Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Alien Tort Statute (1)
- Business regulation (1)
- Common carriage (1)
- Communications (1)
- Constitutional law (1)
-
- Corporate constitutional rights (1)
- Corporate disclosure (1)
- Corporate oversight (1)
- Corporate speech (1)
- Corporations (1)
- Digital platforms (1)
- ESG (1)
- First Amendment (1)
- First Amendment protections (1)
- First amendment (1)
- Ford Motor Co. (1)
- Free speech (1)
- Monopoly power (1)
- Non-common-carriage services (1)
- Non-discriminatory access (1)
- Offensive marks (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Public accommodations (1)
- Quasi-common carriers (1)
- Right to exclude (1)
- Securities regulation (1)
- Specialized services with net neutrality (1)
- Trademark (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Supreme Court And The Pro-Business Paradox, Elizabeth Pollman
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 …
The First Amendment, Common Carriers, And Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, And Privacy, Christopher S. Yoo
The First Amendment, Common Carriers, And Public Accommodations: Net Neutrality, Digital Platforms, And Privacy, Christopher S. Yoo
All Faculty Scholarship
Recent prominent judicial opinions have assumed that common carriers have few to no First Amendment rights and that calling an actor a common carrier or public accommodation could justify limiting its right to exclude and mandating that it provide nondiscriminatory access. A review of the history reveals that the underlying law is richer than these simple statements would suggest. The principles for determining what constitutes a common carrier or a public accommodation and the level of First Amendment protection both turn on whether the actor holds itself out as serving all members of the public or whether it asserts editorial …
Offensive Mark Owners Have An Enforcement Problem, Yvette Joy Liebesman
Offensive Mark Owners Have An Enforcement Problem, Yvette Joy Liebesman
All Faculty Scholarship
In Iancu v. Brunetti, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act 2(a) bars for "immoral" or "scandalous" marks are facially unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and thus violate a trademark owner’s First Amendment rights. Brunetti, as well as its predecessor, Matal v. Tam, focused entirely on how the government might generate viewpoint discrimination at the point of trademark registration. The Court did not consider whether enforcement of trademarks—via courts of law, Customs and Border Protection, or the International Trade Commission—is government speech, and thus exempt from First Amendment free speech scrutiny. Yet the Court’s seminal holding of Shelley v. Kraemer illustrates …