Law Commons^™

The First Queer Right, Scott Skinner-Thompson

Michigan Law Review

A review of Carlos A. Ball, The First Amendment and LGBT Equality: A Contentious History.

Precedent And Speech, Randy J. Kozel

Michigan Law Review

The U.S. Supreme Court has shown a notable willingness to reconsider its First Amendment precedents. In recent years, the Court has departed from its prior statements regarding the constitutional value of false speech. It has revamped its process for identifying categorical exceptions to First Amendment protection. It has changed its positions on corporate electioneering and aggregate campaign contributions. In short, it has revised the ground rules of expressive freedom in ways large and small. The Court generally describes its past decisions as enjoying a presumption of validity through the doctrine of stare decisis. This Article contends that within the context …

Paths Of Resistance To Our Imperial First Amendment, Bertrall L. Ross Ii

Michigan Law Review

In the campaign finance realm, we are in the age of the imperial First Amendment. Over the past nine years, litigants bringing First Amendment claims against campaign finance regulations have prevailed in every case in the Supreme Court. A conservative core of five justices has developed virtually categorical protections for campaign speech and has continued to expand those protections into domains that states once had the authority to regulate. As the First Amendment’s empire expands, other values give way. Four key cases from this era illustrate the reach of this imperial First Amendment. In Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. …

Pro-Whistleblower Reform In The Post-Garcetti Era, Julian W. Kleinbrodt

Michigan Law Review

Whistleblowers who expose government ineptitude, inefficiency, and corruption are valuable assets to a well-functioning democracy. Until recently, the Connick–Pickering test governed public employee speech law; it gave First Amendment protection to government employees who spoke on matters of public concern—-such as whistleblowers-—so long as the government’s administrative concerns did not outweigh the employees’ free speech interests. The Supreme Court significantly curtailed the protection of such speech in its recent case, Garcetti v. Ceballos. This case created a categorical threshold requirement that afforded no protection to speech made as an employee rather than as a citizen. Garcetti’s problematic rule has forced …

Rethinking Reporter's Privilege, Ronnell Andersen Jones

Michigan Law Review

Forty years ago, in Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court made its first and only inquiry into the constitutional protection of the relationship between a reporter and a confidential source. This case - decided at a moment in American history in which the role of an investigative press, and of information provided by confidential sources, was coming to the forefront of public consciousness in a new and significant way - produced a reporter-focused "privilege" that is now widely regarded to be both doctrinally questionable and deeply inconsistent in application. Although the post-Branzburg privilege has been recognized as flawed in a …

Policeman, Citizen, Or Both? A Civilian Analogue Exception To Garcetti V. Ceballos, Caroline A. Flynn

Michigan Law Review

The First Amendment prohibits the government from leveraging its employment relationship with a public employee in order to silence the employee's speech. But the Supreme Court dramatically curtailed this right in Garcetti v. Ceballos by installing a categorical bar: if the public employee spoke "pursuant to her official duties," her First Amendment retaliation claim cannot proceed. Garcetti requires the employee to show that she was speaking entirely "as a citizen" and not at all "as an employee." But this is a false dichotomy - especially because the value of the employee's speech to the public is no less if she …

Context And Trivia, Samuel Brenner

Michigan Law Review

My academic mantra, writes Professor James C. Foster in the Introduction to BONG HiTS 4 JESUS: A Perfect Constitutional Storm in Alaska's Capital, which examines the history and development of the Supreme Court's decision in Morse v. Frederick, "[is] context, context, context" (p. 2). Foster, a political scientist at Oregon State University, argues that it is necessary to approach constitutional law "by situating the U.S. Supreme Court's ... doctrinal work within surrounding historical context, shorn of which doctrine is reduced to arid legal rules lacking meaning and significance" (p. 1). He seeks to do so in BONG HiTS 4 JESUS …

Citizens United And The Illusion Of Coherence, Richard L. Hasen

Michigan Law Review

The self-congratulatory tone of the majority and concurring opinions in last term's controversial Supreme Court blockbuster, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, extended beyond the trumpeting of an absolutist vision of the First Amendment that allows corporations to spend unlimited sums independently to support or oppose candidates for office. The triumphalism extended to the majority's view that it had imposed coherence on the unwieldy body of campaign finance jurisprudence by excising an "outlier" 1990 opinion, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, which had upheld such corporate limits, and parts of a 2003 opinion, McConnell v. FEC, extending Austin to unions …

Limiting A Constitutional Tort Without Probably Cause: First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest After Hartman, Colin P. Watson

Michigan Law Review

Federal law provides a cause of action for individuals who are the target of adverse state action taken in retaliation for their exercise of First Amendment rights. Because these constitutional torts are "easy to allege and hard to disprove," they raise difficult questions concerning the proper balance between allowing meaningful access to the courts and protecting government agents from frivolous and vexatious litigation. In its recent decision in Hartman v. Moore, the U.S. Supreme Court tipped the scales in favor of the state in one subset of First Amendment retaliation actions by holding that plaintiffs in actions for retaliatory …

Putting Religious Symbolism In Context: A Linguistic Critique Of The Endorsement Test, B. Jessie Hill

Michigan Law Review

The treatment of Establishment Clause challenges to displays of religious symbolism by the Supreme Court and the lower courts is notoriously unpredictable: a crèche is constitutionally acceptable if it is accompanied by a Santa Claus house and reindeer, a Christmas tree, and various circus figures, but unacceptable if it is accompanied by poinsettias, a "peace tree," or a wreath, a tree, and a plastic Santa Claus. A menorah may be displayed next to a Christmas tree, or next to Kwanzaa symbols, Santa Claus, and Frosty the Snowman, but not next to a crèche and a Christmas tree. A number of …

Reply: Did The Fourteenth Amendment Repeal The First?, Jed Rubenfeld

Michigan Law Review

To get right to the point: Mr. Hacker does not disagree that the Establishment Clause would, in the absence of the Fourteenth Amendment, have prohibited Congress from passing a nationwide religion law like RFRA. He believes, however, that the Fourteenth Amendment has in part repealed the First. Of course, he doesn't want to say repealed. The language of repeal is not pleasant to the ears of those who would like to forget about First Amendment antidisestablishmentarianism. The Fourteenth Amendment did not "repeal any aspect of the text of the [Establishment] Clause," Hacker says, but only "change[d] profoundly the meaning of …

A Response To Professor Rubenfeld, Jonathan D. Hacker

Michigan Law Review

Professor Jed Rubenfeld has offered in these pages an ingenious explanation for why the Supreme Court was right to strike down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in City of Boerne v. Flores. Rubenfeld finds in the First Amendment's Establishment Clause a historical and inherent principle he calls "antidisestablishmentarianism": a prohibition on acts of Congress that "disestablish" religion in the several states. Rubenfeld reads the Establishment Clause as proscribing not only congressional acts that "establish" religion but also all congressional acts that "dictate a position on religion for states," including laws designed to ensure that states abide by the requirements …

Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law Of Obscenity And The Assault On Genius, Anne E. Gilson

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Girls Lean Back Everywhere: The Law of Obscenity and the Assault on Genius by Edward de Grazia

Strangers On A Train, Peirre N. Leval

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment by Anthony Lewis

Structural Free Exercise, Mary Ann Glendon, Raul F. Yanes

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this article, we analyze the development of case law interpreting the religious freedom language of the First Amendment from the 1940s to the eve of the rights revolution as a casualty of the piecemeal approach to incorporation, compounded by a series of judicial lapses and oversights. Part II deals with the fate of the Religion Clause in the era of the rights revolution, when the free exercise and establishment provisions were deployed in the service of a constitutional agenda to which they were, in themselves, largely peripheral. The current period of doctrinal change is the subject …

Harry Kalven, The Proust Of The First Amendment, Lee Bollinger

Michigan Law Review

A Review of A Worth Tradition: Freedom of Speech in America by Harry Kalven, Jr.

The Apologetics Of Suppression: The Regulation Of Pornography As Act And Idea, Steven G. Gey

Michigan Law Review

The first three parts of this article discuss in detail the relationship between the Supreme Court's obscenity rulings and the academic theories that have been offered to bolster the conclusions reached by the Court in this area. Part IV of the article considers a contrary theory of free expression that requires constitutional protection for the dissemination and possession of pornography. In this section I argue that the present efforts to ban pornography are directly linked to a tolerance model of free expression. The tolerance model, which is usually contrasted with an analytical approach characterized by Holmesian skepticism, necessarily relies upon …

Restricting Adult Access To Material Obscene As To Juveniles, Ann H. Coulter

Michigan Law Review

This Note considers whether state regulations that restrict juvenile access to material that is obscene as to minors unconstitutionally encroach upon the first amendment rights of adults. Part I briefly describes the Court's opinion in Ginsberg. Part II introduces the "O'Brien analysis" and discusses the aspects of juvenile access restrictions that tend to make O'Brien scrutiny applicable. In this context the frequently relaxed judicial review of governmental restrictions on sexually related material will be discussed. Having concluded that the O'Brien analysis is applicable to access restrictions, Part III applies the test and ultimately concludes that juvenile access restrictions survive …

Religion And The Burger Court, Rex E. Lee

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Religion, State and the Burger Court by Leo Pfeffer

Administrative Regulation Of The High School Press, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note examines the constitutional limits on administrative regulation of publications by and for public high school students. Part I discusses the widely divergent standards adopted by different circuits. Part II describes the hard line the Supreme Court has taken against restraints on free expression in the adult context and the different circumstances that justify limiting freedom of expression in high schools. Part III discusses the timing of administrative regulation of student speech. This Part argues that prior restraint is constitutionally acceptable and, in fact, preferable to subsequent punishment so long as its use is governed by proper criteria. Part …

Backing Off Bivens And The Ramifications Of This Retreat For The Vindication Of First Amendment Rights, Joan Steinman

Michigan Law Review

In Part I of this Article, Chappell and Bush are analyzed against the backdrop of the preceding Bivens cases. The analysis explains how these cases presented situations that were similar to one another but unlike any the Supreme Court previously had faced in Bivens cases. It demonstrates how the Court departed from the line of analysis that its previous Bivens cases had established, in a way that makes it more difficult for at least some plaintiffs seeking vindication of their constitutional rights to succeed in having a money damage remedy implied directly under the Constitution. The Article then argues that …

Freedom Of Association After Roberts V. United States Jaycees, Douglas O. Linder

Michigan Law Review

The decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roberts v. United States Jaycees, upholding a Minnesota ruling which requires the Minnesota Jaycees to admit women as full members, ended one controversy but marked only the beginning of a far larger one. It was predicted by many that U.S. Jaycees would answer the question of whether private associations with restrictive membership policies were vulnerable to state anti-discrimination laws or were constitutionally protected. It did not. Instead, while rejecting the Jaycees' constitutional claims, the Court established a comprehensive framework for analyzing future claims of associational freedom that contains a number of …

The Nonpartisan Freedom Of Expression Of Public Employees, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Governmental activities affect each of us in a myriad of ways. The government's role as employer may pale in comparison with the more glamorous activities of the government as national defender, law enforcer, and allocator of scarce resources. Yet the legal ramifications of public employment-where the public interest in efficient governmental operation often conflicts with the public employee's freedom-have a profound influence upon American society.

In 1968, the Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education formulated a test designed to balance these interests in defining the scope of a public employee's freedom of expression. In examining the nonpartisan free …

Freedom Of The Press And Public Access: Toward A Theory Of Partial Regulation Of The Mass Media, Lee C. Bollinger Jr.

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this article is to examine critically these decisions and to explore whether there is any rational basis for limiting to one sector of the media the legislature's power to impose access regulation. The article takes the position that the Court has pursued the right path for the wrong reasons. There is a powerful rationality underlying the current decision to restrict regulatory authority to broadcasting, but it is not, as is commonly supposed, that broadcasting is somehow different in principle from the print media and that it therefore is not deserving of equivalent first amendment treatment. As will …

Reaffirming The Freedom Of The Press: Another Look At Miami Herald Publishing Co. V. Tornillo, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This note does not take issue with the result of the decision. Rather, the argument herein is that the access theory deserves more complete consideration. The Court used first amendment precedents to strike down the reply statute without exploring whether the rationale behind these precedents mandated such a result. In an effort to justify more fully the Court's conclusion, this note will first present the underlying rationale of the pro-access argument. It will then analyze the constitutionality of statutes that would implement a right of access. Finally, the note will discuss several practical difficulties that access legislation would present.

The Expanding Constitutional Protection For The News Media From Liability For Defamation: Predictability And The New Synthesis, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The tort of defamation has a long and complex history dating back to the sixteenth century. Though this tort from the very beginning did not find favor with the law courts, it has managed to survive into the second half of the twentieth century. But this survival may not endure much longer since the Supreme Court has found a deep conflict between the law of defamation and the first amendment. The reasons for this conflict and the Supreme Court's basic resolution of it in favor of first amendment values have been the subject of much scholarly comment, but the Court's …

A Requiem For Requiems: The Supreme Court At The Bar Of Reality, Stanley K. Laughlin Jr.

Michigan Law Review

It is true that the test set out in Roth v. United States is moribund. In a sense it was stillborn. While five Justices, only one of whom remains on the Court, joined in the majority opinion in Roth, that case only adumbrated certain considerations that later were forged into what has come to be known as the Roth test. No sooner did the forging process begin than the Court became fragmented on this issue, and a majority of the Justices has never since concurred in the test-certainly not in a compatible formulation of it. Today, it is not …

Requiem For Roth: Obscenity Doctrine Is Changing, David E. Engdahl

Michigan Law Review

In 1957, the Supreme Court decided Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, and thereby commenced what has proved to be one of the most perplexing and politically sensitive tasks the Court has ever undertaken-determining the constitutional limitations on the power of state and federal governments to regulate obscenity. After twelve years of decisions in the obscenity field, the regrettable truth is that "no stable approach to the obscenity problem has yet been devised by [the] Court." The unreconciled conflicts among the several opinions of Supreme Court Justices ·written since 1957, and the new uncertainties created by the …

The Warren Court: Religious Liberty And Church-State Relations, Paul G. Kauper

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to analyze the holdings of the Warren Court under these two clauses in an attempt to assess their significance by reference both to earlier interpretations and to the direction they may give to future development.

"Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open"--A Note On Free Speech And The Warren Court, Harry Kalven Jr.

Michigan Law Review

There are several ways to give at the outset, in quick summary, an over-all impression of the Warren Court in the area of the first amendment. The quotation in the title can for many reasons be taken as its trademark. The quotation comes, of course, from a statement about public debate made in the Court's preeminent decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, and it carries echoes of Alexander Meiklejohn. We have, according to Justice Brennan, "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open .... " What catches the eye is …