Constitutional Law Commons^™

Why Did Liberals Join The Majority In The Masterpiece Case?, Katherine A. Shaw

Online Publications

It was no surprise that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has cast the decisive vote in so many important Supreme Court cases, wrote Monday’s majority opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips who, on religious grounds, had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

Tipped Scales: A Look At The Ever-Growing Imbalance Of Power Protecting Religiously Motivated Conduct, Why That's Bad, And How To Stop It, Jeff Nelson

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note examines the current state of the law that seemingly allows individuals to harm and discriminate against others on the basis of their protected religious beliefs. This Note also explores how such a result has been made possible and how it may be stymied by judicial and legislative action. Section II discusses a short history of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause leading up to Religious Freedom Restoration Acts, and also includes an examination of both the real and possible harmful effects of RFRAs, current reactions to the application of these laws domestically, and interesting parallels internationally. Section III …

Cheers To Central Hudson: How Traditional Intermediate Scrutiny Helps Keep Independent Craft Beer Viable, Daniel J. Croxall

NULR Online

Independent craft breweries contributed approximately $68 billion to the national economy last year. However, an arcane regulatory scheme governs the alcohol industry in general and the craft beer industry specifically, posing both obstacles and benefits to independent craft brewers. This Essay examines regulations that arguably infringe on free speech: namely, commercial speech regulations that prohibit alcohol manufacturers from purchasing advertising space from retailers. Such regulations were enacted to prohibit undue influence and anticompetitive behavior stemming from vertical and horizontal integration in the alcohol market. Although these regulations are necessary to prevent global corporate brewers from dominating the craft beer market …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Intellectual Property Law Professors, John A. Conway, Mark Mckenna

Court Briefs

No. 18S-CQ-00134
Akeem Daniels v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 17-3051, The Honorable Judge Easterbrook, Circuit Judge

From the Summary of Argument

Untethered to a sufficient public policy interest, right of publicity claims have exploded nationwide. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against inspirational plaques featuring civil rights icons, Rosa and Raymond Parks Inst. for Self Dev. v. Target Corp., 812 F.3d 824 (11th Cir. 2016),artwork commemorating significant events, Moore v. Weinstein Co., LLC, 545 Fed. App’x. 405 , 407 (6th Cir. 2013); ETW Corp. v. Jireh Publ’g, Inc., 332 F.3d 915 (6th Cir. 2003), Wikipedia edits that truthfully connected an astronaut with …

Beyond Headlines & Holdings: Exploring Some Less Obvious Ramifications Of The Supreme Court’S 2017 Free-Speech Rulings, Clay Calvert

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Digging behind the holdings, this Article analyzes less conspicuous, yet highly consequential aspects of the United States Supreme Court’s First Amendment rulings during the opening half of 2017. The four facets of the opinions addressed here—items both within individual cases and cutting across them—hold vast significance for future free-speech battles. Nuances of the justices’ splintering in Matal v. Tam, Packingham v. North Carolina, and Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman are examined, as is the immediate impact of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s Packingham dicta regarding online social networks. Furthermore, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s solo concurrence in the threats case of Perez …

A Tale Of Two Clauses: Search And Seizure, Establishment Of Religion, And Constitutional Reason, Perry Dane

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article dissects two developments in widely separate areas of American constitutional law—the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test for the Fourth Amendment’s Search and Seizure Clause and the “endorsement” test for the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. These two stories might seem worlds apart, and they have not previously been systematically examined together. Nevertheless, the Article argues that they have in common at least three important symptoms of our legal culture’s deep malaise. These three phenomena occur in other contexts, too, but they appear with special clarity and a stark cumulative force in the two stories on which this Article focuses. …

Not Today, Satan: Re-Examining Viewpoint Discrimination In The Limited Public Forum, Daniel Cutler

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The Visibility Value Of The First Amendment, Brian C. Murchison

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Race, Speech, And Sports, Matthew J. Parlow

University of Richmond Law Review

Race, sports, and free speech rights intersected in a very controversial and public way during the 2016 and 2017 National Football League (“NFL”) seasons. On August 26, 2016, Colin Kaepernick spurred a national debate when he refused to stand during the playing of the national anthem before the NFL preseason game between the Green Bay Packers and the San Francisco 49ers, Kaepernick’s team at the time.

Gerrymandering And Association, Daniel P. Tokaji

William & Mary Law Review

No abstract provided.

Law School News: 'Marketplace Of Ideas' Imperiled (04-05-2018), David A. Logan

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Media Centralization Imperils Marketplace Of Ideas 04-05-2018, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

A Penny For Your Thoughts: Free Speech And Paying Fines With Coins, Peter C. Alexander

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Resilient Foundation Of Democracy: The Legal Deconstruction Of The Washington Posts's Condemnation Of Edward Snowden, Hanna Kim

Indiana Law Journal

On September 17, 2016, The Washington Post (“the Post”) made history by being the first paper to ever call for the criminal prosecution of its own source —Edward Snowden. Yet, two years prior to this editorial, the Post accepted the 2014 Pulitzer Prize in Public Service for its “revelation of widespread secret surveillance by the National Security Agency”—an honor which would not have been bestowed had Snowden not leaked the documents through this news outlet. The other three major media outlets that received and published Snowden’s documents and findings—The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Intercept—all have taken the …

The First Amendment And Content Restrictions In State Film Incentive Programs, Dr. Joel Timmer

Loyola of Los Angeles Entertainment Law Review

In recent years, many states have offered incentive programs to lure film production and its associated economic benefits—increased jobs, spending, and tourism—to their states. Several of these programs have restrictions that deny incentives based on a film’s content. For example, Texas denies film incentives to projects that have “inappropriate content” or portray “Texas or Texans in a negative way.” This article concludes that these restrictions do not violate the First Amendment. Two key considerations factor into this conclusion: First, in granting subsidies, the government may apply criteria that would be impermissible in a regulatory context. Second, the denial of a …

Rwu First Amendment Blog: David Logan's Blog: Weather Forecast For March 25: Stormy On 60 Minutes? 03-18-2018, David A. Logan

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

The Bergdahl Block: How The Military Limits Public Access To Preliminary Hearings And What We Can Do About It, Eric R. Carpenter

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl and Private First Class Bradley (now Chelsea) Manning have something in common. Military officials unlawfully closed all or portions of their preliminary hearings to the public. When doing so, military officials exploited two unusual features of the military justice system, thereby denying the accused and the media of their respective Sixth Amendment and First Amendment rights to a public hearing.

The first feature is that the military justice system does not include a standing trial-level court. If there is a problem at the preliminary hearing, the accused and media have nowhere to go for help. The accused …

Maine's "Act To Protect Traditional Marriage And Prohibit Same-Sex Marriages": Questions Of Constitutionality Under State And Federal Law, Jennifer B. Wriggins

Maine Law Review

In 1997, Maine's Legislature passed “An Act to Protect Traditional Marriage and Prohibit Same-Sex Marriages” (Act). The summary attached to the bill states that the bill “prohibits persons of the same sex from contracting marriage.” The bill was the verbatim text of an initiative petition. Civil marriage in Maine and other states is regulated by state statute, and marriage regulation is generally considered to be within the state's police power. However, the state's power to regulate marriage is subject to constitutional limitations. I maintain that “heightened scrutiny” should be applied to the Act because the Act creates a gender-based classification, …

Losing The Spirit Of Tinker V. Des Moines And The Urgent Need To Protect Student Speech, David L. Hudson, Jr.

Et Cetera

Although the United States Supreme Court has held that public school students maintain freedom of speech and expression in school, courts have continued to restrict these Constitutional rights for these students. The speech protective standard from Tinker has gone from being speech protective to a test that favors and is deferential to school officials embroiled in students’ free-speech controversies. We need to regain the attitude of gratitude for students and their rights.

This abstract was written after publication by 2023-2024 Et Cetera Editor-in-Chief Philip Shipman

A Constitutional Counterpunch To Georgia's Anti-Slapp Statute, Nick Phillips, Ryan Pumpian

Mercer Law Review

A "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation"-commonly referred to as a "SLAPP-is a lawsuit intended to chill free speech and healthy public debate and to otherwise intimidate people from speaking out on issues of public concern. True SLAPP suits strike at the heart of the United States and Georgia Constitutions, specifically the rights to free speech and to petition the government enshrined therein. In recent years, state legislatures, including the Georgia General Assembly, have attempted to ward off SLAPP suits through legislation-commonly referred to as "anti-SLAPP" statutes-aimed at the early dismissal of SLAPPs and the award of attorney's fees and costs …

Zombie Religious Institutions, Elizabeth Sepper

Northwestern University Law Review

This Article uncovers and names a phenomenon of pressing importance for healthcare policy and religious liberty law: the rise of zombie religious institutions—organizations that have contractual commitments to religious identity but lack actual attachments to churches or associations of religious people. Contracts create religion—sometimes in perpetuity—for institutions that are not, or never have been, religious and for providers who do not share the institution’s religious precepts. This Article details religion’s spread across healthcare through affiliations, mergers, and—most surprisingly—sales of hospitals that continue religious practice after their connection to a church ends. These contracts require hospitals—secular and religious, public and private, …

The Public Defender's Pin: Untangling Free Speech Regulation In The Courtroom, Michael Kagan

Northwestern University Law Review

Recent disputes in Ohio and Nevada about whether lawyers should be allowed to wear “Black Lives Matter” pins in open court expose a fault line in First Amendment law. Lower courts have generally been unsympathetic to lawyers who display political symbols in court. But it would go too far suggest that free speech has no relevance in courtrooms. This Essay argues for a way to strike a balance.

Rwu First Amendment Blog: Dean Yelnosky's Blog: Ruling Could Destroy Labor Unions As We Know Them 2-26-2018, Michael J. Yelnosky

Law School Blogs

No abstract provided.

When Should Rights "Trump"? An Examination Of Speech And Property, Laura S. Underkuffler

Maine Law Review

In his well-known article, Property, Speech, and the Politics of Distrust, Professor Richard Epstein—a leading contemporary voice in the fields of property theory and constitutional law—makes a simple but compelling argument. There has been, he argues, a mistake in “the dominant mode of thinking about property rights during the past fifty years [that] has been ... of constitutional dimensions.” This mistake, in Professor Epstein's view, is the refusal of the federal courts to accord to individual property rights the same kind of protection from government regulation that is accorded to other constitutional rights. Using free speech as his example, Professor …

The Maine Civil Rights Act: History, Enforcement, Application, And Analysis, J. Christopher Parr

Maine Law Review

Since the passage of the “Maine Civil Rights Act” (MCRA, Act) in 1989, the Maine Department of the Attorney General has made enforcement of that civil “hate crime” law one of its highest priorities. According to one statistic, “more than 125 people have been prosecuted in Maine's civil courts on hate crime charges since 1994,” and only two of those actions have been lost by the State. The Attorney General at the time of this writing, Andrew Ketterer, has stated that he takes the perpetration of hate crimes seriously, and that it has been important to him “that the message …

Where The Right Went Wrong In Southworth: Underestimating The Power Of The Marketplace, Clay Calvery

Maine Law Review

When the United States Supreme Court unanimously declared in March 2000 that mandatory student activity fees at public universities do not offend the First Amendment if distributed in viewpoint-neutral fashion, the decision dealt a severe blow to the conservative movement that had both supported the challenge to fee assessments and long railed against a perceived leftist/liberal bias in higher education. The New York Times, acknowledging the political implications of the case, hailed the Court's decision in Board of Regents v. Southworth as “a surprisingly broad and decisive victory for universities on an ideologically charged issue that has roiled higher education.” …

Life In No Trump: Property And Speech Under The Constitution, Richard A. Esptein

Maine Law Review

The editors of the Maine Law Review have been kind enough to offer me the opportunity to respond to Laura Underkuffler's criticism of my work in her recent Godfrey Lecture, “When Should Rights ‘Trump’? An Examination of Speech and Property,” which appears in the preceding issue. In my earlier writings on constitutional law, more specifically, in my paper, Property, Speech and the Politics of Distrust, I took the position that modern Supreme Court jurisprudence had taken a turn for the worse insofar as it used different standards of review in passing on the constitutionality of legislation. The current position, roughly …

Hate Speech - The United States Versus The Rest Of The World?, Kevin Boyle

Maine Law Review

The search for a commonly agreed upon international legal understanding of the meaning of free speech or freedom of expression, as an individual human right, was a major international preoccupation from the 1940s to the 1980s. During the Cold War it was, of course, also a highly ideological debate. There were three positions, broadly speaking: the Soviet Union and its allies, who had little enthusiasm for the idea at all; the United States, which believed in it—many thought—too much; and the rest, the other Western democracies and developing countries, who tried to hold the middle ground. These contrasting positions were …

“Frankly Unthinkable”: The Constitutional Failings Of President Trump’S Proposed Muslim Registry, A. Reid Monroe-Sheridan

Maine Law Review

On several occasions during the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump endorsed the creation of a mandatory government registry for Muslims in the United States— not just visitors from abroad, but American citizens as well. This astonishing proposal has received little attention in legal scholarship to date, even though Trump has refused to renounce the idea following his election to the presidency. In this Article, I attempt to address President Trump’ s proposal in several ways. First, I aim to provide a thorough analysis demonstrating unequivocally that such a “ Muslim registry,” with the characteristics President Trump has endorsed, would violate …

Religion Lessons From Europe: Intolerant Secularism, Pluralistic Neutrality, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Antony Barone Kolenc

Pace International Law Review

Case law from the European Court of Human Rights demonstrates to the U.S. Supreme Court how a pluralistic neutrality principle can enrich the American society and harness the value of faith in the public sphere, while at the same time retaining the vigorous protection of individual religious rights. The unfortunate alternative to a jurisprudence built around pluralistic neutrality is the inevitability of intolerant secularism—an increasingly militant separation of religious ideals from the public life, leading ultimately to a repressive society that has no room in its government for religious citizens. The results of intolerant secularism are seen in a recent …