Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Freedom of speech

First Amendment

University of Oklahoma College of Law

Publication Year

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Law

Rehabilitating Concession Theory, Stefan Padfield Jan 2014

Rehabilitating Concession Theory, Stefan Padfield

Oklahoma Law Review

In Citizens United v. FEC, a 5-4 majority of the Supreme Court ruled that “the Government cannot restrict political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity.” The decision remains controversial, with many arguing that the Court effectively overturned more than 100 years of precedent. I have previously argued that this decision turned on competing conceptions of the corporation, with the majority adopting a contractarian view while the dissent advanced a state concession view. However, the majority opinion was silent on the issue of corporate theory, and the dissent went so far as to expressly disavow any role for corporate …


Tinker Takes On Tatro: The Minnesota Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity, Tracey Wirmani Jan 2013

Tinker Takes On Tatro: The Minnesota Supreme Court's Missed Opportunity, Tracey Wirmani

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.


Walking The Executive Speech Tightrope: From Starbucks To Chick-Fil-A, Loren F. Selznick Jan 2013

Walking The Executive Speech Tightrope: From Starbucks To Chick-Fil-A, Loren F. Selznick

Oklahoma Law Review

No abstract provided.


Too Narrow Of A Holding? How—And Perhaps Why—Chief Justice John Roberts Turned Snyder V. Phelps Into An Easy Case, Clay Calvert Jan 2012

Too Narrow Of A Holding? How—And Perhaps Why—Chief Justice John Roberts Turned Snyder V. Phelps Into An Easy Case, Clay Calvert

Oklahoma Law Review

This article analyzes the United States Supreme Court’s March 2011 decision in Snyder v. Phelps. Specifically, it demonstrates the narrow nature of the holding, and argues that while narrow framing, in the tradition of judicial minimalism, may have been a strategic move by Chief Justice John Roberts to obtain a decisive eight-justice majority, the resulting opinion failed to advance First Amendment jurisprudence significantly. Instead, the outcome simply—even predictably—fell in line with an established order of decisions. This article examines four tactics employed by the Chief Justice to narrow the case in such a way that its outcome was essentially …