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

Law Commons™

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

First Amendment

PDF

United States Supreme Court

Institution
Publication Year
Publication
Publication Type

Articles 151 - 161 of 161

Full-Text Articles in Law

Campus Pamphleteering: The Emerging Constitutional Standards, Morton M. Rosenfeld Jan 1971

Campus Pamphleteering: The Emerging Constitutional Standards, Morton M. Rosenfeld

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Beginning with Lovell v. City of Griffin, the Supreme Court has consistently held the distribution of handbills to be a fundamental right under the first amendment. Since Lovell, the Court has liberally construed the concept of a public forum where first amendment rights can be properly exercised. More recently, the Court has held that schools cannot arbitrarily or absolutely regulate students' constitutional rights of expression. These three principles would suggest great protection for handbilling rights on state university campuses. A further analysis of case law indicates that broad free speech standards governing such rights exist and that the …

Go to article

A Requiem For Requiems: The Supreme Court At The Bar Of Reality, Stanley K. Laughlin Jr. Jun 1970

A Requiem For Requiems: The Supreme Court At The Bar Of Reality, Stanley K. Laughlin Jr.

Michigan Law Review

It is true that the test set out in Roth v. United States is moribund. In a sense it was stillborn. While five Justices, only one of whom remains on the Court, joined in the majority opinion in Roth, that case only adumbrated certain considerations that later were forged into what has come to be known as the Roth test. No sooner did the forging process begin than the Court became fragmented on this issue, and a majority of the Justices has never since concurred in the test-certainly not in a compatible formulation of it. Today, it is not …

Go to article

Requiem For Roth: Obscenity Doctrine Is Changing, David E. Engdahl Dec 1969

Requiem For Roth: Obscenity Doctrine Is Changing, David E. Engdahl

Michigan Law Review

In 1957, the Supreme Court decided Roth v. United States and Alberts v. California, and thereby commenced what has proved to be one of the most perplexing and politically sensitive tasks the Court has ever undertaken-determining the constitutional limitations on the power of state and federal governments to regulate obscenity. After twelve years of decisions in the obscenity field, the regrettable truth is that "no stable approach to the obscenity problem has yet been devised by [the] Court." The unreconciled conflicts among the several opinions of Supreme Court Justices ·written since 1957, and the new uncertainties created by the …

Go to article

Unconstitutional Conditions Upon Public Employment: New Departures In The Protection Of First Amendment Rights, Harold H. Bruff Jan 1969

Unconstitutional Conditions Upon Public Employment: New Departures In The Protection Of First Amendment Rights, Harold H. Bruff

Publications

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Review Of Concerning Dissent And Civil Disobedience, By A. Fortas, Terrance Sandalow Jan 1969

Review Of Concerning Dissent And Civil Disobedience, By A. Fortas, Terrance Sandalow

Reviews

Noah Chomsky has written of Justice Fortas' essay that it "is not serious enough for extended discussion." It would be a mistake to dismiss the essay so lightly. The prestige of Justice Fortas' office almost inevitably will gain for the essay an audience it would not otherwise have had, among whom will be those who will confuse the office with the argument. For some this confusion will insulate the argument from criticism. For others it will tarnish the office.

Go to article

"Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open"--A Note On Free Speech And The Warren Court, Harry Kalven Jr. Dec 1968

"Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open"--A Note On Free Speech And The Warren Court, Harry Kalven Jr.

Michigan Law Review

There are several ways to give at the outset, in quick summary, an over-all impression of the Warren Court in the area of the first amendment. The quotation in the title can for many reasons be taken as its trademark. The quotation comes, of course, from a statement about public debate made in the Court's preeminent decision, New York Times v. Sullivan, and it carries echoes of Alexander Meiklejohn. We have, according to Justice Brennan, "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open .... " What catches the eye is …

Go to article

The Warren Court: Religious Liberty And Church-State Relations, Paul G. Kauper Dec 1968

The Warren Court: Religious Liberty And Church-State Relations, Paul G. Kauper

Michigan Law Review

The purpose of this Article is to analyze the holdings of the Warren Court under these two clauses in an attempt to assess their significance by reference both to earlier interpretations and to the direction they may give to future development.

Go to article

The Warren Court And The Press, John P. Mackenzie Dec 1968

The Warren Court And The Press, John P. Mackenzie

Michigan Law Review

The conventional wisdom about the relationship between the ·warren Court and the news media runs something like this: With a few exceptions, the press corps is populated by persons with only a superficial understanding of the Court, its processes, and the values with which it deals. The Court has poured out pages of legal learning, but its reasoning has been largely ignored by a result-oriented news industry interested only in the superficial aspects of the Court's work. The Court can trace much of its "bad press," its "poor image," to the often sloppy and inaccurate work of news gatherers operating …

Go to article

Elfbrandt V. Russell: The Demise Of The Loyalty Oath, Jerold H. Israel Jan 1966

Elfbrandt V. Russell: The Demise Of The Loyalty Oath, Jerold H. Israel

Articles

In Elfbrandt v. Russell, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 decision, declared unconstitutional Arizona's requirement of a loyalty oath from state employees. At first glance, Elfbrandt appears to be just another decision voiding a state loyalty oath on limited grounds relating to the specific language of the particular oath. Yet, several aspects of Mr. Justice Douglas' opinion for the majority suggest that Elfbrandt is really of far greater significance: it may sharply limit the scope and coverage of loyalty oaths generally and, indeed, may presage a ruling invalidating all such oaths. Of course, only the Supreme Court can determine this. …

Go to article

Constitutional Separation Of Church And State: The Quest For A Coherent Position, William W. Van Alstyne Jan 1963

Constitutional Separation Of Church And State: The Quest For A Coherent Position, William W. Van Alstyne

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Does The Constitution Protect Free Speech, Herbert F. Goodrich Mar 1921

Does The Constitution Protect Free Speech, Herbert F. Goodrich

Michigan Law Review

Many thoughtful men and women, witnessing the suppression of speech, by means both judicial and extra-judicial, in the period through which we have just passed, have reluctantly concluded that our hard won ight of freedom of speech has been lost, swept away in the flood tide of war enthusiasm. They point to the example of the recent candidate for the presidency, Eugene Debs, who is still confined in a federal prison for words he uttered during the war. They call attention to the fact that the fate of Mr. Debs is no worse than that of scores of other persons, …

Go to article

First Prev