Constitutional Law Commons^™

The Media, The Jury, And The High-Profile Defendant: A Defense Perspective On The Media Circus, John C. Meringolo

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Overhyped Path From Tinker To Morse: How The Student Speech Cases Show The Limits Of Supreme Court Decisions--For The Law And For The Litigants, Scott A. Moss

Publications

Each of the Supreme Court's high school student speech cases reflected the social angst of its era. In 1965's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, three Iowa teens broke school rules to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War. In 1983, amidst parental and political upset about youth exposure to sexuality in the media, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allowed the censorship of an innuendo-filled student government speech and a school newspaper article on teen pregnancy and parental divorce. In 2007, Morse v. Frederick paralleled the rise of reality television …

Law School Clinics And The First Amendment, Jonathan L. Entin

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Historical Roots Of Citizens United Vs. Fec: How Anarchists And Academics Accidentally Created Corporate Speech Rights, The General Essay, Zephyr Teachout

Faculty Scholarship

This paper looks at how the early rhetoric around the First Amendment enabled later development of corporate political speech rights.

Cohen V. Google, Inc., Eirik Cheverud

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Curious Life Of In Loco Parentis At American Universities, Philip Lee

Faculty Publications

In this article I trace the legal history, through court opinions, of in loco parentis (Latin for “in the place of the parent”) as applied to the relationship between American universities and their students. I demonstrate that until the 1960s, the in loco parentis doctrine allowed universities to exercise great discretion in developing the “character” of their students without respect to their students’ constitutional rights. The demise of this doctrine forced courts, and universities themselves, to redefine the relationship of universities with their students in important ways.

Citizens United, Stevens And Humanitarian Law Project: First Amendment Rules And Standards In Three Acts, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

A New Approach To Nineteenth-Century Religious Exemption Cases, Jud Campbell

Law Faculty Publications

Scholars frequently cite early nineteenth-century cases to ascertain the original meaning of the Free Exercise Clause. Previous studies, however, have ignored crucial trends in those decisions, thus leading to mistaken emphasis on the denial of religious accommodation claims. This Note argues that prevailing theological views, skepticism of courtroom declarations of religious belief, and contemporary notions of judicial deference better explain nineteenth-century cases than does a wholesale rejection of judicially enforceable religious exemptions. This novel approach clarifies previously unexplained tensions in early free exercise opinions. It also suggests that the Supreme Court’s holding in Employment Division v. Smith is inconsistent with …

Imaginary Threats To Government's Expressive Interests, Helen Norton

Publications

The Supreme Court’s emerging government speech doctrine permits the government to refuse to allow other parties to join, and thus change or distort, its own message. In this way, the government speech doctrine appropriately protects government’s legitimate – and valuable – expressive interests by providing a defense to free speech clause claims by private speakers who seek to compel the government to deliver their own views. Too often, however, governmental bodies are asserting their own expressive interests to claim – and some courts are permitting them to exercise – the power to punish private parties’ speech that does not threaten …

The Equal Protection Implications Of Government's Hateful Speech, Helen Norton

Publications

Under what circumstances should we understand government's racist or otherwise hateful speech to violate the Equal Protection Clause? Government speech that communicates hostility or animus on the basis of race, gender, national origin, sexual orientation, or other class status can facilitate private parties' discriminatory behavior, deter its targets from certain important opportunities or activities, and communicate a message of exclusion and second-class status. Contemporary equal protection doctrine, however, does not yet fully address the harms that such government expression potentially poses. The recent emergence of the Court's government speech doctrine--which to date has emphasized the value of government expression without …

A Standard For Salvation: Evaluating “Hybrid-Rights” Free-Exercise Claims, William J. Haun

Catholic University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Teaching Values, Teaching Stereotypes: Sex Education And Indoctrination In Public Schools, Jennifer S. Hendricks, Dawn Marie Howerton

Publications

Many sex education curricula currently used in public schools indoctrinate students in gender stereotypes. As expressed in the title of one article: "If You Don't Aim to Please, Don't Dress to Tease," and Other Public School Sex Education Lessons Subsidized by You, the Federal Taxpayer, Jennifer L. Greenblatt, 14 Tex.J. on CL. & CR. 1 (2008). Other lessons pertain not only to responsibility for sexual activity but to lifelong approaches to family life and individual achievement. One lesson, for example, instructs students that, in marriage, men need sex from their wives and women need financial support from their husbands. …

Campaign Speech Law With A Twist: When The Government Is The Speaker, Not The Regulator, Helen Norton

Publications

Although government entities frequently engage in issue-related campaign speech on a variety of contested ballot and legislative measures, this fact has been entirely overlooked in contemporary First Amendment debates over campaign speech law specifically and government speech more generally. The Supreme Court's "campaign speech" and "government speech" dockets have focused to date on claims by private parties that the government has restricted or silenced their speech in violation of the First Amendment. In contrast, disputes over what this Article calls "governmental campaign speech" involve Free Speech Clause and other challenges by private parties who seek instead to silence the government's …

Labor Values Are First Amendment Values: Why Union Comprehensive Campaigns Are Protected Speech, Charlotte Garden

Faculty Articles

Corporate targets of union “comprehensive campaigns” increasingly have responded by filing civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) lawsuits alleging that unions’ speech and petitioning activities are extortionate. These lawsuits are the descendants of the Supreme Court’s unexplained treatment of much labor speech as less worthy of protection than other types of speech. Starting from the position that speech that promotes democratic discourse deserves top-tier First Amendment protection, this article argues that labor speech--which plays a unique role in civil society--should be on an equal footing with civil rights speech. Thus, even if union advocacy qualifies as legal extortion, …

Democratic Participation And The Freedom Of Speech: A Response To Post And Weinstein Responses, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

I think it is useful to search for a theory that has as one of its justifications its superior fit with either the case law or the fundamental commitments and shared understandings of the political community, preferably with both. So even if someone were to convince me that she has in hand a normatively superior theory of free speech, whether grounded in the commitment to democracy or otherwise, I would still be interested in what Professors Post and Weinstein are trying to do.

Seana Shiffrin's Thinker-Based Freedom Of Speech: A Response, Vincent A. Blasi

Faculty Scholarship

As an instinctive consequentialist so far as First Amendment theory is concerned, I have to admit that I have never been so tempted by a non-consequentialist account as I am by what Professor Shiffrin has produced. My principal interest is the history of ideas regarding the freedom of speech. I have long been struck by how so many of the canonical writers on the subject have built their arguments from the starting point of the central importance of the freedom of thought. This is true of Milton and Mill in a basic, explicit, straightforward way (if Milton can ever be …

Guns, Inc.: Citizens United, Mcdonald, And The Future Of Corporate Constitutional Rights, Darrell A. H. Miller

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court began its 2009 Term by addressing the constitutional rights of corporations. It ended the Term by addressing the incorporated rights of the Constitution. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a five-member majority of the Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend their own money on political advocacy. A corporation generally is no different than a natural person when it comes to the First Amendment - at least as it relates to political speech. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, a plurality of the Court held that the Second Amendment to the United …

The Architecture Of First Amendment Free Speech, Edward J. Eberle

Law Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review: The Free Press Crisis Of 1800: Thomas Cooper's Trial For Seditious Libel, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article was an invited book review of a book of the same title by Peter Charles Hoffer. Hoffer, Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia, has published this accessible case history as part of the University Press of Kansas’s Landmark Law Cases & American Society series, which he co-edits.

The book discusses one of the cases arising as a result of the Alien & Sedition Act under the presidency of John Adams, mostly targeting Republicans who editorialized against the Adams administration.

From Substance To Shadows: An Essay On Salazar V. Buono And Establishment Clause Remedies, David B. Owens

Articles

Most disputes about the Establishment Clause center on its substantive meaning; whether, for example, a state subsidy promotes religion, the phrase “In God We Trust” can appear on currency, or a display of the Ten Commandments is unconstitutional. Often overlooked and lurking behind these substantive disputes is a question about what remedies are available when an Establishment Clause violation is found. Typically, an injunction prohibiting the subsidy, practice, or display is the choice. In Salazar v. Buono, however, the Supreme Court was confronted with an unusual case for two reasons. First, the doctrine of res judicata formally barred the …

Transforming Property Into Speech, Joseph Blocher

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

From One [Expletive] Policy To The Next: The Fcc's Regulation Of "Fleeting Expletives" And The Supreme Court's Response, Brandon J. Almas

Federal Communications Law Journal

After the broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, during which the lead singer from U2 uttered an expletive on national television, the FCC revisited its prior policy on the use of expletives on the airwaves and declared, for the first time, that "fleeting expletives" are offensive according to community standards and are therefore finable. In a lawsuit filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Fox Television Stations, Inc. along with a number of other broadcasters argued that the FCC's new policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Second …

Examining The Fcc's Indecency Regulations In Light Of Today's Technology, Elizabeth H. Steele

Federal Communications Law Journal

Indecency regulations promulgated by the FCC used to be effective, but today's technological advances call those regulations into question. With the prevalence of digital video recorders and the availability of television shows on the Internet, children have unprecedented access to material broadcast at all times of day. As a result, the "safe harbor" rationale restricting the broadcast of indecent material no longer makes sense. A move toward deregulation is the most logical step to take, as it would prevent any First Amendment violations and would allow the networks freedom to broadcast material that the public may be interested in without …

Huppert, Reilly, And The Increasing Futility Of Relying On The First Amendment To Protect Employee Speech, John Q. Mulligan

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

Hate Speech And Harassment: The Constitutionality Of Campus Codes That Prohibit Racial Insults, Alan E. Brownstein

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

No abstract provided.

The First Amendment Degraded: Milkovich V. Lorain And A Continuing Sense Of Loss On Its 20th Birthday, Richard H. Weisberg

Articles

The article critiques the Supreme Court's decision in Milkovich v. Alabama, arguing that it undermines First Amendment protections by narrowing the distinction between fact and opinion in defamation cases. The Court's ruling, led by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that statements implying false facts are actionable, even if framed as opinions. This decision, the article contends, reverses the constitutional logic of earlier precedents like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which trusted audiences to discern fact from opinion. The article warns that Milkovich erodes the First Amendment's faith in audience discernment, fostering a paternalistic judicial approach that stifles public debate.

Right Labels, Wrong Categories: Some Comments On Steven D. Smith's, 'Why Is Government Speech Problematic?', Alan K. Chen

Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship

This essay is a response to a paper presented by the noted First Amendment scholar, Steven D. Smith, at the 17th Ira C. Rothgerber, Jr. Constitutional Law Conference, “Government Speech in Transition.” In his thoughtful paper, Professor Smith addresses the theoretical underpinnings of free speech analysis as applied to the confounding problem of government speech. He argues that much of the confusion surrounding government speech can be addressed by reaching a clearer understanding of three problems – the unnecessary problem (a misguided commitment to government neutrality), an unnoticed problem (the issue of institutional capture), and the “big” problem (the lack …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Id Software Llc In Support Of Respondents, Paul E. Salamanca, James T. Drakeley, D. Wade Cloud Jr., Kevin J. Keith, J. Griffin Lesher, Amy Yeung

Law Faculty Advocacy

No abstract provided.

Regulating The Airwaves In Israel's Burgeoning Democracy: Why The Israeli High Court Of Justice Should Have Acknowledged Free Speech In The Case Of Arutz Seven, Maya Tarr

Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law

The note examines the role of the Supreme Court of Israel in promoting democracy and freedom of speech, highlighting its interpretation of Basic Laws to include these rights. It critiques the Court's analysis in the Hok Habezek amendment case for not adequately addressing freedom of speech, despite its significant rulings in cases like Kol Haam v. Minister of Interior Affairs.

The Story Of Us: Resolving The Face-Off Between Autobiographical Speech And Information Privacy, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

Increasingly more “ordinary” Americans are choosing to share their life experiences with a public audience. In doing so, however, they are revealing more than their own personal stories, they are exposing private information about others as well. The face-off between autobiographical speech and information privacy is coming to a head, and our legal system is not prepared to handle it.

In a prior article, I established that autobiographical speech is a unique and important category of speech that is at risk of being undervalued under current law. This article builds on my earlier work by addressing the emerging conflict between …