Constitutional Law Commons^™

Bart Cell Phone Service Shutdown: Time For A Virtual Forum?, Rachel Lackert

Federal Communications Law Journal

The balancing act between protecting First Amendment rights and the necessity of law enforcement to maintain the public order is not simple under normal circumstances. On August 11, 2011, San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit ("BART") created a paradigm embodying the very essence of this problem by shutting down cell phone and Internet service to prevent citizens from organizing and planning a protest. Both the constitutional and telecommunications law implications of BART's cell phone and Internet shutdown beg for analysis and reform, especially in an age of rapidly advancing technology. This Note analyzes the legal implications of BART's shutdown, and …

Qualifying Qualified Immunity, John C. Williams

Vanderbilt Law Review

I imagine Leslie Weise and Alex Young had similar feelings when, in 2005, they attended a government-funded speech by President George W. Bush in Denver. But those feelings appear to have been mixed with ones of discontent and dissent toward the President-for the pair arrived in a car with a bumper sticker reading "No More Blood for Oil," an obvious jab at Bush's Iraq War policies. On instructions from the White House Advance Office, a volunteer named Michael Casper approached Weise and Young at their seats and ejected them from the event. The Secret Service later told Weise and Young …

Knox V. Service Employees International Union: Balancing The First Amendment With Fairness Under Union-Shop Agreements, Donata Marcantonio

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Dueling Values: The Clash Of Cyber Suicide Speech And The First Amendment, Thea E. Potanos

Chicago-Kent Law Review

On March 15, 2011, William Melchert-Dinkel, a Minnesota nurse, was convicted of two counts of assisted suicide, based solely on things he said in emails and online chat rooms. This note examines whether cyber speech encouraging suicide, such as Melchert-Dinkel's, should be protected by the First Amendment. States have compelling interests in preserving life, preventing suicide, and protecting vulnerable persons from abuse, and the majority of them have assisted suicide statutes that could be applied to cyber-suicide speech. However, because cyber- suicide speech does not fit neatly into recognized categories of "low-value" or unprotected speech, punishment may be foreclosed by …

Indecent Exposure: Fcc V. Fox And The End Of An Era, David Houska

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

The Structural Constitutional Principle Of Republican Legitimacy, Mark D. Rosen

All Faculty Scholarship

Representative democracy does not spontaneously occur by citizens gathering to choose laws. Instead, republicanism takes place within an extensive legal framework that determines who gets to vote, how campaigns are conducted, what conditions must be met for representatives to make valid law, and many other things. Many of the “rules-of-the-road” that operationalize republicanism have been subject to constitutional challenges in recent decades. For example, lawsuits have been brought against “partisan gerrymandering” (which has led to most congressional districts not being party-competitive, but instead being safely Republican or Democratic) and against onerous voter identification requirements (which reduce the voting rates of …

Foreword: Constitutional Constraints State Health Care & Privacy Regulation After Sorrell V. Ims Health, John M. Greabe

Law Faculty Scholarship

This brief Foreword explains that First Amendment law is fertile ground for analysis under choice of law principles. It then opines that the majority and dissenting opinions in Sorrell v. IMS Health are rooted in different choices of law that would benefit from a more explicit acknowledgment and explanation.

Foia And The First Amendment: Representative Democracy And The People's Elusive "Right To Know", Barry Sullivan

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Privacy And The Right Of Free Expression, John A. Humbach

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Nobody likes to be talked about but everybody likes to talk. Trying to stop the dissemination of private information is, however, an impingement on free expression and the freedom to observe. A freestanding “right of privacy” that violates these interests is constitutionally permissible only if it can be justified using one of the standard bases for allowing restrictions on First Amendment rights. The three most likely possibilities are that the law in question: (1) can pass strict scrutiny, (2) fall within a recognized “categorical” exception, or (3) places only an “incidental” burden on First Amendment interests. Of these three, only …

Not A Free Press Court?, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

The last decade has been tumultuous for print and broadcast media. Daily newspaper circulation continues to fall precipitously, magazines struggle to survive, and network television audiences keep shrinking. In the meanwhile, cable news is prospering, mobile devices are contributing to increased news consumption, and many new media outlets appear to be thriving. Despite the dynamism in the media industry, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has taken up relatively few First Amendment cases directly involving the media. The Court has addressed a number of important free speech cases since 2005, but thus far the only Roberts Court decisions …

Municipal Liability And Liability Of Supervisors: Litigation Significance Of Recent Trends And Developments, Karen Blum, Celeste Koeleveld, Joel B. Rudin, Martin A. Schwartz

Touro Law Review

"The purpose of this presentation is to examine two recent Supreme Court decisions, Connick v. Thompson and Ashcroft v. Iqbal with an eye to their impact on how lower federal courts will assess such claims in the wake of new constraints imposed by these cases. The focus of the discussion will be on developments in single-incident liability cases after Connick and supervisory liability claims after Iqbal."

Secrets, Lies, And Disclosure, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay suggests that we can sometimes understand those who resist campaign disclosure or disclaimer requirements as interested in keeping a secret and occasionally even in telling a sort of lie about the source or intensity of support for a particular candidate or cause. Such secrets and lies threaten listeners’ autonomy interests when the speaker seeks to keep such secrets (and sometimes seeks to tell such lies) to enhance her ability to influence her listeners’ decisions. For these reasons, I suggest greater attention to the reasons speakers seek to keep secrets (or occasionally tell such lies) in assessing the …

Decoding First Amendment Coverage Of Computer Source Code In The Age Of Youtube, Facebook And The Arab Spring, Jorge Roig

Scholarly Works

Computer source code is the lifeblood of the Internet. It is also the brick and mortar of cyberspace. As such, it has been argued that the degree of control that a government can wield over code can be a powerful tool for controlling new technologies. With the advent and proliferation in the Internet of social networking media and platforms for the publication and sharing of user-generated content, the ability of individuals across the world to communicate with each other has reached truly revolutionary dimensions. The influence of Facebook in the popular revolutions of the Arab Spring has been well documented. …

Layshock Ex Rel. Layshock V. Hermitage School District, Matthew Beatus

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

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, …

Hosanna-Tabor, Religious Freedom, And The Constitutional Structure, Richard W. Garnett, John M. Robinson

Journal Articles

From the Introduction

Our Constitution, which is both an act and artifact of "We the People of the United States," "vest[s]" certain "powers" - some, but not all - in the national government. Those powers are enumerated, and also separated, checked, and constrained. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it last June, this government "possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder." It is designed and structured in such a way as to make it workable, capable, and effective, but also to - by virtue of its design and structure, and not only through explicit prohibitions …

Factions For The Rest Of Us, John D. Inazu

Scholarship@WashULaw

This essay responds to essays by Professors Ashutosh Bhagwat, Susan Appleton, and Robert Vischer on my book Liberty’s Refuge: The Forgotten Freedom of Assembly. The essays were presented at a March 2012 discussion hosted by Washington University School of Law that included additional presentations from Gregory Magarian, Bernadette Meyler, Ian MacMullen, and Neil Richards.

I had three objectives in writing Liberty’s Refuge, one diagnostic, one historical, and one normative. The diagnosis highlights difficulties with the current doctrine of intimate and expressive association. The history excavates the prominent role that the right of assembly occupies in our constitutional and popular past. …

Incitement To Riot In The Age Of Flash Mobs, Margot E. Kaminski

Publications

As people increasingly use social media to organize both protests and robberies, government will try to regulate these calls to action. With an eye to this intensifying dynamic, this Article reviews First Amendment jurisprudence on incitement and applies it to existing statutes on incitement to riot at a common law, state, and federal level. The article suggests that First Amendment jurisprudence has a particularly tortuous relationship with regulating speech directed to crowds. It examines current crowd psychology to suggest which crowd behavior, if any, should as a matter of policy be subject to regulation. It concludes that many existing incitement-to-riot …

Lies And The Constitution, Helen Norton

Publications

Although the Supreme Court declared almost forty years ago that “there is no constitutional value in false statements of fact,” the Court in United States v Alvarez ruled that the First Amendment protects at least some -- and perhaps many -- intentional lies from government prohibition. In Alvarez, a divided Court struck down the Stolen Valor Act, a federal statute that made it a crime for any person to state falsely that he or she had received a military decoration or medal. In three separate opinions, all of the Justices agreed that the First Amendment permits the government to …

Government Speech In Transition, Helen Norton

Publications

This symposium essay explores the legacy of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n. There the Court offered its clearest articulation to date of its emerging government speech doctrine. After characterizing contested expression as the government’s, the Court then held such government speech to be exempt from free speech clause scrutiny. In so doing, the Court solved at least one substantial problem, but created others that remain unresolved today. On one hand, Johanns marked the Court’s long overdue recognition of the ubiquity and importance of government speech, appropriately exempting the government’s own expressive choices from free …

Unconstitutional Conditions: The Irrelevance Of Consent, Philip A. Hamburger

Faculty Scholarship

Unconstitutional conditions are a conundrum. On the one hand, if government can spend, why can't it place whatever conditions it wants on its spending? On the other hand, if it can place any conditions on spending, won't it be able to impose restrictions that evade much of the Constitution, including most constitutional rights? This enigma is notoriously complex, and unconstitutional conditions therefore are considered a sort of Gordian knot.

The standard solution is to slice through the knot with consent to conclude that consent excuses otherwise unconstitutional restrictions. This solution, however, is problematic, for it concedes that the government can …

Rescuing The Dignitary Torts From The Constitution, Cristina Carmody Tilley

Faculty Publications

The rights of individuals to recover for dignitary torts has been withering for the past forty years, since the Supreme Court constitutionalized the state common law tort of defamation in New York Times v. Sullivan in 1964. The Court announced in that case that the First Amendment required it to impose high standards for individual defamation claims in order to protect robust speech. As that principle has taken hold, it has in effect squeezed the rights of individuals to recover for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as defamation. Just last Term, the Court held …

Public Corruption Concerns And Counter-Majoritarian Democracy Definition In Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission, Daaron Kimmel

Chicago-Kent Law Review

In determining the shape of the free speech rights and anti-corruption concerns that courts must balance in campaign finance cases, judges are influenced by their own underlying understandings of what an ideal democracy should look like. For judges to decide whether the government is appropriately regulating the political process, the rules that allow all citizens to interact with and shape their democracy, judges must first decide what that democracy ought to look like. This affords judges a great deal of discretion in campaign finance cases. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a particularly bold judicial attempt to reshape the …

The "Strong Medicine" Of The Overbreadth Doctrine: When Statutory Exceptions Are No More Than A Placebo, Christopher A. Pierce

Federal Communications Law Journal

In United States v. Stevens, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a federal statute criminalizing the interstate sale and distribution of depictions of animal cruelty on First Amendment grounds. While Stevens demonstrates the Court's reluctance to create a new category of speech outside of First Amendment protection, Stevens also stands for the proposition that borrowing the exceptions clause from the Court's obscenity standard will not adequately protect a statute from invalidation as overbroad. This Note discusses the use of the obscenity standard's exceptions clause in nonobscenity statutes and the Court's treatment of the exceptions clause in Stevens. This Note concludes …

It’S My Church And I Can Retaliate If I Want To: Hosanna-Tabor And The Future Of The Ministerial Exception, Brad Turner

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

No abstract provided.

Reason, The Common Law, And The Living Constitution (Review Of The Living Constitution By David Strauss), Matthew J. Steilen

Book Reviews

This article reviews David Strauss’s recent book, The Living Constitution. The thesis of Strauss’s book is that constitutional law is a kind of common law, based largely on judicial precedent and common-sense judgments about what works and what is fair. Strauss argues constitutional doctrines prohibiting discrimination and protecting free speech have a common law basis, and that the originalist would have to reject them. However, it is unclear that the common law can justify these rights. This review examines Strauss’s account of the common law and shows why it cannot justify our First Amendment protections of subversive advocacy, as Strauss …

First Amendment Freedom Of Speech And Religion - October 2009 Term, Burt Neuborne, Michael C. Dorf

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Taxes, Free Expression, And Adult Entertainment, Steve R. Johnson

Scholarly Publications

The interaction of morality and money produces interesting results. One manifestation is legislation in some states and proposals in others to impose higher taxes on “gentlemen’s show lounges” (OK, I mean strip clubs) and other venues of adult entertainment.

In 2010 and 2011 two state supreme courts passed on the legality of different forms of those taxes, upholding them against challenges that they infringed on free speech/free expression rights protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This installment of the column considers those two decisions: the February 2010 Utah decision in Bushco v. Utah State Tax Commi …

Religious Truth, Pluralism, And Secularization: The Shaking Foundations Of American Religious Liberty, Daniel O. Conkle

Articles by Maurer Faculty

In this Essay, I recount John Locke’s 1689 Letter Concerning Toleration and explain how religious liberty continues to rest on Lockean and related justifications. These various justifications depend in part on religious-moral reasoning (both Christian and non-Christian) and in part on political-pragmatic considerations. I then discuss recent and ongoing developments in the American religious landscape, including a radical increase in religious diversity, the modernization of traditional faiths, the individualization or "spiritualization" of religion, and the increasing secularization of individual belief structures. I suggest that these developments, over time, may seriously threaten the underlying religious-moral and political-pragmatic foundations of religious liberty …

Awakening The Press Clause, Sonja R. West

Scholarly Works

The Free Press Clause enjoys less practical significance than almost any other constitutional provision. While recognizing the structural and expressive importance of a free press, the Supreme Court has never recognized explicitly any right or protection as emanating solely from the Press Clause. Recently in the Court’s Citizens United decision, Justices Stevens and Scalia reignited the 30-year-old debate over whether the Press Clause has any function separate from the Speech Clause.

The primary roadblock to recognizing independent meaning in the Press Clause is the definitional problem - who or what is the “press”? Others have attempted to define the press, …