First Amendment Commons^™

Ai And Government Disinformation: Vaccine Disinformation, Caroline Mala Corbin

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Against Constitutional Rights For Frontier Ai Companies In Government Contracts, Thomas H. Lee

Fordham Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nonhuman Speakers And The Constitution, Helen Norton

Fordham Law Review

Long-standing free speech law sometimes does—and sometimes does not—turn on speakers’ human character. This Essay explores how these doctrinal threads might shape the constitutional doctrine applied to generative artificial intelligence’s (AI) speech outputs if we assume that a human speaker cannot be identified as the creator of those words and images—and that those words and images are nevertheless considered “speech” for First Amendment purposes.

For example, First Amendment doctrine sometimes requires proof of a speaker’s culpable mental state before that speaker can be held liable for what would otherwise be unprotected speech. These requirements seek to prevent the chilling of …

Algorithmic Models And The Freedom Of Speech, Alexander Tsesis

Fordham Law Review

Intentionality and reason are intrinsic features of the human mind that large language models (LLMs) entirely lack. Although LLMs generate natural-language sentences through algorithmic processes, autonomously produced machine speech lacks the consciousness of human speakers. This intrinsic distinction between natural persons and artificial machines is consequential to whether LLM-generated outputs are covered by the First Amendment. Scholars who equate the constitutional value of human speech with algorithmic outputs tend to emphasize the informational value of those outputs to audiences while giving insufficient attention to the absence of machine consciousness. The conscious underpinnings of thought and their relation to constitutional protections …

Preserving Pickering, Deepa Das Acevedo

University of Miami Law Review

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the terminations of employees across dozens of industries and geopolitical environments shocked Americans into wondering whether they had workplace speech rights at all. Indeed, the promise of workplace speech freedom has been narrowing for decades—even for public employees, who enjoy more protections than private employees thanks to the Supreme Court’s landmark 1968 decision Pickering v. Board of Education.

Pickering held that the First Amendment prevents a public employer from summarily dismissing employees based on private speech regarding matters of public concern. Although Pickering’s protections have been narrowed and although they formally …

The Price Of Texas Values: Texas S.B. 22 And Content-Based Film Incentives, Juliana (Ani) Tookoian

Texas A&M Law Review

In 2025, the Texas Legislature enacted Senate Bill 22, committing $1.5 billion to expand the Texas Moving Image Industry Incentive Program and attract film and television production to the state. While the law aims to stimulate economic growth and job creation, it conditions eligibility for financial incentives on vague and subjective standards requiring productions to avoid portraying Texas negatively and to promote “Texas values.” This Comment argues that these content-based restrictions undermine the program’s economic objectives and raise significant First Amendment concerns. By granting state officials broad discretion to evaluate expressive content, the statute risks viewpoint discrimination and the chilling …

Turning The Page Backward: Reconciling The Current Circuit Split On Whether The First Amendment Can Be Used To Challenge Modern Book Banning, Stella Brocker

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Pickering To Participation: Rebalancing Speech And Equality In Government Employment, Madeline Pendleton, David Schultz

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Public employees occupy a uniquely precarious position in American constitutional law. They retain First Amendment rights as citizens while simultaneously operating within institutional hierarchies that may legitimately regulate their expression. Title VII and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protect them from discrimination, yet the doctrinal frameworks designed to safeguard them often pull in opposite directions. This Article examines the resulting doctrinal confusion, arguing that the intersection of the Pickering/Garcetti framework governing public employee speech with Title VII’s hostile work environment doctrine and the Equal Protection Clause’s intent requirement has generated genuine uncertainty about the scope of constitutional protection—uncertainty that …

Voices Of Resistance: The People, The Press, And The Law, Robert S. Chang, Erica Lomeli Corcoran, Memo Torres, Gary Williams, Isais Benavides, Julie Morales, Astrid Hernandez

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

Loyola Public Interest Palooza Panel Transcription

Wednesday, March 25, 2026

Oppression, See Nothing Say Nothing, And Shut Your Mouth, Sandra Rhodes

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

I can remember when I was a child growing up during the 60s and 70s, it was safe to voice your opinion without fear of retribution. Slowly things changed. For years now, I haven’t been comfortable speaking my mind. The fear is real that if you have an opinion, you may lose your job, your home, your family or your safety. I hope these three art works convey that oppression and fear.

Hollywood 2020, Jason Kartez

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

During the pandemic, I spent a lot of time documenting the protests in Los Angeles through drawing and writing in a diary. This image is a recreation from a news image and captures some of the protests I was in during 2020. It is relevant because we need to keep our right to free speech and to nonviolent civil dissidence. When I initially wrote this statement, it was for an art submission for Judy Baca’s nonprofit, the Social and Public Art Resource Center (SPARC), where the piece was put on the wall outside.

Back when I submitted this, I wrote …

Jimmy, Ash, Grandmother, And Monica, Bryan Ida

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

For the past eight years, I have been engaged in “con.Text,” a body of work that examines historic events in the context of the current social and political climate and raises awareness of past abuses and injustices by a government against a targeted minority group.

I research and reference text from government documents, declarations, and other forms of institutional communication, and use these words as my mark to render each person with the very words that affects them. Using words as building blocks in the formation of the image does not define the subject by that language; instead, the words …

Raise A Fist, Philip Bastian

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

I decided to illustrate this piece after learning that the 1928 design of Mickey Mouse was entering the public domain on January 1, 2024. I wanted to interpret this version of the design in a way that felt personal to me, so I drew it in a way that I have never seen before – from a high angle and raising a fist. Comic parody has been common within the media, but I wanted to create an image that was more empowering. I wanted to craft an illustration that is rebellious, cool, and weird.

I Can't Breathe, Sarah S. Bae

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

I took this photograph during the George Floyd protest on the steps of Los Angeles City Hall in 2020. I wanted to capture more than a historic moment and hold onto the emotional gravity that existed in the space between bodies, voices, and institutions. There was a sense of stillness to witnessing our shared humanity, in seeing what compelled people to show up despite fear, social distancing, and uncertainty.

When The Modern Public Square Goes Private: The Supreme Court's Struggle Over Social Media As The New First Amendment Frontier, Jason M. Shepard, Kathleen Bartzen Culver

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2024 decisions in Moody v. NetChoice and NetChoice v. Paxton, the meaning of free expression in the digital age is being rewritten. Our research analyzes how the Court, advocates, and amici invoked decades of First Amendment and media law precedent to define whether social media platforms act as speakers with editorial rights or as common carriers open to regulation. Relevant doctrines include First Amendment implications of medium-specific regulations, common carrier definitions, speaker autonomy, editorial discretion, expressive conduct, intermediate and strict scrutiny analysis, content-based regulations, viewpoint neutrality, and public forum analysis. Drawing on an …

Chin Music: Chilling Legal Advocacy Through Executive Orders Attacking Law Firms, Robert S. Chang

Loyola Interdisciplinary Journal of Public Interest Law

Introduction to amicus brief challenging executive orders targeting law firms.

The amicus brief itself is reproduced as filed with the Supreme Court of the United States.

Fake News From Fake Dudes: Why State Statutes Regulating Political Deepfakes Are Both Necessary And Constitutional, Jay Kennedy

Northwestern University Law Review

As technology advances and more Americans use the internet to get their news, AI-generated “deepfakes” have become a powerful tool for misinformation. One common use of deepfakes is to make fake, but convincing, videos of electoral candidates or government officials. Deepfakes pose particular harm to local governments and officials because, unlike federal leaders, local leaders usually do not have the financial resources to fund the counterspeech sufficient to disprove deepfakes. Thus, to help defend the integrity of local governments, this Note argues that every state should enact legislation prohibiting deepfakes of public officials and proposes a First Amendment-compliant framework for …

What Can States Teach? The Right To Education After Mahmoud, Will Simon

Fordham Law Review

In the summer of 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court set new limits on what public schools could require students to learn. Mahmoud v. Taylor pitted a school district interested in promoting pluralism against religious parents who wished to withdraw their children from classroom instruction that promoted celebration and acceptance of LGBTQ+ people. The Court found a violation of those parents’ constitutional right to freely exercise their religion, which both expanded the control parents can exert over their child’s public school education and increased the likelihood of similar claims going forward. As federal courts hear this newly expanded set of First …

How Did We Get Here?, Michael J. Klarman

Fordham Law Review

President Donald J. Trump’s second administration has transgressed basic rules and norms of democracy and the rule of law in myriad ways. Below, I have laid out my own top ten list of transgressions, though others could surely have made out a good case for their own “favorites.” It would not be difficult to come up with a longer list, yet the purpose of my Levine Lecture is less to describe where we are than to explain how we got here. Following an enumeration of Trump administration transgressions, my lecture turns to two questions. First, why have traditional checks on …

News That Will Not Break: How The First And Fourth Amendments Can Jointly Protect The Press From Secret Government Intrusions Into Newsgathering, Julianna Margolin

Fordham Law Review

The modern constitutional and statutory framework permits the U.S. government to obtain journalists’ confidential source information and work product by secretly serving third-party service providers with subpoenas. While the First Amendment protects journalists and the Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable government searches, new technology and the involvement of third parties complicate the balance between independent newsgathering and government access.

This Note examines reporters’ privilege jurisprudence stemming from the seminal U.S. Supreme Court decision Branzburg v. Hayes, which declined to recognize a categorical privilege. This Note also explores the subpoena power in the digital age as it converges with privacy …

Public Libraries, Limited Forums: Critiquing The Fifth Circuit’S Decision In Little V. Llano County, Spencer Emelia Petrick-Knoll

Fordham Law Review

Conflicts over the collections of public libraries have become increasingly frequent in the twenty-first century. In 2025, the Fifth Circuit held that library collections are government speech, thereby preventing patrons from challenging book removals. This Note critiques that decision and analyzes which First Amendment doctrine should govern the curation decisions of a public library. It examines the historical evolution of the public library and First Amendment doctrine to argue for classification of the public library’s collection as a limited public forum. This classification allows libraries to make reasonable, viewpoint-neutral decisions about retaining books in their collections while ensuring that viewpoint …

Justice Lost And Found Playlist, Njaj Editorial Board

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

No abstract provided.

Oh No, Don't Let The Rain Come Down..., Mervyn Bennun

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

No abstract provided.

The Failure Of Law Reform: Housing Codes, Bans On Retaliatory Eviction, And The Implied Warranty Of Habitability, David Ray Papke

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

No abstract provided.

Unauthorized Practice Of Law Reform And Domestic Violence Advocacy: Advocate Perspectives On Legal Training, Cayley Balser, Stacy Jane

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

No abstract provided.

Introduction, Katherine M. Houlden

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

No abstract provided.

Volume 3, Issue 1 Masthead, Njaj Editorial Board

Nebraska Journal on Advancing Justice

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Professors Mark Storslee, John Meiser, Douglas Laycock, Nathan Chapman, Thomas Berg, Christopher Lund, Michael Helfand, Steven Collis, Meredith Kessler, Carl Esbeck, John Inazu, Asma Uddin, Christopher Hampson, And Kathleen Brady As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Mark Storslee, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 26-257
Mara Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

For more than seventy years, this Court has made clear that a state “may not coerce anyone ... to take religious instruction” or use public schools to “force ... religion on any person.” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314 (1952). For good reason. Doing so advances one of the “true evil[s] of religious establishment" that Founding-era Americans rejected: “the use of government power” to foster “uniformity …

Brief Of Notre Dame Education Law Project, Notre Dame Project On Church, State & Society, Lindsay And Matt Moroun Religious Liberty Clinic, And Union Of Orthodox Jewish Congregations Of America As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Michael A. Helfand, Richard W. Garnett, Nicole Stelle Garnett, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

Nos. 26-193 and 26-240
Bethany M. Hall v. A. Scott Fleming, Cameron Johnson v. A. Scott Fleming

On Petitions for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This Court should grant certiorari to put an end to the damaging effects of Locke v. Davey, 540 U.S. 712 (2004). To begin, as Judge Richardson ably demonstrated in his concurring opinion below, “Locke was wrongly decided.” Hall Pet. App. 14a-18a. What’s more, Locke sits in tension with—and imposes a significant impediment to—this Court’s many recent decisions that aim …

How Law Schools Can Better Cultivate A Culture Of Engagement And Dialogue, Anton Sorkin

Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal

For the last few years, a competing culture has developed on university campuses based on what the National Jurist called the “protest generation.” These developments have seeped into law schools, creating not only tensions with the administrations, but also tensions between student organizations seeking to participate in accordance with their mission and purpose. Given the importance of legal education and the role of attorneys in society, this article advocates for law schools to cultivate a culture of engagement and dialogue by establishing private forums where student leaders may work out their differences in a civil and constructive manner. Within these …