Law Commons^™

Presuming Trustworthiness, Ronnell Anderson Jones, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

A half-century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court often praised speakers performing the press function. While the Justices acknowledged that press reports are sometimes inaccurate and that media motivations are at times less than public-serving, their laudatory statements nonetheless embraced a baseline presumption of the value and trustworthiness of press speech in general. Speech in the exercise of the press function, they told us, is vitally important to public discourse in a democracy and therefore worthy of protection even when it falls short of the ideal in a given instance. Those days are over. Our study of every reference to the …

Executive Discretion And First Amendment Constraints On The Deportation State, Jennifer Lee Koh

Georgia Law Review

Given the federal courts’ reluctance to provide clarity on the degree to which the First Amendment safeguards the free speech and association rights of immigrants, the immigration policy agenda of the President now appears to determine whether noncitizens engaging in speech, activism, and advocacy are protected from retaliation by federal immigration authorities. This Essay examines two themes: first, the discretion exercised by the Executive Branch in the immigration context; and second, the courts’ ambivalence when it comes to enforcing immigrants’ rights to be free from retaliation. To do so, this Essay explores the Supreme Court’s influential 1999 decision in Reno …

Discrimination, Trump V. Hawaii, And Masterpiece Cakeshop, Christopher C. Lund

Georgia Law Review

This short symposium piece is a comment on two of the Supreme Court’s recent religion cases. The first is Trump v. Hawaii, the travel ban case, where the Court rejected the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against Muslims.1 The second is Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case about the baker who refused to make a cake for a gay wedding, where the Court accepted the claim of unconstitutional religious discrimination against a conservative Christian.2 One case finds discrimination, while the other rejects it. Yet more fundamentally, the pairing suggests differences in how we perceive or react to evidence of discrimination. Both on …

Regulatory Constitutional Law: Protecting Immigrant Free Speech Without Relying On The First Amendment, Michael Kagan

Georgia Law Review

The Supreme Court has long deprived immigrants of the full protection of substantive constitutional rights, including the right to free speech, leaving undocumented immigrants exposed to detention and deportation if they earn the government’s ire through political speech. The best remedy for this would be for the Supreme Court to reconsider its approach. This Essay offers an interim alternative borrowed from an analogous problem that arises under the Fourth Amendment. Under the Constitution, the Supreme Court has indicated that illegally obtained evidence may be suppressed in a removal proceeding only if the Fourth Amendment violation was “egregious.” Yet, some circuit …

The Contested "Bright Line" Of Territorial Presence, Shalini Ray

Georgia Law Review

For this symposium on “Immigrants and the First Amendment,” this Essay considers the current scope of First Amendment protection for noncitizens abroad. Courts have interpreted the constitutional rights of noncitizens to vary with factors including status, ties, and location. But in a recent case, Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, the Supreme Court announced that the First Amendment simply does not apply to noncitizens abroad. This Essay considers this new rule and its implications, concluding that a bright-line rule based on territorial presence masks more complex questions about the meaning of “here” and “abroad.”

State Of The Unions: The Impact Of Janus On Public University Student Fees, Jonathan Kaufman

Georgia Law Review

In Janus v. American Federation of State, County,
and Municipal Employees, Council 31, the U.S.
Supreme Court overruled forty-one years of precedent
that had allowed public-sector unions to collect
agency-shop fees from nonmembers. The Court ruled this
mandatory fee collection unconstitutional as a violation
of nonmember First Amendment rights. This decision
may pose problems for other public entities, such as
public universities, who also collect mandatory fees that
support political speech.

Smile For The Camera - The Long Lost Photos Of The Supreme Court At Work—And What They Reveal., Sonja R. West

Popular Media

In a day when even our cellphones can capture images unobtrusively, why were we forced to stare at pixels on our computer screens or at a static televised image of the Supreme Court’s exterior? In 2012, why is there a wall of separation between the American people and their high court?

For decades, the debate over cameras in the court has gone something like this: the press pleads for permission and the court says no; academics make policy arguments that the court ignores; and Congress threatens to force cameras into the court, but the justices don’t blink. The argument remains …

The Monster In The Courtroom, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

It is well known that Supreme Court Justices are not fans of cameras — specifically, video cameras. Despite continued pressure from the press, Congress, and the public to allow cameras into oral arguments, the Justices have steadfastly refused.

The policy arguments for allowing cameras in the courtroom focus on cameras as a means to increased transparency of judicial work. Yet these arguments tend to gloss over a significant point about the Court — it is not secretive. The Court allows several avenues of access to its oral arguments including the presence of the public and the press in the audience, …