Law Commons^™

Incidental Burdens On First Amendment Freedoms, Charles F. Capps

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

The Supreme Court is currently reconsidering the question when, if ever, the Free Exercise Clause requires exemptions to neutral laws of general applicability. This Essay proposes an answer that is based on the idea—which this Essay labels the “Principle of Consistency”—that the First Amendment requires comparable levels of protection for speech and religious exercise. Other scholars applying the Principle of Consistency have discussed the implications of United States v. O’Brien, which prescribed intermediate scrutiny for incidental burdens on speech, for the problem of exemptions under the Free Exercise Clause. But no one has discussed the implications of two lines …

A Variable Number Of Cheers For Viewpoint-Based Regulations Of Speech, R. George Wright

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

If there is one thing we think we know about the First Amendment, it is that speech restrictions based on viewpoint are especially objectionable. The Supreme Court has declared that “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” For this proposition, the Court has on one occasion cited thirteen of its own precedents.

Much more broadly, the Court has also held that a government “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its …