten liberal democracy by offering illegitimate grounds for government action and destabilizing democratic politics. On the permissive side …

Substantive Media Regulation In Three Dimensions, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Changes in the political and regulatory climates are prompting calls to revive substantive government regulation of the broadcast media, specifically the now-defunct fairness doctrine. In this article, Professor Magarian attempts to sharpen the present debate over substantive regulation by closely examining earlier defenses and criticisms of the fairness doctrine. The article assesses how supporters and opponents of the fairness doctrine have characterized three issues essential for assessing the doctrine's wisdom and constitutionality: who is regulating; who is being regulated; and the goal of the regulatory scheme. As to the first issue, who is regulating, fairness doctrine supporters emphasize the democratic …

The Jurisprudence Of Colliding First Amendment Interests: From The Dead End Of Neutrality To The Open Road Of Participation-Enhancing Review, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

First Amendment interests in both speech and religion often collide with one another. A political activist claims a free speech interest in the right to purchase advertising time on a television network, while the network claims a free speech interest in its decision not to sell the time. A religious enclave claims a free exercise interest in having a dedicated public school district, while its neighbors claim a nonestablishment interest in the government's not extending the group special treatment. In this article Professor Magarian examines the phenomenon of colliding First Amendment interests, explains and critiques the Supreme Court's failure to …

The Pragmatic Populism Of Justice Stevens's Free Speech Jurisprudence Symposium: The Jurisprudence Of Justice Stevens: Panel V: First Amendment/Voting Rights, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

In his three decades on the Supreme Court, Justice John Paul Stevens has developed a distinctive approach to the First Amendment. During his tenure, the Court's majority has crystallized a theory of First Amendment speech protection as an abstract, negative protection of individual autonomy against government interference. In contrast, Justice Stevens' pragmatic judicial methodology has caused him to place greater emphasis on free speech decisions' practical consequences, particularly their effectiveness in making democratic debate inclusive as to both participants and subject matter in order to ensure robust, well-informed public discourse. Alone on the present Court, Justice Stevens manifests a deep …

Market Triumphalism, Electoral Pathologies, And The Abiding Wisdom Of First Amendment Access Rights, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

Forty years ago, Professor Jerome Barron made the classic case that the First Amendment requires not merely protection of speech against government interference but provision of access to the means of mass communication. The Supreme Court in the ensuing decades has largely rejected Barron's approach. In this article, Professor Magarian defends Barron's case for access rights against the two theoretical critiques that have underwritten its doctrinal rejection. The libertarian critique attacks the normative underpinnings of access rights, maintaining that the First Amendment insulates market-driven distributions of expressive opportunities. Professor Magarian demonstrates that politically progressive and conservative libertarian critics of access …

Substantive Due Process As A Source Of Constitutional Protection For Nonpolitical Speech, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

We live in a time when our right to speak out against our government faces threats unimagined since the Vietnam era. As the present war in Iraq and the campaign against international terrorism have dragged on, the federal and state governments as well as nongovernmental institutions have grown increasingly bold in their efforts to suppress political dissent. Law enforcement officers infiltrate and bully peaceful dissident groups; police crack down brutally on mass demonstrations; cities confine protesters at major political events to ironically designated “free speech zones.” These events buttress a contention, familiar from the work of several prominent First Amendment …

The First Amendment, The Public-Private Distinction, And Nongovernmental Suppression Of Wartime Political Debate, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

This article proposes a major expansion in the scope of First Amendment law and offers a fresh way of understanding the public-private distinction. It contends that the Supreme Court should invoke the First Amendment to enjoin nongovernmental behavior that substantially impedes public political debate during times of war and national emergency. As the article explains, the present campaign against international terrorism has seen employers, property owners, and media corporations restrict political discussion more frequently and aggressively than the government has. If political debate is the most important object of First Amendment protection - which the article contends it is - …

Regulating Political Parties Under A Public Rights First Amendment, Gregory P. Magarian

Scholarship@WashULaw

The recently-enacted McCain-Feingold campaign finance law pushes to the fore the questions of whether and to what extent the First Amendment allows government to regulate the electoral activities of political parties. One of the new law's primary components is its attempt to eliminate so-called "soft money"- unlimited donations to national political parties that the Democrats and Republicans have used to circumvent legal limits on campaign contributions? One congressional opponent of the new law called it "the death knell" for political parties' role in elections." Not surprisingly, both major parties have attacked McCain-Feingold. Most Republicans in Congress opposed the legislation, and …