First Amendment Commons^™

Fumbling The First Amendment: The Right Of Publicity Goes 2-0 Against Freedom Of Expression, Thomas E. Kadri

Michigan Law Review

Two circuits in one summer found in favor of college athletes in right-of-publicity suits filed against the makers of the NCAA Football videogame. Both panels split 2–1; both applied the transformative use test; both dissenters predicted chilling consequences. By insisting that the likeness of each player be “transformed,” the Third and Ninth Circuits employed a test that imperils the use of realistic depictions of public figures in expressive works. This standard could have frosty implications for artists in a range of media: docudramas, biographies, and works of historical fiction may be at risk. This Comment examines the tension between the …

Hobby Lobby And The Pathology Of Citizens United, Ellen D. Katz

Articles

Four years ago, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission held that for-profit corporations possess a First Amendment right to make independent campaign expenditures. In so doing, the United States Supreme Court invited speculation that such corporations might possess other First Amendment rights as well. The petitioners in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius are now arguing that for-profit corporations are among the intended beneficiaries of the Free Exercise Clause and, along with the respondents in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, that they also qualify as “persons” under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). Neither suggestion follows inexorably from Citizens United, …

The Aftermath Of Hobby Lobby: Hsas And Hras As The Least Restrictive Means, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., the United States Supreme Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) does not require closely-held corporations’ employer-sponsored medical plans to provide forms of contraception that shareholders of such corporations object to on religious grounds. The question now raised is how the President, Congress, and the departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Treasury and Labor, ought to respond to the Hobby Lobby decision.

Getting Down To (Tattoo) Business: Copyright Norms And Speech Protections For Tattooing, Alexa L. Nickow

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

What level of First Amendment protection should we afford tattooing? General public consensus formerly condemned tattoos as barbaric, but the increasingly diverse clientele of tattoo shops suggests that tattoos have become more mainstream. However, the law has struggled to adjust. The recent proliferation of municipal near-bans on tattooing has brought tattooing to the forefront of First Amendment debates, with cases such as Anderson and Coleman leading the way toward recognizing tattooing as pure speech. Tensions between formal and informal copyright norms in the tattoo industry further highlight the collaborative and expressive nature of the artist-customer relationship and its resulting products, …

Brief Of Eugene Volokh, Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, Timothy Zick, William E. Lee, Alan K. Chen, & Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr. As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin C. Walsh, Matthew A. Fitzgerald, Andriana S. Daly, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 12-1168
Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley

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

From the Summary of Argument

Even many steadfast supporters of abortion rights believed that the Court erroneously applied the First Amendment in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000). As put bluntly by leading liberal scholar Professor Laurence Tribe, Hill was among the candidates for “most blatantly erroneous” decisions of the 1999 Term. Tribe added that the case was “slam-dunk simple” yet the Court got it “slam-dunk wrong.”

Specifically, pro-choice and pro-life scholars alike agreed that the …

The Judicial Politics Of Obscenity , Robert Rosenblum

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Brief Of Richard W. Garnett, Michael Stokes Paulsen, & Eugene Volokh As Amici Curiae In Support Of Petitioners, Kevin C. Walsh, Ryan A. Shores, Richard W. Garnett

Court Briefs

No. 12-1168
Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley

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

From the Summary of Argument

This Court granted certiorari in Hill v. Colorado “[b]ecause of the importance of the case.” 530 U.S. 703, 714 (2000). The Court should grant certiorari in this case because of the importance of placing limits on Hill.

The Court does not need to overrule Hill to contain the damage wrought by the First Circuit’s expansion of it. But the Court should contain Hill and thereby prevent further erosion of …

A Barometer Of Freedom Of The Press: The Opinions Of Mr. Justice White , Michael J. Armstrong

Pepperdine Law Review

Since the Zurcher v. Stanford Daily decision which was authored by Justice Byron F. White, the news media has become increasingly concerned with its' first amendment protections from governmental searches. Since Justice White has been the voice of the United States Supreme Court on this very issue, the author submits that an examination of Justice White's media related opinions can serve as a "barometer" for the constitutional protections of the news media. The author examines the use of Justice White to the Supreme Court, his staunch adherence to stare decisis, and the historical foundation of the first amendment as they …

Chandler V. Florida: Cameras, Courts, And The Constitution, Allen F. Camp

Pepperdine Law Review

The rising importance of television journalism in the 1960's has resulted in the Supreme Court deciding whether a criminal defendant's due process rights are violated by camera coverage of the courtroom proceeding. The decision of Chandler v. Florida clearly provides the answer; for unless a defendant proves prejudice with specificity, the Constitution does not ban televised criminal trials. The author examines the issues with a revealing historical perspective. He then traces the Court's factual and legal analysis and concludes that the decision will serve to offer the states guidance in deciding whether to implement a program allowing television coverage of …

Religion And First Amendment Prosecutions: An Analysis Of Justice Black's Constitutional Interpretation, Constance Mauney

Pepperdine Law Review

Justice Hugo L. Black served on the United States Supreme Court over a period of thirty-four years, encompassing Supreme Court terms from 1937 to 1971. During this period, the subject of the constitutional limitations of the freedom of religion was increasingly subjected to intense social pressures. Justice Black figured prominently in the development of constitutional law as the Supreme Court attempted to give meaning to the establishment and free exercise clause of the first amendment. He wrote the majority opinions which dealt with the establishment clause in the Everson, McCulloin, Engel and Torcaso cases. Yet, on later occasions, Justice Black …

Free Exercise Of Religion Before The Bench: Empirical Evidence From The Federal Courts, Michael Heise, Gregory C. Sisk

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We analyze various factors that influence judicial decisions in cases involving Free Exercise Clause or religious accommodation claims and decided by lower federal courts. Religious liberty claims, including those moored in the Free Exercise Clause, typically generate particularly difficult questions about how best to structure the sometimes contentious relation between the religious faithful and the sovereign government. Such difficult questions arise frequently in and are often framed by litigation. Our analyses include all digested Free Exercise and religious accommodation claim decisions by federal court of appeals and district court judges from 1996 through 2005. As it relates to one key …

Justice O'Connor And The First Amendment 1981-84, Edward V. Heck, Paula C. Arledge

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Analysis Of A First Amendment Challenge To Rent-A-Judge Proceedings , Perry L. Glantz

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Juror Journalism: Are Profit Motives Replacing Civic Duty?, Brent K. Ashby

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

War Of The Words: Why False Statements Should Be Guaranteed First Amendment Protection, Virginia R. Priddy

Georgia Law Review

In Haley v. State, the Georgia Supreme Court upheld
the conviction of Andrew Scott Haley for making a false
statement. Haley created a username and posted videos to
the Internet in which he claimed to have committed a
series of murders, goading his audience to try to solve the
"mysteries." Haley was convicted under a Georgia statute
that proscribes the making of a false statement within the
jurisdiction of an agency or department of state of Georgia.
After discussing the historical legal and philosophical
underpinnings of the First Amendment right to free
speech, this Note argues that the Georgia statute …

Symmetry For Symmetry’S Sake: Why Bose Does Not Require Independent Review Of A Trial Court’S First-Amendment-Favorable Findings Of Fact, Joshua Wurtzel

Cardozo Law Review de•novo

This Note argues that Bose does not support the symmetrical application of independent review of facts by appellate courts in First Amendment cases, regardless of whether the First Amendment claimant won or lost below. While symmetrical procedures and results may be desirable in most parts of the law, symmetry is not required where that symmetry will inhibit a greater constitutional interest. In the independent review context, symmetrical application of Bose results in the reversal of First Amendment wins that would otherwise be upheld under clear error review. This result is clearly antithetical to Bose’s purpose of enhancing First Amendment protections.

The Justices And News Judgment: The Supreme Court As News Editor, Amy Gajda

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Not A Free Press Court?, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

A First Amendment Exception To The "Collateral Bar" Rule: Protecting Freedom Of Expression And The Legitimacy Of Courts, Richard Labunski

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Smile For The Camera - The Long Lost Photos Of The Supreme Court At Work—And What They Reveal., Sonja R. West

Popular Media

In a day when even our cellphones can capture images unobtrusively, why were we forced to stare at pixels on our computer screens or at a static televised image of the Supreme Court’s exterior? In 2012, why is there a wall of separation between the American people and their high court?

For decades, the debate over cameras in the court has gone something like this: the press pleads for permission and the court says no; academics make policy arguments that the court ignores; and Congress threatens to force cameras into the court, but the justices don’t blink. The argument remains …

Putting State Courts In The Constitutional Driver's Seat: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno And Winn, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

This article explores the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. In Cuno and Winn, the Court held that state taxpayers lacked standing in the federal courts. Because the states have more liberal taxpayer standing rules than do the federal courts, Cuno and Winn will not terminate taxpayers’ constitutional challenges to state taxes and expenditures, but will instead channel such challenges from the federal courts (where taxpayers do not have standing) to the state courts (where they do). Moreover, municipal taxpayer standing in the federal courts, which …

Hustler V. Falwell: Worst Case In The History Of The World, Maybe The Universe, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Towards A Balanced Approach For The Protection Of Native American Sacred Sites, Alex Tallchief Skibine

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

Protection of "sacred sites" is very important to Native American religious practitioners because it is intrinsically tied to the survival of their cultures, and therefore to their survival as distinct peoples. The Supreme Court in Oregon v. Smith held that rational basis review, and not strict scrutiny, was the appropriate level of judicial review when evaluating the constitutionality of neutral laws of general applicability even when these laws impacted one's ability to practice a religion. Reacting to the decision, Congress enacted the Relgious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), which reinstated the strict scrutiny test for challenges to neutral laws of general …

Civil Rights, Erwin Chemerinsky

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Does The First Amendment's "Right Of Access" Require Court Proceedings To Be Televised? A Constitutional And Practical Discussion, Audrey Maness

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech, Kathleen M. Sullivan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Standing Still - Did The Roberts Court Narrow, But Not Overrule, Flast To Allow Time To Re-Think Establishment Clause Jurisprudence?, Douglas W. Kmiec

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Government May Not Speak Out-Of-Turn, Steven H. Goldberg

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Association5 was about whether government could compel individual beef producers to pay for general beef advertising credited to "America's Beef Producers;" even if they disagreed with the message and wanted to spend their advertising money to distinguish their certified Angus or Hereford beef. That "compelled subsidy" case became the unlikely authority for a doctrine invented in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum6 that government could discriminate, based on viewpoint, on a subject for which it had no power to act. Each case has been criticized in its own right, but the attempt to make Johanns precedent …

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 …