Law Commons^™

Solving The Procedural Puzzles Of The Texas Heartbeat Act And Its Imitators: New York Times V. Sullivan As Historical Analogue, Charles W. "Rocky" Rhodes, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

The Texas Heartbeat Act (S.B. 8) prohibits abortions following detection of a fetal heartbeat while delegating exclusive enforcement through private civil actions brought by “any person,” regardless of injury, for statutory damages of a minimum of $10,000 per prohibited abortion. Texas sought to impose costly litigation and potentially crippling liability on reproductive health providers and rights advocates, with the hope of stopping abortion in the state. Prior to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overruling Roe v. Wade and eliminating constitutional protection for abortion, the law represented a unique threat to reproductive freedom. But states are spreading S.B. 8’s exclusive …

Big Data, Big Gap: Working Towards A Hipaa Framework That Covers Big Data, Ryan Mueller

Indiana Law Journal

One lasting impact of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is the privacy protections it provides for our sensitive health information. In the era of Big Data, however, much of our health information exists outside the traditional doctor-patient dynamic. From wearable technology, to mobile applications, to social media and internet browsing, Big Data organizations collect swaths of data that shed light on sensitive health information. Big Data organizations largely fall outside of HIPAA’s current framework because of the stringent requirements for when the HIPAA protections apply, namely that the data must be held by a covered entity, and …

The Disappearing Freedom Of The Press, Ronnell Andersen Jones, Sonja R. West

Washington and Lee Law Review

At this moment of unprecedented decline of local news and amplified attacks on the American press, scholars are increasingly turning their attention to the Constitution’s role in protecting journalism and the journalistic function. Recent calls by some U.S. Supreme Court Justices to reconsider the core press-protecting precedent from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan have intensified these conversations. This scholarly dialogue, however, appears to be taking place against a mistaken foundational assumption that the U.S. Supreme Court continues to articulate and embrace at least some notion of freedom of the press. Yet despite the First Amendment text specifically referencing it …

January 6, Ambiguously Inciting Speech, And The Overt-Acts Rule, Alan Z. Rozenshtein, Jed Handelsman Shugerman

Faculty Scholarship

A prosecution of Donald Trump for his role in the January 6 attack on the Capitol would have to address whether the First Amendment protects the inflammatory remarks he made at the “Stop the Steal” rally. A prosecution based solely on the content of Trump’s speech—whether for incitement, insurrection, or obstruction—would face serious constitutional difficulties under Brandenburg v. Ohio’s dual requirements of intent and likely imminence. But a prosecution need not rely solely on the content of Trump’s speech. It can also look to Trump’s actions: his order to the remove the magnetometers from the entrances to the rally and …

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

Presentations

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment And The Regulation Of Speech Intermediaries, Shaun B. Spencer

Marquette Law Review

Calls to regulate social media platforms abound on both sides of the political spectrum. Some want to prevent platforms from deplatforming users or moderating content, while others want them to deplatform more users and moderate more content. Both types of regulation will draw First Amendment challenges. As Justices Thomas and Alito have observed, applying settled First Amendment doctrine to emerging regulation of social media platforms presents significant analytical challenges.

Weaponizing Proof Of Harm In First Amendment Cases: When Scientific Evidence And Deference To The Views Of Professional Associations Collide In The Battle Against Conversion Therapy, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article uses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit’s divided decision in Otto v. City of Boca Raton in late 2020 as a springboard for examining battles in First Amendment jurisprudence over proof of causation of harm and the level of deference owed to the judgments of learned societies. A two-judge majority held in Otto that a pair of local ordinances banning speechbased conversion therapy on minors violated the First Amendment, with those measures failing the rigorous strict scrutiny standard of review. Crucial to the majority’s ruling was its conclusion that insufficient evidence exists that conversion therapy—also …

Inherent Powers And The Limits Of Public Health Fake News, Michael P. Goodyear

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In a Vero Beach, Florida, supermarket, Susan Wiles rode her motorized cart through the produce aisle. In any year other than 2020 or 2021, this would have been a routine trip to the grocery store. But in 2020, Mrs. Wiles was missing an accessory that had become ubiquitous in society during that year: a face mask. Despite causing a commotion, Mrs. Wiles stood by her decision, claiming that the concerns about COVID-19 were overblown: “I don’t fall for this. It’s not what they say it is.” Mrs. Wiles’ statement is emblematic of the year 2020. This is not the …

Maritime Magic: How Cruise Lines Can Avoid State Law Compliance Through Passenger Contracts, Cameron Chuback

University of Miami Law Review

Florida Statutes section 381.00316 prohibits businesses in Florida from requiring consumers to provide documentary proof of COVID-19 vaccination to access businesses’ goods and services. Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings (“NCLH”) has recently challenged section 381.00316’s applicability to its cruise operations because NCLH believes that requiring its passengers to provide documentary proof of COVID-19 vaccination is the one constant that allows NCLH’s cruise ships to smoothly access foreign ports, which have differing COVID-19 protocols and rules. In Norwegian Cruise Line Holdings, Ltd. v. Rivkees, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida ruled in favor of NCLH on this …

Compelled Speech And Doctrinal Fluidity, David Han

Indiana Law Journal

Even within the messy and complicated confines of First Amendment jurisprudence, compelled speech doctrine stands out in its complexity and conceptual murkiness— a state of affairs that has only been exacerbated by the Supreme Court’s decisions in NIFLA v. Becerra and Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees. This Essay observes that as the Court’s compelled speech jurisprudence has grown increasingly complex, it has also manifested a troubling degree of fluidity, where the doctrinal framework has grown so incoherent, imprecise, and unstable that it can be readily shaped by courts to plausibly justify a wide range of …

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Compelled Speech And Proportionality, Alexander Tsesis

Indiana Law Journal

This Article argues for a proportional First Amendment approach to compelled speech jurisprudence. It discusses the evolution of doctrine and how it led to recent opinions finding unconstitutional consumer protection, health disclosure, and collective bargaining statutes. In place of the currently formalistic approach, the Article argues for a transparent balancing of interests to avoid litigants’ opportunistic reliance on categorical First Amendment doctrines. Missing from the recent decisions that relied on the compelled speech doctrine is any systematic or contextual weighing of private and public concerns about disclosure regulations. The Roberts Court has been rather formalistic and categorical in its compelled …

Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.

State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …

Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk

Indiana Law Journal

Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …

Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment …

Nifla And The Construction Of Compelled Speech Doctrine, Robert Post

Indiana Law Journal

Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. There are good and convincing explanations for the Court’s decision in Barnette, but the Court’s recent expansion of the doctrine, culminating in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, holds that compelled speech is in most instances “content-based” regulation requiring heightened judicial scrutiny.

Using examples ranging from professional malpractice to compulsory tax returns, this Article argues that the doctrinal rule of NIFLA is demonstrably incorrect. It suggests that the doctrinal category of “compelled speech” may itself be confused insofar as it imagines that all legal obligations to communicate are equally …

Supreme Court Jurisprudence And School Shooting Threats: A Legal Review, Benjamin P. Comer

Journal of Criminal Justice and Law

This legal review provides a general synopsis of selected school shooting threat cases processed in U.S. Federal courts and specifically emphasizes the interpretive mechanisms employed by judges during the adjudicatory process. Approximately 29 federal cases involving school shooting threats are reviewed, and six different legal tests and rules commonly used by federal courts are discussed in detail. Among other findings, descriptive statistics reveal that a majority of courts employed the Tinker rule when analyzing threats (72.4%) and that the majority of cases involved the application of a single test (72%). Select cases are then discussed which highlight the application of …

The President’S Remedy–What The Hydroxychloroquine Story Teaches Us About The Need To Limit Off-Lable Prescribing Powers, Jennifer Bard

Catholic University Law Review

When the history of the first year of the United States Government’s response to the COVID-19 virus is written, there is likely to be mention of the still unexplained vehemence with which then president Donald J. Trump made use of his access to social media to promote seldom used anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 despite the active growing opposition of most of the world’s scientists, including his own government scientists. While the use of drugs developed and approved by the FDA for different purposes to combat new diseases, off-label prescribing, is legal in the …

The Kids Are All Right: The Law Of Free Expression And New Information Technologies, Mark Tushnet

Catholic University Law Review

Recently the literature on free expression has turned to the question, should the law of free expression be adjusted because of the availability of new information technologies (hereafter NIT), and if so, how? The only thing about NIT that distinguishes them from traditional media is that disseminating expression via NIT is much less expensive than doing so via traditional media. The tenor of recent scholarship on NIT and free expression is that the invention of NIT does support some modification of free expression law. This Essay argues that that conclusion might be correct, but that many of the arguments offered …

Expert Testimony By Public University Faculty: Exposing Doctrinal Deficiencies Of Academic Freedom As A Legal Right And Proposing A Solution Within The Public-Employee Speech Doctrine, Clay Calvert

University of Miami Law Review

When the University of Florida (“UF”) prohibited three professors in 2021 from serving as expert witnesses in a lawsuit filed against the State of Florida, the decision sparked a national debate about academic freedom and free speech at public universities. The professors also sued UF in federal court in Austin v. University of Florida Board of Trustees alleging a violation of their First Amendment rights. This Article asserts that the constitutional doctrine of academic freedom is sadly deficient for resolving such lawsuits. The Article explains, instead, that the public-employee speech doctrine provides the appropriate framework for analyzing cases filed by …

Is Corporate Law Nonpartisan?, Ofer Eldar, Gabriel V. Rauterberg

Articles

Only rarely does the United States Supreme Court hear a case with fundamental implications for corporate law. In Carney v. Adams, however, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether the State of Delaware’s requirement of partisan balance for its judiciary violates the First Amendment. Although the Court disposed of the case on other grounds, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the issue “will likely be raised again.” The stakes are high because most large businesses are incorporated in Delaware and thus are governed by its corporate law. Former Delaware governors and chief justices lined up to defend the state’s “nonpartisan” …

Is Corporate Law Nonpartisan?, Ofer Eldar, Gabriel V. Rauterberg

Law & Economics Working Papers

Only rarely does the United States Supreme Court hear a case with fundamental implications for corporate law. In Carney v. Adams, however, the Supreme Court had the opportunity to address whether the State of Delaware’s requirement of partisan balance for its judiciary violates the First Amendment. Although the Court disposed of the case on other grounds, Justice Sotomayor acknowledged that the issue “will likely be raised again.” The stakes are high because most large businesses are incorporated in Delaware and thus are governed by its corporate law. Former Governors and Chief Justices of Delaware lined up to defend the state’s …

Forbidden Forests: Negotiating Censorship In Children's And Young Adult Literature During A New Era Of Conservatism In 2022 And Beyond, Avila Hendricks

Title III Professional Development Reports

Harambee! In Swahili, “Harambee” means “All pull together!” The impetus for this report grew out of a unifying discussion with other 2022 Children's Literature Association (ChLA) conference attendees.These discussions led to the decision to “pull together” against the rise of “extreme” conservatism and the increase of banned books across the United States.

This report offers insight into some of the issues surrounding the increase in censorship in children's and young adult literature. It includes a brief review of the recently scrutinized book, Dear Martin by Nic Stone, and it concludes with some recommendations for negotiating censorship in conservative communities.

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Most Favored Racial Hierarchy: The Ever-Evolving Ways Of The Supreme Court's Superordination Of Whiteness, David Simson

Articles & Chapters

This Article engages in a critical comparative analysis of the recent history and likely future trajectory of the Supreme Court’s constitutional jurisprudence in matters of race and religion to uncover new aspects of the racial project that Reggie Oh has recently called the “racial superordination” of whiteness—the reinforcing of the superior status of whites in American society by, among other things, prioritizing their interests in structuring constitutional doctrine. This analysis shows that the Court is increasingly widening the gap between conceptions of, and levels of protection provided for, equality in the contexts of race and religion in ways that prioritize …

Hopefully Enduring: How North Carolina’S Divorce Laws Violate The First Amendment, Maren H. Lowrey

Child and Family Law Journal

The phrase “til death do us part” is both poetic and aspirational. It is the ubiquitous vow Americans make to one another when they marry[1] and embark on what is “hopefully enduring.”[2] But life does not always meet the aspirational marks we set and that is most true in the context of marriage and divorce. Each state enjoys nearly exclusive control over this intimate relationship, which results in different regulatory schemes across the United States.[3] Changes in Supreme Court jurisprudence over time ensured state regulation of marriage did not run afoul of the Constitution.[4] These decisions …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative, Megan M. Wold, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 22-cv-000067
Columbus City School District v. State of Ohio

Judge Jaiza N. Page

From the Summary of Argument

Under Count 4 of their complaint, the plaintiffs ask this Court to do something that it unquestionably may not: invalidate Ohio's longstanding EdChoice Scholarship Program on the theory that it violates the "no-funding" provision of Article VI, § 2 of the Ohio Constitution, which bars any "religious or other sect" from receiving "any part of the school funds of this state." See Compl. ¶¶ 142-52. Under both state and federal law, this Court must dismiss that claim.

Brief Of Amici Curiae Catholic Medical Association And Coptic Medical Association Of North America In Support Of Appellees, Eric N. Kniffin, John A. Meiser, Francesca M. Genova

Court Briefs

No. 2021CA1855
Barbara Morris v. Centura Health Corporation

Appeal from: Colorado District Court, Arapahoe County Case No. 2019CV31980 (Hon. Peter Frederick Michaelson)

From the Summary of Argument

At its core, this case concerns a religious hospital’s right to provide care in accordance with its faith commitments. Centura Health is a Christian healthcare system that is composed of Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist hospitals, including St. Anthony Hospital, the Catholic Hospital for which Dr. Morris worked. In service of their religious mission, Centura Health and St. Anthony Hospital (collectively, “Centura”) require their doctors to abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives for …

How Favored, Exactly? An Analysis Of The Most Favored Nation Theory Of Religious Exemptions From Calvary Chapel To Tandon, Luray Buckner

Notre Dame Law Review

In this Note, I argue that Justice Kavanaugh’s most favored nation test for religious exemptions actually differs from the one employed by the majority of the Court in Tandon. The majority’s formulation of the test is vague and explicitly requires courts to engage in a fact-intensive comparability analysis. Practically, lower courts applying Tandon to religious exemption questions have exploited this comparability step to rule against religious claimants generally, but more specifically to deny them strict scrutiny. Because the Tandon test was formulated to apply to all free exercise claims, the test is necessarily framed in more general terms and …