Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Constitutional Law

PDF

University of New Hampshire

Law Faculty Scholarship

First Amendment

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Francis Fukuyama In Support Of Respondents In No. 22-277 And Petitioners In No. 22-555, Margaret E. O'Grady Jan 2023

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Francis Fukuyama In Support Of Respondents In No. 22-277 And Petitioners In No. 22-555, Margaret E. O'Grady

Law Faculty Scholarship

The brief, in support of NetChoice, argues that the Texas and Florida “must carry” statutes violate the First Amendment in part because interoperability is a less restrictive means of achieving the goal of allowing diverse voices in the “town square” of the Internet.


The Tension Between Equal Protection And Religious Freedom, John M. Greabe Apr 2017

The Tension Between Equal Protection And Religious Freedom, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

[Excerpt] "The Constitution did not become our basic law at a single point in time. We ratified its first seven articles in 1788 but have since amended it 27 times. Many of these amendments memorialize fundamental shifts in values. Thus, it should come as no surprise to learn that the Constitution is not an internally consistent document."

"Other constitutional provisions -- even provisions that were simultaneously enacted -- protect freedoms that can come into conflict with one another. The First Amendment, for example, promises both freedom from governmental endorsement of religion and freedom from governmental interference with religious practice. …


Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe Jan 2012

Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This brief Foreword explains that First Amendment law is fertile ground for analysis under choice of law principles. It then opines that the majority and dissenting opinions in Sorrell v. IMS Health are rooted in different choices of law that would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment and explanation.