Law Commons^™

(Same) Sex, Lies, And Democracy: Tradition, Religion, And Substantive Due Process (With An Emphasis On Obergefell V. Hodges), Stephen M. Feldman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Substantive due process issues implicitly concern voice. Whose voice will be heard? Although such issues often remain submerged, the Justices occasionally translate them into disputes over democratic participation and power. The Supreme Court’s most important substantive due process decision in years, Obergefell v. Hodges, entailed such a battle over democracy. The multiple dissenting opinions insisted that the decision demeaned the opponents of same-sex marriage, many of whom were inspired by traditional values and religious convictions. The majority explicitly disagreed, reasoning that the case resolved the rights of same-sex couples to marry and did not diminish the opponents’ voices. The dissenters …

The Establishment Clause, State Action, And Town Of Greece, Nathan S. Chapman

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The Establishment Clause forbids the government from engaging in the same religious exercise that the law protects when performed by a private party. Thus, an establishment case often turns on whether religious activity is “state action.” Too often, however, courts ignore the state action analysis or merge it with the substantive Establishment Clause analysis. This muddles both doctrines and threatens individual religious liberty.

This Article argues that the state action doctrine should account for the government’s distribution of private rights. Accordingly, the Constitution applies to the government’s distribution of rights, but not to a private party’s use of those rights. …

#Tweeting For Terrorism: First Amendment Implications In Using Proterrorist Tweets To Convict Under The Material Support Statute, Abigail M. Pierce

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

"Shouting 'Fire' In A Theater": The Life And Times Of Constitutional Law's Most Enduring Analogy, Carlton F.W. Larson

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

In 1919, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes introduced the specter of a man falsely shouting “fire” in a theater into First Amendment law. Nearly one hundred years later, this remains the most enduring analogy in constitutional law. It has been relied on in hundreds of constitutional cases, and it has permeated popular discourse on the scope of individual rights.

This Article examines both the origins and the later life of Holmes’s theater analogy. Part I is a detective story, seeking to solve the mystery of how Holmes came up with this particular example. This story takes us to the forgotten world …

Neither Tinker, Nor Hazelwood, Nor Fraser, Nor Morse: Why Violent Student Assignments Represent A Unique First Amendment Challenge, William C. Nevin

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article will both (1) explore a subset of violent student speech cases that could rightly be considered under Hazelwood if only the student expression bore the sign of official school sponsorship and (2) argue for the creation of a new standard based on Hazelwood to govern non-sponsored curricular speech. Furthermore, this new standard would operate much like the current Hazelwood analysis with one key distinction: where student speech is curricular and non-sponsored in nature, the only options available to school administrators would be those representing pedagogical counter-speech. Punitive discipline, such as the suspension seen in Cuff, would not be …

Snap: How The Moral Elasticity Of The Denaturalization Statute Goes Too Far, Aram A. Gavoor, Daniel Miktus

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Comprehensive immigration reform is a popular topic in Congress. While many reform bills have been offered, none have addressed the significant substantive and procedural issues surrounding denaturalization, the process where the federal government may seek to have a naturalized person’s citizenship revoked in federal court if his citizenship was unlawfully or fraudulently procured.Though denaturalization serves public policy as a final check on naturalization fraud, existing law also permits the government to denaturalize an individual solely for speech and expressive association that occurs after one acquires citizenship. This provision, 8 U.S.C. § 1451(c), violates naturalized citizens’ First Amendment rights to free …