Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 16 of 16
Full-Text Articles in First Amendment
Constitutional Rights And Retrenchment: The Elusive Promise Of Equal Citizenship, Deborah L. Brake
Constitutional Rights And Retrenchment: The Elusive Promise Of Equal Citizenship, Deborah L. Brake
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber
Who Is A Minister? Originalist Deference Expands The Ministerial Exception, Jared C. Huber
Notre Dame Law Review
The ministerial exception is a doctrine born out of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment that shields many religious institutions’ employment decisions from review. While the ministerial exception does not extend to all employment decisions by, or employees of, religious institutions, it does confer broad—and absolute—protection. While less controversy surrounds whether the Constitution shields religious institutions’ employment decisions to at least some extent, much more debate surrounds the exception’s scope, and perhaps most critically, which employees fall under it. In other words, who is a "minister" for purposes of the ministerial exception?
Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth
Inactive Exercise & Unequal Protection: Espinoza & Carson Under The Equal Protection Clause, Griffith B. Bludworth
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky
Education, The First Amendment, And The Constitution, Erwin Chemerinsky
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider
School Matters, Ronna Greff Schneider
University of Cincinnati Law Review
No abstract provided.
Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault
Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault
William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal
When it comes to unprotected speech categories, the Roberts Court has taken an amoral and inaccurate approach. When the Court first created unprotected speech categories-- defined categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment-- it was unclear what rendered a category of speech unprotected. One school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it provided little or no value to society. The other school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it fell into a certain category of speech that was simply categorically unprotected. Then, in 2010, the Court strongly sided with the latter approach, …
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review
Seattle University Law Review
Table of Contents and Special Thanks.
The Lessons Of 1919, Lackland H. Bloom
The Lessons Of 1919, Lackland H. Bloom
SMU Law Review
One hundred years ago, the Supreme Court embarked on its first serious consideration of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech. In 1919, the Court upheld four federal criminal convictions over First Amendment defenses. Three of the majority opinions were written by Justice Holmes. In the fourth, he offered a classic dissent. Two of the cases, Frohwerk v. United States and Debs v. United States, are of middling significance. The other two, Schenck v. United States and Abrams v. United States, are iconic. From these cases have sprung an expansive and complex jurisprudence of free speech. The …
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein
Maine Law Review
The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position, roughly …
Sunlight And Shadows: Louis D. Brandeis On Privacy, Publicity, And Free Expression In American Democracy, Erin Coyle
Sunlight And Shadows: Louis D. Brandeis On Privacy, Publicity, And Free Expression In American Democracy, Erin Coyle
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Progressive Mind: Louis D. Brandeis And The Origins Of Free Speech, Elizabeth Todd Byron
A Progressive Mind: Louis D. Brandeis And The Origins Of Free Speech, Elizabeth Todd Byron
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
The Continuing Vitality Of Louis D. Brandeis’S Free Expression Jurisprudence, Frederick M. Lawrence
The Continuing Vitality Of Louis D. Brandeis’S Free Expression Jurisprudence, Frederick M. Lawrence
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.
A Tricky Negotiation: Free Speech Versus Insensitivity, Melvin Dilanchian
A Tricky Negotiation: Free Speech Versus Insensitivity, Melvin Dilanchian
Washington University Undergraduate Law Review
The central question presented in this paper is whether specialty license plates constitute government speech, and are thus subject to disapproval by the Board of the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles. The core concerns reviewed in this research, largely focus on defining whose speech specialty license plates are. The purpose is to investigate and analyze the precedent established as a result of a recent case, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans. The paper thoroughly reviews the arguments made in the majority opinion, as well as those of the dissenting opinion, with an interdisciplinary approach. The argument presented …
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Obscenity; Pinkus V. United States, Cary Douglass Caesa
Akron Law Review
“In its latest attempt to define a workable standard for obscenity rulings, the United States Supreme Court has held that children may not be included in a court's instruction as to the social group to whom the material would or would not be obscene. However, the Court held that sensitive persons and deviant groups may be included without unduly lowering the threshold of a finding of obscenity. Thus, Pinkus v. United States clarified the "community" whose judgment should define obscenity.”
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz
First Amendment; Freedom Of Speech; Commerical Speech And Advertising; Metpath, Inc. V. Imperato, Sheryl S. Kantz
Akron Law Review
"The decision of Metpath, Inc. v. Imperato is indicative of the growing trend of the judiciary toward affording "commercial speech" the protective shield of the first amendment. As shown by Metpath, where the concern is advertising by a medical clinic, speech with commercial overtones is afforded protection where a public interest in the subject and content of the speech is demonstrated. However, the perimeters of such protection have not been defined by this or previous decisions."
Abrams V. United States: Remembering The Authors Of Both Opinions, James F. Fagan Jr.
Abrams V. United States: Remembering The Authors Of Both Opinions, James F. Fagan Jr.
Touro Law Review
No abstract provided.