Law Commons^™

Put Mahanoy Where Your Mouth Is: A Closer Look At When Schools Can Regulate Online Student Speech, Courtney Klaus

Notre Dame Law Review

This Note proposes a way to approach online student speech in three different contexts: cyberbullying, online threats, and other kinds of incendiary speech. Each approach is informed by a combination of lower court precedent, historical trends, and Supreme Court dicta to piece together when exceptions to online student speech protection may apply. Each analysis provides an explanation of how Tinker can and should be used to justify school discretion over particular kinds of online speech. Part I provides the history behind how the First Amendment has been used to protect public school student speech and discusses the unique issues the …

The Last Lecture: State Anti-Slapp Statutes And The Federal Courts, Charles W. Adams, Mbilike M. Mwafulirwa

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

An old proverb says that “when the student is ready[,] the teacher appears.” In this collaborative effort, a civil procedure law professor has partnered with his former student to address one of the most challenging topics to confront the federal courts in recent times: whether state anti-SLAPP statutes conflict with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The acronym “SLAPP” stands for “Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.” Anti-SLAPP statutes are a spate of state legislation of recent vintage, designed “to give more breathing space for free speech about contentious public issues” and to “try to decrease the ‘chilling effect’ of …

Can't Really Teach: Crt Bans Impose Upon Teachers' First Amendment Pedagogical Rights, Mary L. Krebs

Vanderbilt Law Review

The jurisprudence governing K-12 teachers’ speech protection has been a convoluted hodgepodge of caselaw since the 1960s when the Supreme Court established that teachers retain at least some First Amendment protection as public educators. Now, as new so-called Critical Race Theory bans prohibit an array of hot button topics in the classroom, K-12 teachers must either preemptively censor themselves or risk running afoul of these vague bans with indeterminate legal protection. This Note proposes an elucidation of K-12 teachers’ free speech rights via a two-part test to assess the reasonability of instructional speech. Rather than analogizing K-12 teacher speech to …

Big Data, Big Gap: Working Towards A Hipaa Framework That Covers Big Data, Ryan Mueller

Indiana Law Journal

One lasting impact of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the privacy protections it provides for our sensitive health information. In the era of Big Data, however, much of our health information exists outside the traditional doctor-patient dynamic. From wearable technology, to mobile applications, to social media and internet browsing, Big Data organizations collect swaths of data that shed light on sensitive health information. Big Data organizations largely fall outside of HIPAA’s current framework because of the stringent requirements for when the HIPAA protections apply, namely that the data must be held by a covered entity, and …

The Disappearing Freedom Of The Press, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Washington and Lee Law Review

At this moment of unprecedented decline of local news and amplified attacks on the American press, scholars are increasingly turning their attention to the Constitution’s role in protecting journalism and the journalistic function. Recent calls by some U.S. Supreme Court Justices to reconsider the core press-protecting precedent from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan have intensified these conversations. This scholarly dialogue, however, appears to be taking place against a mistaken foundational assumption that the U.S. Supreme Court continues to articulate and embrace at least some notion of freedom of the press. Yet despite the First Amendment text specifically referencing it …

The First Amendment And The Regulation Of Speech Intermediaries, Shaun B. Spencer

Marquette Law Review

Calls to regulate social media platforms abound on both sides of the political spectrum. Some want to prevent platforms from deplatforming users or moderating content, while others want them to deplatform more users and moderate more content. Both types of regulation will draw First Amendment challenges. As Justices Thomas and Alito have observed, applying settled First Amendment doctrine to emerging regulation of social media platforms presents significant analytical challenges.

Inherent Powers And The Limits Of Public Health Fake News, Michael P. Goodyear

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In a Vero Beach, Florida, supermarket, Susan Wiles rode her motorized cart through the produce aisle. In any year other than 2020 or 2021, this would have been a routine trip to the grocery store. But in 2020, Mrs. Wiles was missing an accessory that had become ubiquitous in society during that year: a face mask. Despite causing a commotion, Mrs. Wiles stood by her decision, claiming that the concerns about COVID-19 were overblown: “I don’t fall for this. It’s not what they say it is.” Mrs. Wiles’ statement is emblematic of the year 2020. This is not the …

Maritime Magic: How Cruise Lines Can Avoid State Law Compliance Through Passenger Contracts, Cameron Chuback

University of Miami Law Review

Florida Statutes section 381.00316 prohibits businesses in Florida from requiring consumers to provide documentary proof of COVID-19 vaccination to access businesses’ goods and services. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (“NCLH”) has recently challenged section 381.00316’s applicability to its cruise operations because NCLH believes that requiring its passengers to provide documentary proof of COVID-19 vaccination is the one constant that allows NCLH’s cruise ships to smoothly access foreign ports, which have differing COVID-19 protocols and rules. In Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. v. Rivkees, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of NCLH on this …

Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.

State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Nifla And The Construction Of Compelled Speech Doctrine, Robert Post

Indiana Law Journal

Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. There are good and convincing explanations for the Court’s decision in Barnette, but the Court’s recent expansion of the doctrine, culminating in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, holds that compelled speech is in most instances “content-based” regulation requiring heightened judicial scrutiny.

Using examples ranging from professional malpractice to compulsory tax returns, this Article argues that the doctrinal rule of NIFLA is demonstrably incorrect. It suggests that the doctrinal category of “compelled speech” may itself be confused insofar as it imagines that all legal obligations to communicate are equally …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han

Indiana Law Journal

Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …

Compelled Speech And Proportionality, Alexander Tsesis

Indiana Law Journal

This Article argues for a proportional First Amendment approach to compelled speech jurisprudence. It discusses the evolution of doctrine and how it led to recent opinions finding unconstitutional consumer protection, health disclosure, and collective bargaining statutes. In place of the currently formalistic approach, the Article argues for a transparent balancing of interests to avoid litigants’ opportunistic reliance on categorical First Amendment doctrines. Missing from the recent decisions that relied on the compelled speech doctrine is any systematic or contextual weighing of private and public concerns about disclosure regulations. The Roberts Court has been rather formalistic and categorical in its compelled …

Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk

Indiana Law Journal

Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …

Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment …

The President’S Remedy–What The Hydroxychloroquine Story Teaches Us About The Need To Limit Off-Lable Prescribing Powers, Jennifer Bard

Catholic University Law Review

When the history of the first year of the United States Government’s response to the COVID-19 virus is written, there is likely to be mention of the still unexplained vehemence with which then president Donald J. Trump made use of his access to social media to promote seldom used anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 despite the active growing opposition of most of the world’s scientists, including his own government scientists. While the use of drugs developed and approved by the FDA for different purposes to combat new diseases, off-label prescribing, is legal in the …

The Kids Are All Right: The Law Of Free Expression And New Information Technologies, Mark Tushnet

Catholic University Law Review

Recently the literature on free expression has turned to the question, should the law of free expression be adjusted because of the availability of new information technologies (hereafter NIT), and if so, how? The only thing about NIT that distinguishes them from traditional media is that disseminating expression via NIT is much less expensive than doing so via traditional media. The tenor of recent scholarship on NIT and free expression is that the invention of NIT does support some modification of free expression law. This Essay argues that that conclusion might be correct, but that many of the arguments offered …

Expert Testimony By Public University Faculty: Exposing Doctrinal Deficiencies Of Academic Freedom As A Legal Right And Proposing A Solution Within The Public-Employee Speech Doctrine, Clay Calvert

University of Miami Law Review

When the University of Florida (“UF”) prohibited three professors in 2021 from serving as expert witnesses in a lawsuit filed against the State of Florida, the decision sparked a national debate about academic freedom and free speech at public universities. The professors also sued UF in federal court in Austin v. University of Florida Board of Trustees alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. This Article asserts that the constitutional doctrine of academic freedom is sadly deficient for resolving such lawsuits. The Article explains, instead, that the public-employee speech doctrine provides the appropriate framework for analyzing cases filed by …

Hopefully Enduring: How North Carolina’S Divorce Laws Violate The First Amendment, Maren H. Lowrey

Child and Family Law Journal

The phrase “til death do us part” is both poetic and aspirational. It is the ubiquitous vow Americans make to one another when they marry[1] and embark on what is “hopefully enduring.”[2] But life does not always meet the aspirational marks we set and that is most true in the context of marriage and divorce. Each state enjoys nearly exclusive control over this intimate relationship, which results in different regulatory schemes across the United States.[3] Changes in Supreme Court jurisprudence over time ensured state regulation of marriage did not run afoul of the Constitution.[4] These decisions …

Fundamental First Amendment Principles, David L. Hudson Jr., Jacob David Glenn

Northern Illinois University Law Review

First Amendment law is highly complex, even labyrinthine. But, there are fundamental principles in First Amendment law that provide a baseline for a core understanding. These ten fundamental principles are: (1) the First Amendment protects the right to criticize the government; (2) the First Amendment abhors viewpoint discrimination and often content, or subject-matter discrimination; (3) the First Amendment protects a great deal of symbolic speech or expressive conduct; (4) the First Amendment protects a great deal of offensive and even repugnant speech; (5) the First Amendment does not protect all forms of speech; (6) the First Amendment often depends upon …

How Favored, Exactly? An Analysis Of The Most Favored Nation Theory Of Religious Exemptions From Calvary Chapel To Tandon, Luray Buckner

Notre Dame Law Review

In this Note, I argue that Justice Kavanaugh’s most favored nation test for religious exemptions actually differs from the one employed by the majority of the Court in Tandon. The majority’s formulation of the test is vague and explicitly requires courts to engage in a fact-intensive comparability analysis. Practically, lower courts applying Tandon to religious exemption questions have exploited this comparability step to rule against religious claimants generally, but more specifically to deny them strict scrutiny. Because the Tandon test was formulated to apply to all free exercise claims, the test is necessarily framed in more general terms and …

You Have The Duty To Remain Silent: How Workplace Gag Rules Frustrate Police Accountability, Frank D. Lomonte, Jessica Terkovich

Akron Law Review

This Article traces the First Amendment caselaw that, for more than half a century, has sided with speakers facially challenging overbroad workplace policies that forbid sharing information with the press and public. The Article then reports on the results of a nationwide survey of police and sheriff’s department policies by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, concluding that well over half of the nation’s biggest law enforcement agencies have rules on the books that resemble—or are identical to—those struck down as unconstitutional when challenged, at times in defiance of binding circuit-level precedent. The Article examines why these legally dubious …

Beyond Citizens United: Democratizing The Economy In The Wake Of The Small-Dollar Revolution, Jay Hedges

Journal of Civil Rights and Economic Development

(Excerpt)

Citizens United increases the power of corporations over our political process. Under current corporate governance laws, permission for corporations to behave as political actors ignores the consent of a particularly important constituency of these business entities—labor. This neglect of workers reveals three democratic crises resulting from the corporate structure in the United States, which have only intensified following Citizens United. First, while the political speaking-power of corporations has been substantially increased, these entities lack legitimacy to speak on behalf of their labor constituency. Second, the use of corporate profits, generated by the corporation’s labor force, as the means …

Outside Tinker’S Reach: An Examination Of Mahanoy Area School District V. B. L. And Its Implications, Michelle Hunt

Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy

In the 1969 landmark case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court reassured students that they do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Ever since then, the exact scope of students’ free speech rights has been unclear, but the high court has used Tinker’s substantial disruption test to clarify its scope in successive legal challenges. In 2017, B. L., a Mahanoy Area School District student, was suspended from her cheerleading team after using vulgar language off-campus that made its way back to her coaches. She …

Establishment’S Political Priority To Free Exercise, Marc O. Degirolami

Notre Dame Law Review

Americans are beset by disagreement about the First Amendment. Progressive scholars are attacking the venerable liberal view that First Amendment rights must not be constricted to secure communal, political benefits. To prioritize free speech rights, they say, reflects an unjust inflation of individual interest over our common political commitments. These disagreements afflict the Religion Clauses as well. Critics claim that religious exemption has become more important than the values of disestablishment that define the polity. Free exercise exemption, they argue, has subordinated establishment.

This Article contests these views. The fundamental rules and norms constituting the political regime—what the Article calls …

Proving Racism: Gibson Bros. Inc. V. Oberlin College And The Implications On Defamation Law, Liam H. Mcmillin

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lochner's Revenge: Tiered Scrutiny And The Acceptance Of Judicial Subjectivity, Phillip J. Closius

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan

Pepperdine Law Review

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …

Queer And Convincing: Reviewing Freedom Of Religion And Lgbtq+ Protections Post-Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Arianna Nord

Washington Law Review

Recent increases in LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws have generated new conversations in the free exercise of religion debate. While federal courts have been wrestling with claims brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment since the nineteenth century, city and state efforts to codify legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the mid-twentieth century birthed novel challenges. Private individuals who do not condone intimate same-sex relationships and/or gender non-conforming behavior, on religious grounds seek greater legal protection for the ability to refuse to offer goods and services to LGBTQ+ persons. Federal and state courts must determine how to resolve these …