Law Commons^™

Reynolds Revisited: The Original Meaning Of Reynolds V. United States And Free Exercise After Fulton, Clark B. Lombardi

Articles

This Article calls for a profound reevaluation of the stories that are being told today about the Supreme Court’s free exercise jurisprudence starting with the Court’s seminal 1879 decision in Reynolds v. United States and proceeding up to the present day. Scholars and judges today agree that the Supreme Court in Reynolds interpreted the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to protect only religious belief and not religiously motivated action. All casebooks today embrace this interpretation of the case, and the Supreme Court has regularly endorsed it over the past twenty years, most recently in 2022. However, this Article …

Trademarks And Censorship In The Time Of Covid-19, Xuan-Thao Nguyen

Articles

During the devastating year of 2020, China quickly conquered the novel coronavirus and roared back economically while the United States faced staggering deaths and economic losses. But underneath the divergent experience of the two countries is an untold story of trademark and censorship in the time of COVID-19. This Article observes that while the United States Supreme Court has lifted the ban on trademark registrations for unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, opening the door for offensive COVID-19 trademark applications, China has transformed trademark law into the law for censorship as Chinese authorities press forward to achieve twin victories over the coronavirus and …

Testimony, Free Speech Under Attack: The Legal Assault On Environmental Activists And The First Amendment, Anita Ramasastry

Presentations

No abstract provided.

Regulating Bot Speech, Madeline Lamo, Ryan Calo

Articles

We live in a world of artificial speakers with real impact. So-called “bots” foment political strife, skew online discourse, and manipulate the marketplace. Concerns over bot speech have led prominent figures in the world of technology to call for regulations in response to the unique threats bots pose. Recently, legislators have begun to heed these calls, drafting laws that would require online bots to clearly indicate that they are not human.

This work is the first to consider how efforts to regulate bots might run afoul of the First Amendment. At first blush, requiring a bot to self-disclose raises little …

“And Yet It Moves”—The First Amendment And Certainty, Ronald K.L. Collins

Articles

Surprisingly few, if any, works on the First Amendment have explored the relation between free speech and certainty. The same holds true for decisional law. While this relationship is inherent in much free speech theory and doctrine, its treatment has nonetheless been rather opaque. In what follows, the author teases out— philosophically, textually, and operationally—the significance of that relationship and what it means for our First Amendment jurisprudence. In the process, he examines how the First Amendment operates to counter claims of certainty and likewise how it is employed to demand a degree of certainty from those who wish to …

Reply Brief. Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari, Crouse V. Caldwell, 138 S.Ct. 470 (2017) (No. 17-242), Eric Schnapper, Steven H. Goldblatt, Shon Hopwood, Marybeth Mullaney, Jennifer Munter Stark

Court Briefs

QUESTIONS PRESENTED (1) When disputes of fact arise regarding whether speech by a public employee is protected by the First Amendment, should those factual issues be resolved by a trier of fact (the rule in the Second, Third, Sixth, Eighth and Tenth Circuits), or by the court as a matter of constitutional law (the rule in the Fourth Circuit)? (2) When a government employee engages in speech on a subject of public concern, and a court applying Pickering balances the First Amendment interest against any contrary interests of the employer, should the extent of that First Amendment interest be “lessened” …

From Substance To Shadows: An Essay On Salazar V. Buono And Establishment Clause Remedies, David B. Owens

Articles

Most disputes about the Establishment Clause center on its substantive meaning; whether, for example, a state subsidy promotes religion, the phrase “In God We Trust” can appear on currency, or a display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional. Often overlooked and lurking behind these substantive disputes is a question about what remedies are available when an Establishment Clause violation is found. Typically, an injunction prohibiting the subsidy, practice, or display is the choice. In Salazar v. Buono, however, the Supreme Court was confronted with an unusual case for two reasons. First, the doctrine of res judicata formally barred the …

Nineteenth-Century Free Exercise Jurisprudence And The Challenge Of Polygamy: The Relevance Of Nineteenth-Century Cases And Commentaries For Contemporary Debates About Free Exercise Exemptions, Clark B. Lombardi

Articles

Does the Free Exercise Clause of the U.S. Constitution require judges to exempt religious objectors from the application of nondiscriminatory and otherwise applicable laws? Over the last twenty years, judges and academics have debated fiercely whether the Clause should be interpreted to provide religiously observant citizens with a right to “free exercise exemptions.” The debate has led indirectly to a new interest in nineteenth-century views on free exercise jurisprudence. In this Article, I will examine the scholarship on nineteenth-century free exercise jurisprudence to date and ask what it adds to our understanding of the Clause and the question of exemptions.

Scylla Or Charybdis: Navigating The Jurisprudence Of Visual Clutter, Ryan Calo

Articles

State and local governments seeking to address the proliferation of billboards and other outdoor advertising must negotiate two obstacles of First Amendment law. The first is the Supreme Court’s 1981 decision in Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego. Following Metromedia, regulators can neither select among noncommercial messages nor privilege commercial messages over noncommercial ones. For years, regulators navigated around Metromedia by drawing a distinction between commercial and noncommercial speech. Then came the Supreme Court’s decision in City of Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, holding that regulators had to account for why they were privileging noncommercial over commercial …

The Freedom To Speak And The Freedom To Listen: The Admissibility Of The Criminal Defendant's Taste In Entertainment, Helen A. Anderson

Articles

In Part I of this Article, I will establish that the First Amendment protects both consumers and producers of expression, although the scope of consumer protection has not been greatly elaborated. Part II discusses attempts to hold the entertainment industry liable for crimes by third persons, as well as legislative efforts to restrict or ban certain kinds of entertainment or art deemed to cause violence. For the most part, these efforts against producers have failed.

Part III then shows how a criminal defendant's viewing, listening, or reading habits may be used as evidence against that defendant, and that the constitutional …

"Libelous" Petitions For Redress Of Grievances -- Bad Historiography Makes Worse Law, Eric Schnapper

Articles

Both the majority and concurring opinions in McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985), concluded that there was no historical basis for McDonald's contention that the framers understood the right to petition to include an unqualified right to do so without being subject to suit for libel. This Article argues that the historical analysis in McDonaldis incorrect; indeed, this appears to be one instance in which the relevant historical materials are both voluminous and crystal clear.

Part I evaluates the McDonald Court's discussion of the intent of the framers. Subsequent sections discuss the wide variety of materials that …