First Amendment Commons^™

Charting The Course For Use Of Small Unmanned Aerial Systems In Newsgathering, Mickey H. Osterreicher

Pepperdine Law Review

News organizations and individual journalists eagerly anticipate safely utilizing Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (sUAS) for newsgathering purposes as lawmakers integrate sUAS into the National Air Space (NAS). For now, these potential users may be flying over an "unchartered" regulatory landscape while the FAA struggles to complete its administrative rulemaking. In order to better understand how media organizations and individual journalists intend to use sUAS for newsgathering purposes, the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) developed a survey consisting of twenty-one multiple choice questions, with space for elaboration, and three questions seeking narrative responses. The survey was distributed via email to approximately …

Thomas Jefferson And The Establishment Clause, Mark J. Chadsey

Akron Law Review

The purpose of this paper is to ask whether the historical record actually supports either of these assumptions. A note about my mode of analysis is necessary at this juncture. When inquiring about Jefferson’s influence on the Establishment Clause, it is important to focus on the entire process by which it was adopted rather than its mere introduction by Madison in the House of Representatives. Its adoption, after all, required the assent of two-thirds of both chambers of Congress, three-fourths of the state legislatures, and the support of a majority of the American public. Without the requisite support of all …

The Dangerous Right To Food Choice, Samuel R. Wiseman

Scholarly Publications

Scholars, advocates, and interest groups have grown increasingly concerned with the ways in which government regulations—from agricultural subsidies to food safety regulations to licensing restrictions on food trucks—affect access to local food. One argument emerging from the interest in recent years is that choosing what foods to eat, what I have previously called “liberty of palate,” is a fundamental right.1 The attraction is obvious: infringements of fundamental rights trigger strict scrutiny, which few statutes survive. As argued elsewhere, the doctrinal case for the existence of such a right is very weak. This Essay does not revisit those arguments, but instead …

Balancing Disclosure And Privacy Interests In Campaign Finance, Sarah Harding

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

The law of campaign finance pits two important First Amendment interests against each other: disclosure and privacy. The Supreme Court has recognized the need to balance these two interests to allow for effective elections and to safeguard individual rights. However, through the years the Court has failed to balance these interests equally, resulting in vacillating decisions that unfairly sacrifice one for the other. From Burroughs v. United States in 1934 to Citizens United v. FEC in 2010, the Court has failed to provide a workable roadmap for legislatures in the creation of campaign finance disclosure laws and for lower courts …

From Armbands To Douchbags: How Doninger V. Niehoff Shows The Supreme Court Needs To Address Student Speech In The Cyber Age, Allison E. Hayes

Akron Law Review

Part II of this Note discusses the background of First Amendment student speech cases as decided by the Supreme Court as well as a unique classification of lower court holdings. Part III focuses on Doninger v. Niehoff in detail, including the underlying facts, competing arguments, procedural history, and the District of Connecticut’s and Second Circuit’s rationale. Part IV analyzes why this case was wrongly decided and argues that the Supreme Court needs to offer more guidance to lower courts so they may apply a more consistent standard in student speech cases. Further, it suggests a framework courts should adopt in …

The Unconstitutionality Of Ohio's House Bill 125: The Heartbeat Bill, Jessica L. Knopp

Akron Law Review

This Comment analyzes the constitutionality of Ohio’s controversial H.B. 125 under the Fourteenth and First Amendments to the United States Constitution in the context of current United States Supreme Court precedent. Part II outlines Ohio’s current abortion laws, describes Ohio’s role in creating anti-abortion legislation and case law, provides a context of other abortion bills occurring nationwide, and explains H.B. 125. Part III analyzes how H.B. 125 is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment in its current form, analyzes its constitutionality if the bill was modified to be a consent-only bill, and analyzes its unconstitutionality under the Establishment Clause of the …

Recognizing An Academic Freedom Exception To The Garcetti Limitation On The First Amendment Right To Free Speech, Carol N. Tran

Akron Law Review

In order to uphold the integrity of the First Amendment, it is essential that the Supreme Court establish a clear academic freedom exception to First Amendment jurisprudence. This Comment proposes that an academic freedom exception should exist based upon the history of academic freedom. The Comment will also discuss the limits and bounds for such an exception. Part II will begin by looking at the history of First Amendment law surrounding free speech in the workplace. Part III will then examine different circuit approaches to the Garcetti limitation to the First Amendment right to freedom of speech in the academic …

Because I Said So: An Examination Of Parental Naming Rights, Ashley N. Moscarello

Chicago-Kent Law Review

Naming a child is often one of the most exciting parts of having a baby. Some parents, of course, choose to be more creative and unique, which leads to some very interesting names like Toilet Queen, Acne Fountain, Crimson Tide Redd, Messiah, Candy Stohr, and Violence. Although some of these names are quite absurd, should the government be able to tell parents that they have crossed the line?

When parents agree about the name they want to give their child, should the state or courts be able to intervene in that decision if the state has problems with the name? …

House Of Cards: How Rediscovering Republicanism Brings It Crashing Down, Jonathan E. Maddison

Catholic University Law Review

Using Frank Underwood’s maniacal political journey in the Netflix series House of Cards as an example of what is wrong with American politics, this article argues that the Supreme Court’s misapplication of First Amendment principles in Citizens United and other key campaign finance cases plays a large and problematic role. Providing an extensive historical overview of republicanism and First Amendment jurisprudence, this article suggests that a return to republican ideals, while not perfect, is both the solution and proper tool of analysis to be used by the Supreme Court for campaign finance cases and beyond.

Tyranny Of The Arrogant, Ignorant And Intolerant: The Liberal Movement To Undermine Free Speech, Hon. Loretta A. Preska

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Five Justices Have Transformed The First Amendment’S Freedom Of Religion To Freedom From Religion, Gerald Walpin

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

American Civil Liberties Union Of North Carolina V. Tata: Manipulation Of The Government Speech Doctrine Through Specialty License Plates, Kaitlin E. Leary

Maryland Law Review Online

No abstract provided.

Religious Rights In Historical, Theoretical And International Context: Hobby Lobby As A Jurisprudential Anomaly, S. I. Strong

Faculty Publications

The United States has a long and complicated history concerning religious rights, and the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., has done little to clear up the jurisprudence in this field. Although the decision will doubtless generate a great deal of commentary as a matter of constitutional and statutory law, the better approach is to consider whether and to what extent the majority and dissenting opinions reflect the fundamental principles of religious liberty. Only in that context can the merits of such a novel decision be evaluated free from political and other biases.

This …

The Snowden Effect: The Conflict In A Free Society, Who Values Privacy Versus Who Values Security?, Matthew C. Blake

Political Science Theses and Capstones

The Obama Administration has come under scrutiny by both the public and Congress, since former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor Edward Snowden made known the scope of government surveillance programs being utilized by the U.S. government to gather intelligence on domestic citizens. Snowden’s disclosures about the government’s surveillance practices to the mainstream media began in June 2013. I focus on how public opinion towards the government’s surveillance practices and an individual’s reasonable right to privacy has shifted after revelations made by Edward Snowden on the practices of the NSA. Individuals may show support for more government surveillance in the name …

A Quantum Congress, Jorge R. Roig

Chicago-Kent Law Review

This article tries to address the problem of a corrupt and broken electoral system that has been captured by special interests through big money spending in political campaigns, while at the same time preserving the spirit of the Free Speech Clause of our Constitution. In doing so, this article first reviews and summarizes the different alternatives proposed as potential fixes for the campaign finance problem. It then explains why none of the proposed alternatives can accomplish the dual goals set out above. Finally, the article briefly sketches a proposal for a fundamental reworking of our representative democracy by substituting legislative …

The Uneasy And Often Unhelpful Interaction Of Tort Law And Constitutional Law In First Amendment Litigation, George C. Christie

Marquette Law Review

There are increasing tensions between the First Amendment and the common law torts of intentional infliction of emotional distress, defamation, and privacy. This Article discusses the conflicting interactions among the three models that are competing for primacy as the tort law governing expressive activities evolves to accommodate the requirements of the First Amendment. At one extreme there is the model that expression containing information which has been lawfully obtained that contains neither intentional falsehoods nor incitements to immediate violence can only be sanctioned in narrowly defined exceptional circumstances, even if that expression involves matters that are universally regarded as being …

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

Marquette Law Review

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

"The Only Thing We Have To Fear Is Fear Itself": The Constitutional Infirmities With Felon Disenfranchisement And Citing Fear As The Rationale For Depriving Felons Of Their Right To Vote, Erika Stern

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Felon disenfranchisement, a mechanism by which felons and former felons are deprived of their right to vote, is a widespread practice that has been challenged on many grounds. However, felon disenfranchisement has not yet been properly challenged under the First Amendment. This Article argues that states implicate felons’ First Amendment rights through felon disenfranchisement without citing adequate or compelling rationales to justify this severe intrusion. In fact, at least one rationale, a rationale based on the fear of the way felons might vote, is itself inconsistent with First Amendment principles. Disenfranchising felons based on a fear of the way that …

When Rhetoric Obscures Reality: The Definition Of Corruption And Its Shortcomings, Jessica Medina

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Due to public scorn after the unraveling of the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act’s restrictions on political contributions and expenditures. Buckley v. Valeo established that no legitimate government interest existed to justify restrictions on campaign expenditures, and only the prevention of corruption or the appearance of corruption could justify restrictions on campaign contributions. Since then, the Court has struggled to articulate a definition of corruption that balances First Amendment protections with the potential for improper influence. This Article argues that the Court’s current definition of corruption is too narrow, and proposes …

The Original Meaning Of "God": Using The Language Of The Framing Generation To Create A Coherent Establishment Clause Jurisprudence, Michael I. Meyerson

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court’s attempt to create a standard for evaluating whether the Establishment Clause is violated by religious governmental speech, such as the public display of the Ten Commandments or the Pledge of Allegiance, is a total failure. The Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been termed “convoluted,” “a muddled mess,” and “a polite lie.” Unwilling to either allow all governmental religious speech or ban it entirely, the Court is in need of a coherent standard for distinguishing the permissible from the unconstitutional. Thus far, no Justice has offered such a standard.

A careful reading of the history of the framing …

Tort, Speech, And The Dubious Alchemy Of State Action, Cristina Carmody Tilley

Faculty Publications

Plaintiffs have historically used private law torts like defamation, privacy, and intentional infliction of emotional distress to vindicate their dignitary interests. But fifty years ago in New York Times v. Sullivan, the Supreme Court took an unprecedented approach to state action doctrine in order to recast these causes of action as public-private law hybrids that explicitly privileged speech over dignity. In constitutional challenges to private law disputes, the Court had for decades defined the state action under review to include just the contested verdict at issue. In Sullivan, it broke with that practice and defined the relevant state action to …

What's At Stake?: Bluman V. Federal Election Commission And The Incompatibility Of The Stake-Based Immigration Plenary Power And Freedom Of Speech, Alyssa Markenson

Northwestern University Law Review

Section 441e of the U.S. Code prohibits “foreign nationals”—all noncitizens except lawful permanent residents—from making any contribution or expenditure in any federal, state, or local election. In Bluman v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court summarily affirmed a three-judge district court’s decision to uphold the law based on the government’s compelling interest in preventing foreign influence over U.S. elections. Notably, Bluman’s holding was animated by its reasoning that the extent of First Amendment protection should be directly tied to the aliens’ stake in American society—a reflection of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence since the middle of the twentieth century that seeks …

Religious Accommodations And – And Among – Civil Rights: Separation, Toleration, And Accommodation, Richard W. Garnett

Journal Articles

This paper expands on a presentation at a recent conference, held at Harvard Law School, on the topic of “Religious Accommodations in the Age of Civil Rights.” In it, I emphasize that the right to religious freedom is a basic civil right, the increased appreciation of which is said to characterize our “age.” Accordingly, I push back against scholars’ and commentators’ increasing tendency to regard and present religious accommodations and exemptions as obstacles to the civil-rights enterprise and ask instead if our religious-accommodation practices are all that they should be. Are accommodations and exemptions being extended prudently but generously, in …

Foreign And Religious Family Law: Comity, Contract, And The Constitution, Ann Laquer Estin

Pepperdine Law Review

The article focuses on role of the U.S. courts in confronting religious laws in dispute resolution of various cases of domestic relations, contracts, and torts. Topics discussed include role of secular courts in maintaining constitutional balance between the free exercise and establishment clauses, constitutional challenges faced by religious adherents, and importance of legal pluralism in the U.S.

Rethinking The “Religious-Question” Doctrine, Christopher C. Lund

Pepperdine Law Review

The “religious question” doctrine is a well-known and commonly accepted notion about the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses. The general idea is that, in our system of separated church and state, courts do not decide religious questions. And from this premise, many things flow — including the idea that courts must dismiss otherwise justiciable controversies when they would require courts to resolve religious questions. Yet a vexing thought arises. The religious-question doctrine traditionally comes out of a notion that secular courts cannot resolve metaphysical or theological issues. But when one looks at the cases that courts have been dismissing pursuant to …

Response: Situating Ourselves In History, Steven D. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

The author presents his views on history of religious freedom incorporated in his Brandeis lecture and in the book "The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom." Topics discussed include hegemonic status of special protection to religious freedom for legal academics, role of ending religious freedom in providing protection to religious actors under other constitutional provisions like free speech, and impact of ending religious freedom on other freedom like freedom of association.

The End Of Religious Freedom: What Is At Stake?, Nelson Tebbe

Pepperdine Law Review

In recent work, Steven Smith argues that the American tradition of religious freedom is newly imperiled and may even be nearing exhaustion. This Review puts to one side the substance of that argument and focuses instead on what the stakes might be, should it turn out to be correct. It concludes that the consequences would not be as severe as many people fear.

More “Vitiating Paradoxes”: A Response To Steven D. Smith, Paul Horwitz

Pepperdine Law Review

In this article, the author presents his views in response to the article The Last Chapter? by critic Steven D. Smith. Topics discussed include importance of critical legal studies (CLS) theory in reflecting political aspects of religious freedom, views of Smith in his book "The Rise and Decline of American Religious Freedom," and the relationship of egalitarianism with religious freedom.

Theorists, Get Over Yourselves: A Response To Steven D. Smith, Andrew Koppelman

Pepperdine Law Review

In this article, the author presents his views in response to the article The Last Chapter? by critic of contemporary liberal theory Steven D. Smith in reference to his book "Defending American Religious Neutrality." Topics discussed include the political aspects associated with religious freedom, role of secularism in eroding religious freedom, and conflicts between religion and modern secular egalitarianism.

The Last Chapter?, Steven D. Smith

Pepperdine Law Review

An essay is presented in which the author presents contrasting views of law professors at Stanford and Harvard University, Michael McConnell and Noah Feldman respectively on religious freedom. Topics discussed include requirement of special protection to religious freedom, protection of religious belief and expression under other constitutional provisions such as freedom of speech, and the failure of Obama Administration in providing special freedom of association to religious associations.