Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network (2)
- Board of Trustees v. Fox (1)
- Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products (1)
- Brock v. District Court of County of Boulder (1)
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission (1)
-
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. New York Public Service Commission (1)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center (1)
- Committee for Public Education v. Nyquist (1)
- Cornhusker Christian Children's Home v. Department of Social Services (1)
- Craig v. Boren (1)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard (1)
- Donahue v. Fair Employment and Housing Commission (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Edenfield v. Fane (1)
- Employment Division Department of Human Resources v. Smith (1)
- Equal Protection Clause (1)
- Franklyn S. Haiman (1)
- Haley v. Ohio (1)
- Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n of Florida (1)
- In re Adoption No. 2428 (1)
- In re Gault (1)
- In re Glavas (1)
- In re Mancini (1)
- In re Santos (1)
- In re William L. (1)
- In re Winship (1)
- Insurance Co. v. Bangs (1)
- Kirchner v. Caughey (1)
- Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing (1)
- Metro Broadcasting v. FCC (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Considering Religion As A Factor In Foster Care In The Aftermath Of Employment Division, Department Of Human Resources V. Smith And The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Thomas J. Cunningham
Considering Religion As A Factor In Foster Care In The Aftermath Of Employment Division, Department Of Human Resources V. Smith And The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Thomas J. Cunningham
University of Richmond Law Review
Most rights considered by Americans to be "fundamental" are granted a special level of protection by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The standard is often described as "strict scrutiny" or "compelling interest." Under this standard of protection, a state must have more than just a good reason for writing legislation that encroaches upon its citizens' fundamental rights. Rather, the state must be able to prove a "compelling" interest in achieving some desired result, a result which necessitates the curtailment of fundamental rights. In 1990, however, the United States Supreme Court substantially restricted a right from this list: …
City Of Cincinnati V. Discovery Network, Inc.: Towards Heightened Scrutiny For Truthful Commercial Speech?, Robert T. Cahill Jr.
City Of Cincinnati V. Discovery Network, Inc.: Towards Heightened Scrutiny For Truthful Commercial Speech?, Robert T. Cahill Jr.
University of Richmond Law Review
Only recently' has the Supreme Court given First Amendment protection to commercial speech. Initially, the Court refused to extend constitutional protection to commercial utterances. In Valentine v. Chrestensen, the Court, without citing any precedent, held that "we are equally clear that the Constitution imposes no such restraint on government as respects purely commercial advertising." However, soon after the Chrestensen decision, in the wake of post-war economic development, the Court began to express doubt about its validity. This doubt eventually culminated in Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council.
Considerations Of Legislative Fit Under Equal Protection, Substantive Due Process, And Free Speech Doctrine: Separating Questions Of Advancement, Relationship And Burden, R. Randall Kelso
University of Richmond Law Review
Whenever a court reviews legislation under an equal protection, substantive due process, or free speech analysis, the court considers whether the fit between the legislature's chosen means and intended ends is sufficient to pass constitutional muster. The Supreme Court analyzes these "fit" questions by considering the manner in which the statute achieves its benefits and burdens in terms of whom the statute regulates and whom the statute fails to regulate. Of course, these "fit" questions are different depending upon whether the Court uses minimum rationality review, "heightened" rational review, intermediate review, or strict scrutiny. But in all cases, the question …
"Speech Acts" And The First Amendment, Lawrence Friedman
"Speech Acts" And The First Amendment, Lawrence Friedman
University of Richmond Law Review
Of the 1989 student protests in Beijing's Tiananmen Square, one image lingers still: a lone figure standing motionless before a column of tanks, an extreme act of self-expression in defense of the right to express oneself. The makeshift Statue of Liberty erected by the students occupying the Square pointed to the country providing their inspiration. The foundations of that inspiration may in turn be traced to the handful of words---"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or the press . . . "--which have become synonymous with American-style democracy.'