Constitutional Law Commons^™

Brief On Appeal Of Defendant-Appellant The Board Of Education Of The Kiryas Joel Union Free School District, George Shebitz, Julia R. Cohen, Nahal Motamed, Nathan Lewin, Richard W. Garnett, Anthony J. Bellia Jr.

Court Briefs

No. 81319
Louis Grumet v. George Pataki

From the Introduction

Chapter 390 is tainted only by its history. On its face, it is a neutral law that raises no serious constitutional doubt. Its objective, as described by the Appellate Division -- "to create a constitutionally valid educational program which meets the special education needs of the disabled students residing in the Village of Kiryas Joel, Orange County" -- is unquestionably legitimate. All the statutory criteria it specifies were ratified by this Court in its Kiryas Joel II opinion as "related to legitimate educational concerns." 90 N.Y. 2d at 72. What …

Legal And Moral Dimensions Of Churchill's Failure To Warn, Anthony D'Amato

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Choppy Waters Are Forecast For Academic Free Speech, Rachel E. Fugate

Florida State University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Rights Against Rules: The Moral Structure Of American Constitutional Law, Matthew D. Adler

Michigan Law Review

The Bill of Rights, by means of open-ended terms such as "freedom of speech," "equal protection," or "due process," refers to moral criteria, which take on constitutional status by virtue of being thus referenced. We can disagree about whether the proper methodology for judicial application of these criteria is originalist or nonoriginalist. The originalist looks, not to the true content of the moral criteria named by the Constitution, but to the framers' beliefs about that content; the nonoriginalist tries to determine what the criteria truly require, and ignores or gives less weight to the framers' views. Bracketing this disagreement, however, …

Rethinking The Clear And Present Danger Test, David R. Dow, R. Scott Shieldes

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

The Moral Failure Of The Clear And Present Danger Test, David R. Dow

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

The clear and present danger test has been used for almost a century to determine the speech the government may restrain. This test assumes that at some point speech transforms into an act and at that moment the speech becomes punishable. Under the clear and present danger test, the First Amendment does not protect speech that is an incitement to imminent lawless action. Professor Dow suggests that the clear and present danger test protects too little speech. He posits that speech should be protected unless the following three conditions are met: (1) the speaker's specific intent in uttering the words …

Justice Or Injustice For The Poor?: A Look At The Constitutionality Of Congressional Restrictions On Legal Services, J. Dwight Yoder

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Upon enacting the Legal Services Corporation Act in 1974, Congress created the Legal Services Corporation (LSC), which provides federal funding to grantees that perform legal services for low-income individuals. In recent years, Congress has enacted restrictions upon grantees' receipt of such federal funding, limiting the legal services these legal aid attorneys can provide to their clients. This move has sparked great debate. Proponents of the restrictions argue that they are needed to correct abuse and misuse of the legal services program, while opponents argue that the restrictions only harm low-income individuals.

In this Note, the author addresses this controversial issue …

Religion-Centered Free Exercise: A Tribute To Justice Brennan, Georgetown University Law Center

Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture

On April 22, 1998, Professor of Law, Stephen L. Carter of Yale Law School, delivered the Georgetown Law Center’s eighteenth Annual Philip A. Hart Memorial Lecture: "Religion-Centered Free Exercise: A Tribute to Justice Brennan."

Stephen L. Carter is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Yale, where he has taught since 1982. Among his courses are law and religion, the ethics of war, contracts, evidence, and professional responsibility. His most recent book is The Violence of Peace: America’s Wars in the Age of Obama (2011). Among his other books on law and politics are God’s Name in Vain: The …

Constitutional Law—First Amendment And Establishment Clause—The Wall Of Separation Crumbles. Agostini V. Felton, 117 S. Ct. 1997 (1997)., Missy Mcjunkins

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Trump?: The Uncertain Constitutionalization Of Structural Regulation Separating Telephone And Video, Susan Dente Ross

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Cable Act of 1984 contained a "cross-ownership" ban, which prohibited telephone companies from entering the local cable video market. Although the ban was challenged by telephone carriers on numerous grounds, the First Amendment was not the basis of any challenge until the mid-1990s when telephone companies sought to characterize themselves not just as carriers but as content suppliers, or "speakers," who were deprived of their right to speak as a result of common carrier regulations that were intended merely to control the economic structure of the communications industry. Using the First Amendment as a new-found constitutional weapon to challenge …

Murder In The Abstract: The First Amendment And The Misappropriation Of Brandenburg, Amy K. Dilworth

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When Paladin Enterprises published Hit Man, a manual about murder for hire, it knew and intended that the book would be used for such a purpose. When James Perry used the information contained in Hit Man to murder three innocent persons, he started a legal debate about the scope of First Amendment protections for books that instruct how to commit criminal acts. Many scholars and commentators indicated that Brandenburg v. Ohio contains the applicable constitutional standard; however, in litigation against Paladin, the survivors of the decedents challenged the conventional wisdom.

This Note examines the Brandenburg test for its applicability to …

Board Of County Commissioners V. Umbehr: The Inadequacies Of Extending Pickering Analysis To Government Contractors, Luther D. Tupponce

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Note challenges the restrictive First Amendment free speech protection that the Supreme Court gave to government contractors in Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr when it applied the Pickering balancing test, developed nearly thirty years ago in Pickering v. Board of Education in the context of government employees. It does so by first questioning whether the First Amendment free speech protections given to government employees should be similar for government contractors. It then explores whether the Pickering balancing test should be applied to cases involving government contractors as it was in Umbehr.

The author concludes that the Court improperly …

The Collision Of Rights In Violence-Conducive Speech, Frederick M. Lawrence

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pentagon Papers - Victory For A Free Press, William R. Glendon

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Pentagon Papers Case And The Path Not Taken: A Personal Memoir On The First Amendment And The Separation Of Powers, Joel M. Gora

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

City Of Boerne V. Flores: A Landmark For Structural Analysis, Marci A. Hamilton

Articles

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Speech - How Does The New York State Constitution Compare To The United States Constitution?, Eileen Kaufman, Leon Friedman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishment Of Religion, Court Of Appeals: Park Slope Jewish Center V. Congregation B'Nai Jacob

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishment Of Religion, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department: Robbins V. Bright

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Court Of Appeals: People V. Tichenor

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Urbach V. Farrell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Political Association, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Kalkstein V. Dinapoli

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

What’S Good For General Motors: Corporate Speech And The Theory Of Free Expression, Howard M. Wasserman

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Court Of Appeals: Rogers V. New York City Transit Authority

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Prying, Spying And Lying: Intrusive Newsgather And What The Law Should Do About Them, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

The media's use of intrusive newsgathering techniques poses an increasing threat to individual privacy. Courts currently resolve the overwhelming majority of conflicts in favor of the media. This is not because the First Amendment bars the imposition of tort liability on the media for its newsgathering practices. It does not. Rather, tort law has failed to seize the opportunity to create meaninful privacy protection. After surveying the economic, philosophical, and practical obstacles to reform, this Article proposes to rejuvenate the tort of intrusion to tip the balance between privacy and the press back in privacy's direction. Working within the framework …

Lisa Herdahl And Religious Liberty , Nadine Strossen

Cleveland State Law Review

Introduction of the ACLU’s Roger Baldwin Medal of Liberty Award honoree, detailing her specific struggle and outlining the larger national picture her case reflected.

New York State Constitutional Law Trends And Developments: Introduction, Howard Glickstein, Barry Latzer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Establishment Of Religion, Court Of Appeals: Grumet V. Cuomo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department: Macfarlane V. Village Of Scotia

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

National Endowment For The Arts V. Finley: Challenging The Facial Challenge, Gloria F. Taft

Campbell Law Review

This Note examines the facial challenge in National Endowment for the Arts ("NEA") v. Finley and how an as-applied challenge may have produced a different outcome. In particular, this Note will analyze the inadequacy of a facial challenge to the "decency & respect" provision, and in the alternative how an asapplied challenge would have invalidated the provision when applied to artists such as the Respondents in Finley.