Law Commons^™

Teaching Freedom: Exclusionary Rights Of Student Groups, Joan W. Howarth

Scholarly Works

Progressive, anti-subordination values support robust First Amendment protection for high school and university students, including strong rights of expressive association, even when those rights clash with educational institutions' nondiscrimination policies. The leading cases addressing the conflicts between nondiscrimination policies and exclusionary student groups are polarized and distorted by their culture war context. That context tainted the leading authority, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and is especially salient in the student expressive association cases, many of which are being aggressively litigated by religious groups with strong anti-homosexuality goals. The strength of these First Amendment claims can be difficult to recognize …

Establishment And Exclusion: Why The Protection Of The First Amendment’S Establishment Clause Should Be Applied To Adults, Daren C. Rich

Saint Louis University Public Law Review

No abstract provided.

Symposium: No Enclaves Of Totalitarianism: The Triumph And Unrealized Promise Of The Tinker Decision , Jamin B. Raskin

American University Law Review

The Supreme Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District forty years ago did for the ideal of expressive freedom in America's public schools what Brown v. Board of Education did for the ideal of racial equality. It made a core value of the Bill of Rights spring to life for young people facing authoritarian treatment at the hands of adult officials running their school systems. By privileging the right of students to engage in passionate political communication over the school's interest in maintaining discipline or the community’s interest in maintaining pro-war consensus, the Tinker decision was …

Anonymity In Cyberspace: What Can We Learn From John Doe?, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the evolution of the law governing libel suits against anonymous “John Doe” defendants based on Internet speech. Between 1999 and 2009, courts crafted new First Amendment doctrines to protect Internet speakers from having their anonymity automatically stripped away upon the filing of a libel action. Courts also adapted existing First Amendment protections for hyperbole, satire and other non-factual speech to protect the distinctive discourse of Internet message boards. Despite these positive developments, the current state of the law is unsatisfactory. Because the scope of protection for anonymous Internet speech varies greatly by jurisdiction, resourceful plaintiffs can make …

Symposium: The Civil Rights Roots Of Tinker's Disruption Tests, Kristi L. Bowman

American University Law Review

This past spring marked the fortieth anniversary of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the landmark student speech case in which the Supreme Court held that three students were protected by the First Amendment when they wore black armbands in their Des Moines, Iowa public schools to protest the Vietnam War. Looking at Supreme Court precedent alone, it would seem as though the Tinker tests were created out of whole cloth: the substantial or material disruption, reasonable anticipation of such disruption, and rights of others tests did not have much of a basis in earlier Supreme Court decisions. …

Book Review. Religious Liberty In America: The First Amendment In Historical And Contemporary Perspective, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

The Rules Against Scandal And What They Mean For The First Amendment’S Religion Clauses, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

An Imperfect Vocabulary Of Religious Liberty, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

In The Matter Of Ottinger V. Non-Party The Journal News, Daniel Haier

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Could Government Speech Endorsing A Higher Law Resolve The Establishment Clause Crisis., Bruce Ledewitz

St. Mary's Law Journal

The Establishment Clause crisis exists due to the Supreme Court’s promise that America would have a secular government—meaning one which was neutral between religion and irreligion, as well as being neutral to all religions. This promise evolved pursuant to the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause. Nevertheless, the commitment to neutrality was never carried to fulfillment by the Court. The crisis may be illustrated by Congress’ addition of the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance in 1954. This addition seemed to violate the promise of neutrality made by the Supreme Court in Everson v. Board of Education …

Parental Rights And The State Regulation Of Religious Schools, Matthew J. Steilen

Journal Articles

In Wisconsin v. Yoder, the United States Supreme Court invalidated convictions of several Amish parents for removing their children from school in violation of state mandatory attendance laws. In reaching its decision, the Court argued that protecting the Amish parents’ decisions fit into a longstanding American tradition of giving parents control over the upbringing of their children. Yet the Supreme Court mischaracterized the history of parental rights and state interests in education. Contemporary historical research shows that parents have long ceded a large measure of control to the state in the education of their children. Still, very little has been …

A Confused Concern Of The First Amendment: The Uncertain Status Of Constitutional Protection For Individual Academic Freedom, Neal H. Hutchens

Educational Policy Studies and Evaluation Faculty Publications

The question of whether the First Amendment protects the individual academic freedom of faculty members at public colleges and universities has resulted in divergent views among courts and legal scholars. In joining the ongoing discourse regarding constitutional protection for academic freedom, this article considers using academic freedom policies and standards voluntarily adopted by institutions as a basis to provide First Amendment protection for faculty speech at public colleges and universities. The article proposes that such policies present one alternative to help clear some of the legal fog regarding First Amendment protection for individual academic freedom, especially in relation to the …

Empathy And Pragmatism In The Choice Of Constitutional Norms For Religious Land Use Disputes, Elizabeth Reilly

Akron Law Faculty Publications

From the perspective of both religious entities and local governments, religious land use requests are best resolved quickly, locally and cooperatively. The traditional framework for addressing religious land use disputes, which the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA)1 adopted, is ill-suited to those goals. Legally, disputes have long been framed as denials of the free exercise of religion – the broadest of all claims and the one requiring the most intrusive and subjective determinations about a particular religious group and its proposed use (what religion is, what a particular sect requires and how religion qua religion is affected …

Cross Burning A Hate Speech Under The First Amendment To The United States Constitution, Wilson Huhn

Akron Law Faculty Publications

Under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ‘hate speech’ is constitutionally protected unless the circumstances of the case indicate that the speaker intended to threaten violence or provoke an immediate act of violence. While a person may be removed from a classroom or fired from employment for engaging in ‘hate speech’, under the First Amendment a person may be charged with a crime only if their statements constitute a threat or provocation of immediate violence. Moreover, even in cases where it is clear that a person is threatening violence or that violence is imminent, the person …

Rethinking Free Speech And Civil Liability, Neil M. Richards, Daniel J. Solove

Scholarship@WashULaw

One of the most important and unresolved quandaries of First Amendment jurisprudence involves when civil liability for speech will trigger First Amendment protections. When speech results in civil liability, two starkly opposing rules are potentially applicable. Since New York Times v. Sullivan, the First Amendment requires heightened protection against tort liability for speech, such as defamation and invasion of privacy. But in other contexts involving civil liability for speech, the First Amendment provides virtually no protection. According to Cohen v. Cowles, there is no First Amendment scrutiny for speech restricted by promissory estoppel and contract. The First Amendment rarely requires …

The Forgotten Freedom Of Assembly, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The freedom of assembly has been at the heart of some of the most important social movements in American history: antebellum abolitionism, women's suffrage in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the labor movement in the Progressive Era and after the New Deal, and the civil rights movement. Claims of assembly stood against the ideological tyranny that exploded during the first Red Scare in the years surrounding the First World War and the second Red Scare of 1950s McCarthyism. Abraham Lincoln once called 'the right of the people peaceably to assemble' part of 'the Constitutional substitute for revolution'. In 1939, the …

Making Sense Of Schaumburg: Seeking Coherence In First Amendment Charitable Solicitation Law, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

The Supreme Court shaped its approach to charitable solicitation in a trilogy of cases in the 1980s: Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980), Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Co. (1984), and Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of North Carolina (1988). Owing largely to ambiguity surrounding the concepts of content analysis, tiered scrutiny, and commercial speech emerging during that era, the Court failed to articulate a coherent framework for evaluating regulations of charitable solicitation. The result has left the Court without a clear rationale for the value of charitable solicitation and lower courts …

Constraining Public Employee Speech: Government's Control Of Its Workers' Speech To Protect Its Own Expression, Helen Norton

Publications

This Article identifies a key doctrinal shift in courts' treatment of public employees' First Amendment claims--a shift that imperils the public's interest in transparent government as well as the free speech rights of more than twenty million government workers. In the past, courts interpreted the First Amendment to permit governmental discipline of public employee speech on matters of public interest only when such speech undermined the government employer's interest in efficiently providing public services. In contrast, courts now increasingly focus on--and defer to--government's claim to control its workers' expression to protect its own speech.

More specifically, courts increasingly permit government …

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 …

Freedom Of Association, The Communist Party, And The Hollywood Ten: The Forgotten First Amendment Legacy Of Charles Hamilton Houston, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

Charles Hamilton Houston, the most important civil rights lawyer of the first half of the 20th century who developed the legal strategy in Brown v. Board of Education, ended his fabulous legal career representing a group of Hollywood screen writers known as the Hollywood Ten. See Lawson and Trumbo v. United States, 176 F.2d 49 (D.C. App.1949). In that case convictions and jail sentences were upheld for the defendants' failure to answer questions from the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) about their views on communism and whether or not each was members of the Communist Party. The matters in …

Standing, Spending, And Separation: How The No-Establishment Rule Does (And Does Not) Protect Conscience, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

The First Amendment’s “Establishment Clause” is widely thought to protect “conscience.” Does it? If so, how? It is proposed in this paper that the no-establishment rule does indeed promote and protect religious liberty, and does safeguard conscience, but not (or, at least, not only) in the way most people think it does, namely, by sparing those who object from the asserted injury to their conscience caused by public funding of religious activity.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation - a case in which the Justices limited taxpayer standing to bring Establishment Clause claims - reminds …

Judicial Review, Local Values, And Pluralism, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

At the Federalist Society's 2008 National Student Symposium, a panel of scholars was asked to consider the question, does pervasive judicial review threaten to destroy local identity by homogenizing community norms? The answer to this question is yes, pervasive judicial review certainly does threaten local identity, because such review can homogenize[e] community norms, either by dragging them into conformity with national, constitutional standards or (more controversially) by subordinating them to the reviewers' own commitments. It is important to recall, however, that while it is true that an important feature of our federalism is local variation in laws and values, it …

Davis V. Fec: The Roberts Court's Continuing Attack On Campaign Finance Reform, Richard Briffault

Faculty Scholarship

In Davis v. FEC, decided on the last day of the October 2007 Term, a closely divided Supreme Court invalidated the so-called Millionaires' Amendment, which was a provision added to the Federal Election Campaign Act ("FECA") as part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ("BCRA") of 2002 to make it easier for Senate and House candidates to raise private contributions when they run against an opponent who uses a substantial amount of personal wealth to pay for his or her campaign. From the reform perspective, the loss of the Millionaires' Amendment was not of great moment. The Amendment was …

Symposium: Oiling The Schoolhouse Gate: After Forty Years Of Tinkering With Teachers' First Amendment Rights, Time For A New Beginning , Alexander Wohl

American University Law Review

This Article will examine how (and how far) we have fallen from the legal precedent and educational principles behind Tinker, specifically the increasingly remote standards courts have used to chip away (and sometimes sledgehammer) the speech rights of teachers. To this end, the Article will consider some of the unique and fundamental characteristics associated with a profession that has at its core the mission of encouraging speech, raising questions, and teaching the ability to think—in short, “expressive activities.” It will also look at how the increasingly restrictive standards do not reflect fully the challenges posed by the advent of new …

Symposium: Tinker's Midlife Crisis: Tattered And Transgressed But Still Standing, Clay Calvert

American University Law Review

This article examines the erosion of the strength of the Supreme Court’s 1969 opinion in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. Indicators of decline range from Justice Thomas’ stunning call in Morse v. Frederick for overruling Tinker to recent lower-court opinions using Tinker to censor off-campus expression posted on the Internet. The article explores possible reasons for the decline and abuse of Tinker and it makes suggestions for its reinvigoration. Part I highlights and analyzes other indicators of the erosion, decline, and abuse of Tinker. Part II then explores some possible reasons and explanations for the midlife crisis …

Symposium: Foot In The Door - The Unwitting Move Towards A New Student Welfare Standard In Student Speech After Morse V. Frederick, Francisco M. Negron, Jr.

American University Law Review

This article discusses an emerging legal trend that may expand schools’ abilities to protect their students. It focuses on Morse v. Frederick, a 2007 decision popularly known as the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case in which the court held that a school principal may restrict student speech that can be reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. Negron argues that when read together, the majority opinion and Justice Alito and Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion, permit schools to regulate student expression that may threaten student welfare. Justices Alito and Kennedy sought to limit the majority’s holding to speech involving illegal drug …

Symposium: Shrinking Tinker: Students Are Persons Under Our Constitution - Except When They Aren't , Frank D. Lomonte

American University Law Review

The central proposition of this Article is that the school/student relationship is a distinctive one, and that student speakers on school property stand in a fundamentally different posture than do pamphleteers on the public sidewalk. This unique relationship has been recognized by the courts, but only selectively, where the uniqueness works to the disadvantage of the speaker. It is time that courts acknowledge that, because students are “captive” in school for the best hours of their day, and because students have a legally enforceable right to be on school grounds for purposes that expressly include the exchange of ideas, student …

The Case For The Third-Party Doctrine, Orin S. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

This Article offers a defense of the Fourth Amendment's third party doctrine, the controversial rule that information loses Fourth Amendment protection when it is knowingly revealed to a third party. Fourth Amendment scholars have repeatedly attacked the rule on the ground that it is unpersuasive on its face and gives the government too much power This Article responds that critics have overlooked the benefits of the rule and have overstated its weaknesses. The third-party doctrine serves two critical functions. First, the doctrine ensures the technological neutrality of the Fourth Amendment. It corrects for the substitution effect of third parties that …

Yellow Snow On Sacred Sites: A Failed Application Of The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Joshua A. Edwards

American Indian Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Public's Domain In Trademark Law: A First Amendment Theory Of The Consumer, Laura A. Heymann

Georgia Law Review

First Amendment theories of trademark law tend to focus on the need of speakers to employ trademarks in creating new speech-in parodies, comparative advertising, and other communicative endeavors. An alternative use of the First Amendment in trademark law, however, would focus on the rights of consumers to autonomy as they make choices about how to respond to trademark meaning. First Amendment doctrine in other areas of the law involving persuasive communications provides useful material on which to draw when constructing the autonomous consumer. With that consumer more fully realized, modern expansions of trademark law, such as dilution and initial interest …