Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Compelled speech (2)
- Abortion (1)
- Deception (1)
- Disclosure (1)
- Employers (1)
-
- Freedom of speech (1)
- Gender and law (1)
- Healthcare (1)
- International Megan's Law (1)
- Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 (1)
- Labor unions (1)
- Law reform (1)
- National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (1)
- Passports (1)
- Pickering v. Board of Education (1)
- Pregnancy (1)
- Public employees (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Reproductive rights (1)
- Speech (1)
- Stigma (1)
- Strict scrutiny (1)
- United States Supreme Court (1)
- Women (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Reclaiming Access To Truth In Reproductive Healthcare After National Institute Of Family & Life Advocates V. Becerra, Diane Kee
Michigan Law Review
Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs) are antiabortion organizations that seek to “intercept” people with unintended pregnancies to convince them to forego abortion. It is well documented that CPCs intentionally present themselves as medical professionals even when they lack licensure, while also providing medically inaccurate information on abortion. To combat the blatant deception committed by CPCs, California passed the Reproductive FACT Act in 2015. The Act required CPCs to post notices that disclosed their licensure status and informed potential clients that the state provided subsidized abortion and contraceptives. Soon after, CPCs brought First Amendment challenges to these disclosure requirements, claiming that the …
International Megan's Law As Compelled Speech, Alexandra R. Genord
International Megan's Law As Compelled Speech, Alexandra R. Genord
Michigan Law Review
“The bearer was convicted of a sex offense against a minor, and is a covered sex offender pursuant to 22 United States Code Section 212b(c)(l).” International Megan’s Law (IML), passed in 2016, prohibits the State Department from issuing passports to individuals convicted of a sex offense against a minor unless those passports are branded with this phrase. The federal government's decision to brand its citizens’ passports with this stigmatizing message is novel and jarring, but the sole federal district court to consider a constitutional challenge to the passport identifier dismissed the plaintiffs’ First Amendment claim, deeming the provision government speech. …
A More Perfect Pickering Test: Janus V. Afscme Council 31 And The Problem Of Public Employee Speech, Alexandra J. Gilewicz
A More Perfect Pickering Test: Janus V. Afscme Council 31 And The Problem Of Public Employee Speech, Alexandra J. Gilewicz
University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform
In June 2018, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited—and, for the American labor movement, long-feared—decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31. The decision is expected to have a major impact on public sector employee union membership, but could have further impact on public employees’ speech rights in the workplace. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito’s broad interpretation of whether work-related speech constitutes a “matter of public concern” may have opened the floodgates to substantially more litigation by employees asserting that their employers have violated their First Amendment rights. Claims that would have previously been unequivocally foreclosed may now …