Other Law Commons^™

Protecting Hatred Preserves Freedom: Why Offensive Expressions Command Constitutional Protection, Andrew P. Napolitano

Journal of Law and Policy

The First Amendment is not the guardian of taste. Instead, the U.S. Constitution wholeheartedly protects freedom of thought and expression, even if generated and defined by hatred, as long as that expression does not produce immediate lawless violence. Although free speech may lead to tenuous relationships or uncomfortable debates, it must be defended unconditionally. Too many politicians and lawmakers believe that the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment attaches only to those ideas and expressions that they approve of; this is not so. This article argues that the Founders intended the First Amendment's free speech principle as a …

Freedom Of Speech And Equality: Do We Have To Choose?, Nadine Strossen

Journal of Law and Policy

As a lifelong activist on behalf of both equality and free speech, I am convinced, based on actual experience, that these core values are mutually reinforcing, and not, as some have argued, in tension with each other. Moreover, I am convinced that this is true even for offensive or hateful speech that affronts our most cherished beliefs. However, defining hateful or offensive speech is inherently arbitrary and subjective, which raises concerns about what speech should be restricted, and how. Empowering government to punish hateful or offensive expresson necessarily vests officials with enormous discretionary power, which will inevitably lead to arbitrary …

Where's The Fire?, Burt Neuborne

Journal of Law and Policy

Freedom of speech is priceless, but distressingly fragile. Life, and law, would be much simpler if we could react to free speech's importance and fragility by granting it absolute legal protection. Since, however, absolute protection of speech is not—and should not be—a serious option, we face the legal realist challenge of erecting a First Amendment legal structure capable of providing real-world protection to highly controversial speech, often by weak speakers, without closing the door to government regulation. Given the uncertainty inherent in applying fact-dependent complex rules in protean factual settings, many potential speakers would avoid being drawn into unpredictable and …

A Balancing Act For American Universities: Anti-Harassment Policy V. Freedom Of Speech, Bridget Hart

Journal of Law and Policy

Legal scholars, educational administrators, journalists, and students have all witnessed a rise in students being disciplined by university officials for speech and conduct deemed inappropriate for college campuses. In endeavoring to explain this trend, some academics point to the disconnect between the Department of Education and university administrators regarding the legal standards for campus anti-harassment policies. The lack of clarity regarding what constitutes harassment on college campuses has resulted in the punishment of students by universities for speech and conduct that is normally considered to be protected speech under the First Amendment. This note first provides an overview of the …

The Academy, Campaign Finance, And Free Speech Under Fire, Bradley A. Smith

Journal of Law and Policy

This article discusses the issue of campaign finance and the impact money has on the political process in the country. The author suggests campaign finance regulations that curb the current threat it poses to the system, as well as the First Amendment itself. Lastly, the author discusses the impact academics have had on the debate and this decline in support of free speech that has resulted from the debate.

Producing Democratic Vibrancy, K. Sabeel Rahman

Journal of Law and Policy

Professor Rahman gives his thoughts and opinions on the impact of Citizens' United v. FEC and the growth of the First Amendment debate since. The comment analyzes the normative udnerstanding of democracy and the ongoing debate campaifgn finance have. Professor Rahman concludes by suggesting that the debate is wrongly focused on the indivudals being consumers of politcal speech rather than the producers of it.

In Her Words: Recognizing And Preventing Abusive Litigation Against Domestic Violence Survivors, David Ward

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Let’S Talk About Sex: A Call For Guardianship Reform In Washington State, Sage Graves

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Don’T Risk It; Wait Until She’S Sober, Patrick John White

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Prostitution Policy: Legalization, Decriminalization And The Nordic Model, Ane Mathieson, Easton Branam, Anya Noble

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

His Feminist Facade: The Neoliberal Co-Option Of The Feminist Movement, Anjilee Dodge, Myani Gilbert

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Living Under The Boot: Militarization And Peaceful Protest, Charlotte Guerra

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Let’S Invest In People, Not Prisons: How Washington State Should Address Its Ex-Offender Unemployment Rate, Sara Taboada

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Persistence And Resistance: Women’S Leadership And Ending Gender-Based Violence In Guatemala, Serena Cosgrove, Kristi Lee

Seattle Journal for Social Justice

No abstract provided.

Juvenile Culpability And The Felony Murder Rule: Applying The Enmund Standard To Juveniles Facing Felony Murder Charges, Sterling Root

Senior Theses and Projects

Over the past decade, the Supreme Court has issued decisions in numerous cases (Roper v. Simmons, Graham v. Florida, Miller v. Alabama, and Montgomery v. Louisiana) involving juvenile sentencing that have radically transformed our juvenile criminal justice system. While some of these cases did involve juveniles convicted of felony murder, the Supreme Court never directly addressed how to handle juvenile sentencing in felony murder cases. This leaves a gap in society’s understanding of juvenile felony murder sentencing that must be addressed. Otherwise, many juveniles that never intended, attempted, or wished that a life be taken might spend the rest of …

At The Intersection Of Religious Organization Missions And Employment Laws: The Case Of Minister Employment Suits, Jarod S. Gonzalez

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing the intersection of a religious organization’s right to select employees based on their goals and mission and modern employment law, this article argues that the analysis of the ministerial exception will depend on the type of suit brought. Specifically, the Article identifies five analytical categories: (1) employment discrimination/employment retaliation claims; (2) breach of employment contract claims; (3) whistleblower claims; (4) tort claims; and (5) miscellaneous claims.

The Article begins by describing the ministerial exception and ecclesiastical abstention doctrines that exist under the First Amendment through the lens of the Supreme Court’s decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School …

The Quid Pro Quo Quark: Unstable Elementary Particle Of Honest Services Fraud, Brian H. Connor

Catholic University Law Review

From 1946 to 1987, the federal mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, was a powerful tool for the prosecution of political corruption. In a line of decisions beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s in Shushan v. United States, and ending with the Supreme Court’s decision in McNally v. United States, courts upheld the use of the statute to prosecute officials who had deprived the public of its “intangible right” to the official’s “honest services.” In 1988, after the Supreme Court held this theory unconstitutionally vague in McNally, Congress enacted § 1346, intending to restore “honest services fraud” …

Hopeful Clarity Or Hopeless Disarray?: An Examination Of Town Of Greece V. Galloway And The Establishment Clause, Krista M. Pikus

Catholic University Law Review

Reviewing Establishment Clause jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, this article notes that the current state of this area of law is in hopeless disarray and argues that the Court should resolve this confusion by employing a few proposed solutions. The article begins by reviewing and analyzing the confusion surrounding modern Establishment Clause jurisprudence. The article then discusses what interpretation of the Establishment Clause should be controlling: strict-separationism, nonpreferentialism, enhanced federalism, or the incorporation doctrine. Next, the article details what is wrong with modern establishment clause jurisprudence, namely, the Court’s inconsistent application of different tests to assess government action under the …

The Federal Government's Usurpation Of Local Control From Public Schools: A Historical Analysis Of Politics, Law, And Reaction, Brett Geier

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rejecting Sovereign Immunity In Public Law Litigation, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

No abstract provided.

A Symposium Précis, Thomas E. Baker

Thomas E. Baker

No abstract provided.

The Erosion Of The Rule Of Law When A State Attorney General Refuses To Defend The Constitutionality Of Controversial Laws, Rena M. Lindevaldsen

Barry Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taking Constitutional Identities Away From The Courts, Pietro Faraguna

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

In federal states, constitutional identity is the glue that holds together the Union. On the contrary, in the European Union—not a fully-fledged federation yet—each Member state has its own constitutional identity. On the one hand, the Union may benefit from the particular knowledge, innovation, history, diversity, and culture of its individual states. On the other hand, identity-related claims may have a disintegrating effect. Constitutional diversity needs to come to terms with risks of disintegration. The Treaty on the European Union seeks a balance, providing the obligation to respect the constitutional identities of its Member states. Drawing from the European experience, …

Congressional Originalism, Amy Coney Barrett, John Copeland` Nagle

Journal Articles

Precedent poses a notoriously difficult problem for originalists. Some decisions – so-called super precedents – are so well baked into government that reversing them would wreak havoc. Originalists have been pressed to either acknowledge that their theory could generate major disruption or identify a principled exception to their insistence that judges are bound to enforce the Constitution’s original public meaning. While the stylized process of adjudication narrows the questions presented to the Court, in Congress the question of a measure’s constitutionality is always on the table. And because framing constraints do not narrow the relevant and permissible grounds of decision …