Supreme Court of the United States Commons^™

In The Name Of Diversity: Why Mandatory Diversity Statements Violate The First Amendment And Reduce Intellectual Diversity In Academia, Daniel M. Ortner

Catholic University Law Review

In the 1950s and 1960s in many parts of the country, a professor could be fired or never hired if he refused to denounce communism or declare loyalty to the United States Constitution. The University of California system took the lead in enforcing these loyalty oaths. These loyalty oaths were challenged all the way up to the United States Supreme Court and were soundly rejected, establishing the centrality of academic freedom and open inquiry on the university campus. So why are loyalty oaths making their resurgence in the form of mandatory diversity statements? Universities have begun requiring faculty members to …

Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.

The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005­–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.

Brooklyn Law Review

The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …

The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere

Brooklyn Law Review

What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …

Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora

Brooklyn Law Review

In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …

The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza

Brooklyn Law Review

This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …

Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.

Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza

Brooklyn Law Review

On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.

The Good, The Bad, And The Historically Anti-Semitic: An Analytical Comparison Of Anti-Hate Laws In Germany And The United States, Jamie Rauch

Brooklyn Journal of International Law

Confronted every day with drastically increasing accounts of hate crimes and hate speech, nations’ legislators have routinely tried and subsequently failed to implement effective legislation capable of curbing the hatred epidemic currently sweeping the globe. This failure is due in large part to the lack of a universal stance on hate crime regulation and criminalization. Two countries in particular, the United States and Germany, embody two diametrically opposing approaches taken by nations in the present-day war on hate speech. This Note explores the dramatic dichotomy between the legislative framework surrounding the regulation of hate speech in these two countries. This …

The Roberts Court, State Courts, And State Constitutions: Judicial Role Shopping, Ariel L. Bendor, Joshua Segev

Journal of Law and Policy

In this Article we reveal a dual dilemma, both material and institutional, that the Supreme Court in its current composition faces when reviewing liberal state court decisions based on the state constitution. The Article further describes substantive and procedural tactics that the Court adopts to address this dilemma, and illustrates the arguments by analyzing a number of recent Supreme Court decisions. The two dilemmas, the combination of which serve as a “power multiplier,” of sorts, have arisen following the last three appointments to the Supreme Court, which resulted in a solid majority of conservative Justices nominated by Republican presidents. One …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioners, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, John A. Meiser, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley, Eric D. Hageman, Justin M. Romeo, Lincoln Davis Wilson

Court Briefs

No. 20-1800
Harold Shurtleff v. City of Boston

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

Invoking the specious rationale of “government speech,” the City of Boston unconstitutionally singled out religious expression for hostile treatment. By lumping speech based on “religion” together with speech deemed “inappropriate,” “offensive,” “discrimin[atory],” or “prejudice[d],” Pet.App.20, the City adopted the increasingly common view that promoting our Nation’s vibrant pluralism requires the exclusion of religious perspectives from the public square. But that view is antithetical to the Founders’ conception of religion as central—not peripheral—to …

The Supreme Court And The Pro-Business Paradox, Elizabeth Pollman

All Faculty Scholarship

One of the most notable trends of the Roberts Court is expanding corporate rights and narrowing liability or access to justice against corporate defendants. This Comment examines recent Supreme Court cases to highlight this “pro-business” pattern as well as its contradictory relationship with counter trends in corporate law and governance. From Citizens United to Americans for Prosperity, the Roberts Court’s jurisprudence could ironically lead to a situation in which it has protected corporate political spending based on a view of the corporation as an “association of citizens,” but allows constitutional scrutiny to block actual participants from getting information about …

Justifying The Supreme Court’S Standards Of Review, R. Randall Kelso

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Benedictine College And Franciscan University Of Steubenville In Support Of Petitioners, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 21-145
Gordon College v. Margaret DeWeese-Boyd

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts

From the Summary of Argument

This Court should grant certiorari to make clear that the First Amendment guarantees religious colleges and universities the same vital protections that safeguard a religious grade school’s freedom to select the teachers who personify and teach its faith. Despite this Court’s recent admonition that such protections apply to a religious school’s selection of “any ‘employee’ . . . who serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith,” Our Lady of Guadalupe Sch. v. …

Fixing False Truths: Rethinking Truth Assumptions And Free-Expression Rationales In The Networked Era, Jared Schroeder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The First Amendment makes no mention of truth. Assumptions about truth, however, have become the foundations for free-expression rationales, the very bases for such freedoms in a democratic society. The Supreme Court gradually, over time, wedded Enlightenment assumptions about truth to the marketplace of ideas rationale for free expression. This Article examines, in light of massive, widespread adoption of networked technologies and AI and Supreme Court decisions that have undermined the distinctive role of truth, whether truth should be removed or replaced as a crucial, justifying concept in freedom of expression. The Article examines the marketplace approach’s history and assumptions, …

Law School News: Logan Article Central To Scotus Dissent, Roger Williams University School Of Law

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Changing Counterspeech, G.S. Hans

Cleveland State Law Review

A cornerstone of First Amendment doctrine is that counterspeech — speech that responds to speech, including disfavored, unpopular, or offensive speech — is preferable to government censorship or speech regulation. The counterspeech doctrine is often invoked to justify overturning or limiting legislation, regulation, or other government action. Counterspeech forms part of the rationale for the "marketplace of ideas" that the First Amendment is arguably designed to promote. Yet critics assert that counterspeech is hardly an effective remedy for the harms caused by "hate speech" and other offensive words that are expressed in American society, given the realities of how speech …

Getting Away With Murder: How California State Law Determined Recovery In First Roundup Cancer Case Johnson V. Monsato Co., Eliza L. Quattlebaum

Villanova Environmental Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Campus Free Speech In The Mirror Of Rising Anti-Semitism, Harry G. Hutchison

St. Mary's Law Journal

Abstract forthcoming.

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Professors Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran, Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, David F. Forte, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, And David A., Skeel, Supporting Petitioners, David Forte, Elizabeth A. Clark, Robert F. Cochran Jr., Carl H. Esbeck, Richard W. Garnett, Christopher C. Lund, Michael W. Mcconnell, Michael P. Moreland, Robert J. Pushaw, David A. Skeel

Law Faculty Briefs and Court Documents

The case concerns the "church autonomy doctrine" based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which declares that courts may not inquire into matters of church government or into disputes of faith and doctrine. Will McRaney was fired from a leadership position in the Southern Baptist Convention because of a conflict over policies relating to the expansion of the Baptist faith. He sued the Southern Baptist Convention in tort.

The district court dismissed the suit on the grounds of the church autonomy doctrine. The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal as "premature," asserting that there were possible …

Corruption In Capsules: How It Is Legal For Companies To Put Harmful Ingredients In Vitamins And Dietary Supplements, Emily Leggiero

English Department: Research for Change - Wicked Problems in Our World

The vitamin and supplement industry has increased exponentially in profits as well as potential products on the market since the turn of the century. However, these products are not regulated, nor do they undergo any premarket clinical research or testing. Public health is compromised by vitamins and supplements that are available for American consumption that is disproportionately unregulated to their chemically similar counterparts. This wicked problem is facilitated through the combination of historical legislative definitions that has since been distorted for corrupt administrative gain through the allotment of corporate expenditures. Company disbursements are made to the same policymakers that create …

Nebraska Press Association V. Stuart: A Synopsis And Archive For A First Amendment Landmark, Sydney Brun-Ozuna

Honors Theses

This project explores in depth the background, arguments, precedents, and impact of the First Amendment Supreme Court case, Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart. This project utilizes newspaper coverage of the trial that informed the case and the case’s journey to the United States Supreme Court, as well as files obtained from the chambers of multiple former U.S. Supreme Court justices, publicly available oral arguments made before the court, and the ultimate decision from the Supreme Court, to create a holistic image of this case. Given the importance of this case in securing the right of the press to report on …

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …

Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers

Arkansas Law Review

The United States Supreme Court upheld an Arkansas law regulating how pharmacies are reimbursed by pharmacy benefit managers. In Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, a unanimous Court decided that Arkansas Act 900, passed in 2015, was not pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

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, …

The U.S. Supreme Court’S Characterizations Of The Press: An Empirical Study, Ronnell Anderson Jones, Sonja R. West

Utah Law Faculty Scholarship

The erosion of constitutional norms in the United States is at the center of an urgent national debate. Among the most crucial of these issues is the fragile and deteriorating relationship between the press and the government. While scholars have responded with sophisticated examinations of legislators’ and the President’s characterizations of the news media, one branch of government has received little scrutiny—the U.S. Supreme Court. This gap in the scholarship is remarkable in light of the Court’s role as the very institution entrusted with safeguarding the rights of the press. This paper presents the findings of the first comprehensive empirical …

Religious Exemptions As Rational Social Policy, Justin W. Aimonetti, M. Christian Talley

University of Richmond Law Review

In its 1963 decision Sherbert v. Verner, the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause to permit religious exemptions from general laws that incidentally burdened religious practice. Sherbert, in theory, provided stringent protections for religious freedom. But those protections came at a price. Religious adherents could secure exemptions even if they had no evidence the laws they challenged unfairly targeted their religious conduct. And they could thereby undermine the policy objectives those laws sought to achieve. Because of such policy concerns, the Court progressively restricted the availability of religious exemptions. In its 1990 decision Employment Division v. Smith …

Slapps Across America, Jack Toscano

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan was meant to protect our fundamental right to free speech from defamation lawsuits. However, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known as SLAPPS, continue to chill free speech through weak but expensive to defend defamation lawsuits. In response to SLAPPs many states have passed anti-SLAPP statutes that are meant to identify SLAPPs, quickly dismiss SLAPPS, and punish plaintiffs who bring SLAPPs. A difficult issue for federal courts throughout the country is whether these state anti-SLAPP statutes should apply in federal courts. This Note examines the Supreme Court opinions in Shady …

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The recent article In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State of Mind Relates to Religious Arbitration ("In God We Trust") proposes that those who sign arbitration agreements that consent to a religious legal system as the basis of the rules of arbitration be allowed to back out of such agreements based on their constitutional right to free exercise. This article is a response and is divided into two sections. In the first section, we show that such an exemption would violate the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) basic rules preventing the states from heightened regulation of arbitration …

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …