Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- First Amendment; Freedom of Speech; Free speech; Constitutional Law; John Roberts; Roberts Court; Free Expression; Freedom of Expression; First Freedom; Supreme Court jurisprudence; Constitution; Constitutional Principles (7)
- Americans With Disabilities Act; ADA; Title III; website accessibility; place of public accommodation; public accommodation; circuit split; predatory litigation; WCAG (1)
- Copyright law; substantial similarity; circuit split; architecture; architectural work; architectural works; copyright infringement; copyright; Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act (1)
- Jurisdiction; subject matter jurisdiction; immigration; Article III; jurisdiction-stripping; IIRIRA; 1252(g); due process; separation of powers; Silva; Arce; Reno; Federal Tort Claims Act; FTCA; American-Arab Anti Discrimination-Committee; judicial review; wrongful removal; Mathews (1)
- Notice-and-comment; Administrative Procedure Act; rule-making; § 553; § 553 exemptions; federal agencies (1)
Articles 1 - 12 of 12
Full-Text Articles in Law
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Introductory Remarks: The Roberts Court And The First Amendment: An Introduction, Geoffrey R. Stone
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, Geoffrey R. Stone delivered the following introductory remarks at The Roberts Court and Free Speech Symposium at Brooklyn Law School. An adaptation of Geoffrey R. Stone, Free Speech in the Twenty-First Century: Ten Lessons from the Twentieth Century Lead Article (2008), Dean Stone detailed the history of the pre-Roberts Court First Amendment jurisprudence and laid the foundation for the symposium’s scholarly discourse.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
The Roberts Court—Its First Amendment Free Expression Jurisprudence: 2005–2021, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr.
Brooklyn Law Review
The decisional law of the First Amendment is an area of law formulated, for the most part, by the high court of the land. At the same time, the study of free speech is equally a study in political philosophy and law. Supreme Court justices have left their mark on the First Amendment free speech doctrine and have made names for themselves in the process. This study explores the impact of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Roberts Court on the free speech doctrine. By examining the case law in this area and the justices and lawyers who craft it, …
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
The Anti-Free Speech Movement, Robert Corn-Revere
Brooklyn Law Review
What does it mean for the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, to be “good” when it comes to the First Amendment? First Amendment lawyer Robert Corn-Revere tackles this question, by looking at the history of censorship in the United States. Through a historical lens, Mr. Corn-Revere examines the arguments for regulating “bad” speech in order to promote “good” speech, and analogizes this approach to the work of early American censors like Anthony Comstock. This article examines how the history of censorship has shaped First Amendment law, and ultimately through his analysis, Mr. Corn-Revere identifies several examples of what …
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Free Speech Still Matters, Joel M. Gora
Brooklyn Law Review
In its first ten years, the Roberts Court proved to be the most speech protective Court in a generation, if not in our history; however, in the intervening five years, the Court has faced intense pressures, ranging from heightened criticism of its First Amendment jurisprudence to seismic changes in the makeup of the Court to very real proposals for court “packing.” Despite these powerful forces, the Roberts Court has surprisingly stayed true to its commitment to—and guardianship of—the First Amendment. Nevertheless, in the face of modern political correctness and cancel culture, free speech has rarely been in a more precarious …
Broken Promesa: Why The United States Should Abandon Its Use Of The Territories Clause To Control The Local Affairs Of Puerto Rico, Julia R. Cummings
Broken Promesa: Why The United States Should Abandon Its Use Of The Territories Clause To Control The Local Affairs Of Puerto Rico, Julia R. Cummings
Brooklyn Law Review
Puerto Rico’s sovereignty status is an anomaly. Since the United States acquired the island in 1898, the federal government has treated Puerto Ricans differently compared to residents of its other acquired territories. The United States also exerts significant control over Puerto Rico’s local affairs, most recently through the enactment and enforcement of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) in response to the current debt crisis in Puerto Rico. This note assesses the validity of the federal government’s use of the territories clause to control local Puerto Rican affairs, examining the complex history between the United States …
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Foreword: The Free Speech Record Of The Roberts Court, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, scholars gathered at Brooklyn Law School to consider the free speech themes highlighted by a catalogue of the Roberts Court’s free speech jurisprudence. The speakers provided incisive and timely insight on these themes—insight that is reflected in the catalogue and accompanying papers published in this symposium issue of the Brooklyn Law Review. This introduction provides an overview of this symposium issue and the questions presented by each article and essay.
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
The Law Of License Plates And Other Inevitabilities Of Free Speech Context Sensitivity, William D. Araiza
Brooklyn Law Review
This article, written for a symposium on Ronald Collins’s and Professor David Hudson’s catalogue of the Roberts Court’s First Amendment free speech jurisprudence, reconsiders the longstanding tension between rigid free speech rules and more contextual standards. It examines that debate by considering a set of relatively recent free speech cases in which the Court ostensibly adopted rigid rules, but in doing so arguably cloaked its reliance on more contextual factors by manipulating those rules. In cases dealing with national security and judicial electoral speech, the Court manipulated the strict scrutiny the Court insists applies to nearly every content-based speech restriction …
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Transcript: The Roberts Court And Free Speech Symposium, Michael T. Cahill, Joel M. Gora, Geoffrey R. Stone, Ronald K.L. Collins, David L. Hudson Jr., Floyd Abrams, Ellis Cose, Robert Corn-Revere, Genevieve Lakier, William D. Araiza, Helen Norton, Nadine Strossen, Erwin Chemerinsky
Brooklyn Law Review
On April 9, 2021, the Brooklyn Law Review gathered a panel of First Amendment scholars for a symposium on the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence. This transcript captures the panelists' diverse perspectives on the free speech themes highlighted by the Roberts Court's free speech jurisprudence.
A Call To Replace The Apa’S Notice-And-Comment Exemption For Guidance Documents, Crystal M. Cummings
A Call To Replace The Apa’S Notice-And-Comment Exemption For Guidance Documents, Crystal M. Cummings
Brooklyn Law Review
Section 553 of the APA requires public “notice-and-comment” before a federal agency issues substantive rules and exempts from these procedures guidance documents that merely offer nonbinding insight and assistance on existing law. The problem of federal agencies using the notice-and-comment exemption to issue legislative rules that are legally binding has garnered considerable attention. Congressional efforts to amend the APA in response have failed and, in turn, variations have been offered on a seemingly simple fix—mandate or encourage agencies to solicit public input before issuing guidance documents. This note characterizes these proposals as overlays on the § 553(b)(A) exemption. The note …
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Without A Voice, Without A Forum: Finding Iirira Section 1252(G) Unconstitutional, Amanda Simms
Brooklyn Law Review
The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) abrogates sovereign immunity in certain circumstances to allow private individuals, regardless of citizenship, to sue the United States for specific torts committed by government officials. Yet when two lawful permanent residents—located in different parts of the country—separately tried to sue the government for wrongful removal, one court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction while the other court did not. These decisions, though reaching opposite conclusions, both relied on federal immigration statute 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) in order to determine whether judicial review of immigrants’ removal orders is precluded. This note argues …
The Rise Of Ada Title Iii: How Congress And The Department Of Justice Can Solve Predatory Litigation, Sarah E. Zehentner
The Rise Of Ada Title Iii: How Congress And The Department Of Justice Can Solve Predatory Litigation, Sarah E. Zehentner
Brooklyn Law Review
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was enacted in 1990 to afford equal opportunities for individuals with disabilities. Title III of the ADA, specifically, was enacted to afford disabled individuals equal access to places of public accommodation. When the ADA was enacted, the internet was still in its infancy and Congress did not contemplate the need for governing accessibility to websites of public accommodations. Today, the internet has become embedded in virtually every aspect of our lives, yet there are still millions of disabled individuals who are unable to equally access the websites of American businesses. With the ADA being …
A Half-Built House: The Substantial Similarity Analysis Split In Architectural Copyright Infringement Cases, Madison V. Smiley
A Half-Built House: The Substantial Similarity Analysis Split In Architectural Copyright Infringement Cases, Madison V. Smiley
Brooklyn Law Review
The path to extending copyright protection to architectural works in the United States has not come without its challenges, especially as the federal courts continue to muddle through complicated and varying case law to determine whether architectural works infringement has occurred in a given dispute. Applying a uniform approach to analyze substantial similarity in a way that effectively protects architectural works across the federal circuits is necessary to fulfill the legislative intent and the constitutional intent of copyright protection. Likewise, a uniform approach will clarify the level of copyright protection that architectural works are permitted to receive in the United …