Law Commons^™

The ‘Weaponized’ First Amendment At The Marble Palace And The Firing Line: Reaction And Progressive Advocacy Before The Roberts Court And Lower Federal Courts, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

It once seemed that the First Amendment doctrine developed by the Supreme Court stood as a bulwark protecting grassroots struggles for social change. In the twenty-first century, however, particularly since the appointments of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in 2005, a number of observers have begun to view the Supreme Court’s First Amendment work as a “weaponized” redoubt of reaction.

This sense of the rightward tilt of Supreme Court decisions is rooted in reality. Examining 104 Supreme Court First Amendment cases decided during the 2005–2020 Terms, it turns out that successful litigants are four times as likely to come …

Brief Of Professor Tobias B. Wolff As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Respondents In U.S. Supreme Court Case 303 Creative Llc V. Elenis, Tobias Barrington Wolff

All Faculty Scholarship

This amicus brief, filed in support of the Colorado anti-discrimination law in 303 Creative v. Elenis, is the product of about ten years of work on these First Amendment issues as a scholar and advocate. Its arguments rest on a core proposition: When a business sells goods and services in the public marketplace, it is not a street corner speaker engaging in a personal act of expression, it is a vendor engaged in commerce. Customers do not pay for the privilege of promoting a commercial vendor’s own personal message, they pay for goods and services chosen by them and …

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 And The Right(S) Of Publicity, Jennifer E. Rothman, Robert C. Post

All Faculty Scholarship

The right of publicity protects persons against unauthorized uses of their identity, most typically their names, images, or voices. The right is in obvious tension with freedom of speech. Yet courts seeking to reconcile the right with the First Amendment have to date produced only a notoriously confused muddle of inconsistent constitutional doctrine. In this Article, we suggest a way out of the maze. We propose a relatively straightforward framework for analyzing how the right of publicity should be squared with First Amendment principles.

At the root of contemporary constitutional confusion lies a failure to articulate the precise state interests …

The Right Of Publicity's Intellectual Property Turn, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

The Article is adapted from a keynote lecture about my book, THE RIGHT OF PUBLICITY: PRIVACY REIMAGINED FOR A PUBLIC WORLD (Harvard Univ. Press 2018), delivered at Columbia Law School for its symposium, “Owning Personality: The Expanding Right of Publicity.” The book challenges the conventional historical and theoretical understanding of the right of publicity. By uncovering the history of the right of publicity’s development, the book reveals solutions to current clashes with free speech, individual liberty, and copyright law, as well as some opportunities for better protecting privacy in the digital age.

The lecture (as adapted for this Article) explores …

Petitioning And The Making Of The Administrative State, Maggie Blackhawk

All Faculty Scholarship

The administrative state is suffering from a crisis of legitimacy. Many have questioned the legality of the myriad commissions, boards, and agencies through which much of our modern governance occurs. Scholars such as Jerry Mashaw, Theda Skocpol, and Michele Dauber, among others, have provided compelling institutional histories, illustrating that administrative lawmaking has roots in the early American republic. Others have attempted to assuage concerns through interpretive theory, arguing that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 implicitly amended our Constitution. Solutions offered thus far, however, have yet to provide a deeper understanding of the meaning and function of the administrative state …

Science As Speech, Natalie Ram

All Faculty Scholarship

In April 2015, researchers in China reported the successful genetic editing of human embryos using a new technology that promised to make gene editing easier and more effective than ever before. In the United States, the announcement drew immediate calls to regulate or prohibit
outright any use of this technology to alter human embryos, even for purely research purposes. The fervent response to the Chinese announcement was, in one respect, unexceptional. Proposals to regulate or prohibit scientific research following a new breakthrough occur with substantial frequency. Innovations in cloning technology and embryonic stem cell research have prompted similar outcries, and …

Lobbying And The Petition Clause, Maggie Blackhawk

All Faculty Scholarship

Contrary to popular opinion, the Supreme Court has not yet resolved whether lobbying is constitutionally protected. Belying this fact, courts, Congress, and scholars mistakenly assume that lobbying is protected under the Petition Clause. Because scholars have shared the mistaken assumption that the Petition Clause protects the practice of “lobbying”, no research to date has looked closely at the Petition Clause doctrine and the history of petitioning in relation to lobbying. In a recent opinion addressing petitioning in another context, the Supreme Court unearthed the long history behind the right to petition and argued for the importance of this history for …

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

Sacred Cows, Holy Wars: Exploring The Limits Of Law In The Regulation Of Raw Milk And Kosher Meat, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

In a free society law and religion seldom coincide comfortably, tending instead to reflect the inherent tension that often resides between the two. This is nowhere more apparent than in America, where the underlying principle upon which the first freedom enunciated by the Constitution's Bill of Rights is based ‒ the separation of church and state – is conceptually at odds with the pragmatic compromises that may be reached. But our adherence to the primacy of individual rights and civil liberties ‒ that any activity must be permitted if it is not imposed upon others without their consent, and if …

To Drink The Cup Of Fury: Funeral Picketing, Public Discourse And The First Amendment, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

In Snyder v. Phelps, the Supreme Court held that the Westboro Baptist Church had a First Amendment right to picket the funeral of a young soldier killed in Iraq. This decision reinforces a position that has become increasingly prevalent in First Amendment jurisprudence – the view that the state may not regulate public discourse to protect individuals from emotional or dignitary injury. In this Article, I argue that this view is deeply problematic for two reasons: it unduly sacrifices the value of individual personality and it tends to undermine the sphere of public discourse itself by negating the practical and …

The Structural Constitutional Principle Of Republican Legitimacy, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Representative democracy does not spontaneously occur by citizens gathering to choose laws. Instead, republicanism takes place within an extensive legal framework that determines who gets to vote, how campaigns are conducted, what conditions must be met for representatives to make valid law, and many other things. Many of the “rules-of-the-road” that operationalize republicanism have been subject to constitutional challenges in recent decades. For example, lawsuits have been brought against “partisan gerrymandering” (which has led to most congressional districts not being party-competitive, but instead being safely Republican or Democratic) and against onerous voter identification requirements (which reduce the voting rates of …

Book Review: The Free Press Crisis Of 1800: Thomas Cooper's Trial For Seditious Libel, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article was an invited book review of a book of the same title by Peter Charles Hoffer. Hoffer, Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia, has published this accessible case history as part of the University Press of Kansas’s Landmark Law Cases & American Society series, which he co-edits.

The book discusses one of the cases arising as a result of the Alien & Sedition Act under the presidency of John Adams, mostly targeting Republicans who editorialized against the Adams administration.

Ten Years After: Bartnicki V. Vopper As Laboratory For First Amendment Advocacy And Analysis, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

How many ways can one approach a First Amendment analysis? What influences a lawyer or a judge to select one analytical approach over another? And what is the long-term effect of a court's choice of one over another? In Bartnicki v. Vopper, a 2001 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court considered federal and state statutes prohibiting the disclosure of illegally intercepted telephone conversations, we are privileged to have a small laboratory through which to study the first two questions. And, from the vantage point of ten years, we ought to be able to make some informed predictions as to …

The Dark Side Of The Force: The Legacy Of Justice Holmes For First Amendment Jurisprudence, Steven J. Heyman

All Faculty Scholarship

Modern First Amendment jurisprudence is deeply paradoxical. On one hand, freedom of speech is said to promote fundamental values such as individual self-fulfillment, democratic deliberation, and the search for truth. At the same time, however, many leading decisions protect speech that appears to undermine these values by attacking the dignity and personality of others or their status as full and equal members of the community. In this Article, I explore where this Jekyll-and-Hyde quality of First Amendment jurisprudence comes from. I argue that the American free speech tradition consists of two very different strands: a liberal humanist view that emphasizes …

Betraying Truth: Ethics Abuse In Middle East Reporting, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

This article presents a brief overview of press freedom under the First Amendment, attempts to create a working definition of media “objectivity,” examines various codes of professional ethics for journalists, and analyzes specific cases in which such standards have allegedly been abused or abandoned in Middle East reporting.

The First Amendment And Commercial Speech, C. Edwin Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

After a quick summary of constitutional treatment of commercial speech, this essay outlines four reasons why commercial speech should be denied First Amendment protection. Working from the claim that the primary rationale for constitutional protection of speech is the mandate that government respect individual freedom or autonomy, the essay argues: 1) that the individual does not choose, but rather the market dictates the content of commercial speech; 2) that the commercial speech should be attributed to an artificial, instrumentally entity – the business enterprise – rather than the flesh and blood person whose liberty merits protection; 3) market exchanges involve …

A House Divided: Earl Caldwell, The New York Times, And The Quest For A Testimonial Privilege, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

In the 1972 case of Branzburg v. Hayes, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment does not protect journalists who refuse to reveal their confidential sources or news gathering product in response to a federal grand jury subpoena. That decision has remained vital for 35 years and has reverberated through a number of recent high-profile cases. Despite some form of protection in nearly every state court, reporters haled before a federal judge may have no recourse save prison. Devastating as Branzburg has been for the so-called journalist's privilege, its negative impact has been far broader. Branzburg is one of …

Hate Speech, C. Edwin Baker

All Faculty Scholarship

This paper describes the rationale that a full protection theory of free speech, a theory based on respect for individual autonomy, would give for protecting hate speech. The paper then notes that such a rationale will be unpersuasive to many (including this author) if the harms associated with a failure to outlaw hate speech are as great as often suggested – most dramatically, if the failure to prohibit makes a substantial contribution to the occurrence of serious racial/ethnic violence or genocide. The article then attempts to outline what empirical evidence would be needed to support this conclusion and gives reasons …

The Colonel's Finest Campaign: Robert R. Mccormick And Near V. Minnesota, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

Today, media corporations and their professional and trade associations, along with organizations like Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and the American Civil Liberties Union, carefully monitor litigation that implicates First Amendment values and decide whether, when, and how to intervene. It was not always so. Litigation by an institutional press to avoid or create doctrinal precedent under the First Amendment really began with the appointment of Col. Robert R. McCormick to head the ANPA's Committee on Freedom of the Press in the spring of 1928 and his involvement in Near v. Minnesota beginning that fall. Because of McCormick's …

Academic Freedom And The Post-Garcetti Blues, Sheldon Nahmod

All Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Prediction Markets And The First Amendment, Miriam A. Cherry, Robert L. Rogers

All Faculty Scholarship

The continuing development of prediction markets is important because of their success in foretelling the future in politics, economics, and science. In this article, we identify the expressive elements inherent in prediction markets and explore how legislation such as the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 might harm such predictive speech. This article is the first to explore First Amendment protections for prediction markets in such depth, and in so doing, we distinguish prediction markets from other regulated areas such as gambling and securities trading. The article's examination of prediction markets also illustrates the limitations of current commercial speech …

Censorship By Proxy: The First Amendment, Internet Intermediaries, And The Problem Of The Weakest Link, Seth F. Kreimer

All Faculty Scholarship

The rise of the Internet has changed the First Amendment drama, for governments confront technical and political obstacles to sanctioning either speakers or listeners in cyberspace. Faced with these challenges, regulators have fallen back on alternatives, predicated on the fact that, in contrast to the usual free expression scenario, the Internet is not dyadic. The Internet's resistance to direct regulation of speakers and listeners rests on a complex chain of connections, and emerging regulatory mechanisms have begun to focus on the weak links in that chain. Rather than attacking speakers or listeners directly, governments have sought to enlist private actors …

Initial Interest Confusion: Standing At The Crossroads Of Trademark Law, Jennifer E. Rothman

All Faculty Scholarship

While the benchmark of trademark infringement traditionally has been a demonstration that consumers are likely to be confused by the use of a similar or identical trademark to identify the goods or services of another, a court-created doctrine called initial interest confusion allows liability for trademark infringement solely on the basis that a consumer might initially be interested, attracted, or distracted by a competitor's, or even a non-competitor's, product or service. Initial interest confusion is being used with increasing frequency, especially on the Internet, to shut down speech critical of trademark holders and their products and services, to prevent comparative …

Public Importance: Balancing Proprietary Rights And The Right To Know, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

Articulating a coherent, all-encompassing First Amendment doctrine for freedom of speech and of the press has so far eluded every scholar who has tried, not least because of the variety of analytical approaches and potentially dispositive factors in Supreme Court jurisprudence. For example, the same regulation might be enforceable in one medium, but not another; in one forum, but not another. Enforceability may depend on the regulator's purpose and drafting skill, or not, depending in turn on whether the speech deserves full protection, some protection, or no protection at all. Sometimes enforceability depends on the speaker's intent, or knowledge, or …

Rewriting Near V. Minnesota: Creating A Complete Definition Of Prior Restraint, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The decision in Near v. Minnesota, while establishing the prior restraint doctrine as a critical element for First Amendment analysis, failed to give a definition of prior restraint. The result has been inconsistent and unpredictable application of the doctrine as well as diminished protection of free expression. This article takes the next critical step in the journey begun by Near v. Minnesota; it attempts to create a comprehensive definition of prior restraint using the principles of separation of powers. Because all three branches can create 'prior restraints,' the prevention of unconstitutional restraints will necessitate different safeguards depending on which branch …

The Neglected History Of The Prior Restraint Doctrine: Rediscovering The Link Between The First Amendment And The Separation Of Powers, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The prior restraint doctrine, once so fundamental to Constitutional Jurisprudence, has lost much of its effectiveness over the years. Nevertheless, prior restraint doctrine is crucial to preserving the line between protected and unprotected speech. One of the fundamental problems that contribute to the current ineffectiveness of prior restraint doctrine is that there exists no comprehensive definition of "prior restraint". This article chronicles the historical roots of prior restraint in order to arrive at a generally accepted legal definition. Through the course of this historical journey, the article yields a heretofore unexplored aspect of prior restraint doctrine, namely that prior restraint …

Holocaust Denial And The First Amendment: The Quest For Truth In A Free Society, Kenneth Lasson

All Faculty Scholarship

From the ashes of the Holocaust we have come once again to learn the terrible truth, that the power of Evil cannot be underestimated. Nor can the effect of the spoken and written word. It has been but a half-century since the liberation of Nazi death camps, a little more than a decade since the First International Conference on the Holocaust and Human Rights, and a few short years since the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum first put on display its documentation of horror. Yet today that form of historical revisionism popularly called "Holocaust denial" abounds worldwide in all its …

Two Wrongs Mock A Right: Overcoming The Cohen Maledicta That Bar First Amendment Protection For Newsgathering, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

In Cohen v. Cowles Media Co., Justice Byron R. White wrote that the First Amendment offers no protection from the enforcement of "generally applicable laws" against newsgatherers and that First Amendment protection applies only to information that has been "lawfully acquired." This Article shows that these doctrines are not only false, but have already done serious damage to First Amendment interests. It surveys lower court decisions from around the country to demonstrate the doctrines' pernicious influence, then it evaluates alternative solutions to the problem. The article concludes that the most effective, if least likely, solution would be a rule that …

Closing The Barn Door After The Genie Is Out Of The Bag: Recognizing A "Futility Principle" In First Amendment Jurisprudence, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article argues for a simple proposition: the First Amendment imposes a presumption against the suppression of speech when suppression would be futile. Suppression is futile when the speech is available to the same audience through some other medium or at some other place. The government can overcome this presumption of futility only when it asserts an important interest that is unrelated to the content of the speech in question, and only when the suppression directly advances that interest.

In Part I, the article explores the role that this unarticulated "futility principle" has played in Supreme Court and other decisions …