Law Commons^™

Bush, Obama And Beyond: Observations On The Prospect For Fact Checking Executive Department Threat Claims Before The Use Of Force, Leslie Gielow Jacobs

Leslie Gielow Jacobs

This piece looks at the recurring problem of inflated threat claims offered by executive branch actors to persuade the Nation to consent to the use of force. It sets out the experience of the Bush Administration’s use of incorrect threat claims to persuade the country to consent to the use of force in Iraq as a backdrop to evaluating the President Obama’s use of threat claims to support the continuing use of force in Afghanistan. Although comparison of threat advocacy by the Bush and Obama administrations must be imperfect, it allows for some observations about the extent to which the …

Government Nonendorsement, Nelson Tebbe

Nelson Tebbe

What are the constitutional limits on government endorsement? Judges and scholars typically assume that when the government speaks on its own account, it faces few restrictions. In fact, they often say that the only real restriction on government speech is the Establishment Clause. On this view, officials cannot endorse, say, Christianity, but otherwise they enjoy wide latitude to promote democracy or denigrate smoking. Two doctrines and their accompanying literatures have fed this impression. First, the Court’s recent free speech cases have suggested that government speech is virtually unfettered. Second, experts on religious freedom have long assumed that there is no …

Government Speech And The War On Terror, Helen Norton

Publications

The government is unique among speakers because of its coercive power, its substantial resources, its privileged access to national security and intelligence information, and its wide variety of expressive roles as commander-in-chief, policymaker, educator, employer, property owner, and more. Precisely because of this power, variety, and ubiquity, the government's speech can both provide great value and inflict great harm to the public. In wartime, more specifically, the government can affirmatively choose to use its voice to inform, inspire, heal, and unite -- or instead to deceive, divide, bully, and silence.

In this essay, I examine the U.S. government's role as …

Recent Development: Mitchell V. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin.: Vanity Licence Plates Constitute Private Speech In A Nonpublic Forum, Which Require Restrictions To Be Reasonable And Viewpoint Neutral, Sarah J. Jentilet

University of Baltimore Law Forum

The Court of Appeals of Maryland held that the Motor Vehicle Administration acted within constitutional boundaries when it recalled a vanity license plate displaying the word "MIERDA." Mitchell v. Md. Motor Vehicle Admin., 450 Md. 282, 288, 148 A.3d 319, 323 (2016). The court found that the message on a vanity plate is considered private speech in a nonpublic forum, and accordingly government speech restrictions must be reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Id.

In 2009, the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") issued vanity plates with the term "MIERDA" to John T. Mitchell ("Mitchell"). Two years later, Mitchell renewed the plates. Thereafter, the …

The Government Speech Doctrine In Walker’S Wake: Early Rifts And Reverberations On Free Speech, Viewpoint Discrimination, And Offensive Expression, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article examines the immediate effects on free expression of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 ruling in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. involving the government speech doctrine. In Walker, a sharply—and largely partisanly—divided Court upheld, in the face of a First Amendment challenge, Texas’s decision denying a private organization’s application for a specialty license plate featuring Confederate battle flag imagery. This Article initially reviews the government speech doctrine and Walker. It then analyzes Walker’s impact on cases that, like it, involve specialty license plate programs. Next, this Article explores lower court efforts stretching …