Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Journal

First Amendment

Seattle University Law Review

Human Rights Law

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Table Of Contents Jan 2022

Table Of Contents

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents


Keynote Address, Justin Hansford Jan 2022

Keynote Address, Justin Hansford

Seattle University Law Review

Keynote Address by Justin Hansford


Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose Jan 2021

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Seattle University Law Review

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a constitutional right for American groups, organizations, and persons to pursue civil litigation under the First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances. However, in three cases involving poor plaintiffs decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970s—Boddie v. Connecticut,2 United States v. Kras,3 and Ortwein v. Schwab4—the Supreme Court rejected arguments that all persons have a constitutional right to access courts to pursue their civil legal claims.5 In the latter two cases, Kras and Ortwein, the Supreme Court concluded that poor persons were properly barred from …


“They Outlawed Solidarity!”, Richard Blum May 2016

“They Outlawed Solidarity!”, Richard Blum

Seattle University Law Review

In attacking § 8(b)(4)(ii)(B)’s ban on secondary labor picketing in support of a consumer boycott as a violation of the First Amendment, critics have repeatedly condemned the Supreme Court’s reliance on a supposed distinction between “pure speech” and “speech plus conduct,” such as a picket. The Court’s invocation of an “unlawful objectives” doctrine to defend banning speech contrary to public policy has also been repeatedly criticized. After all, picketing has been recognized as protected expressive activity and it is entirely lawful for consumers to choose to boycott the target of a picket. However, commentators have not sought to argue that …