First Amendment Commons^™

Ministerial Employees And Discrimination Without Remedy, Charlotte Garden

Indiana Law Journal

The Supreme Court first addressed the ministerial exemption in a 2012 case, Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC. The ministerial exemption is a defense that religious employers can invoke in discrimination cases brought by employees who qualify as “ministerial,” and it is rooted in the First Amendment principle that government cannot interfere in a church’s choice of minister. However, Hosanna-Tabor did not set out a test to determine which employees are covered by this exemption, and the decision was susceptible to a reading that the category was narrow. In 2020, the Court again took up the ministerial exemption, …

Afterword: Latcrit At Twenty-Five And Beyond, Part Ii - Challenges And/As Opportunities: Centering "Hybridized" Advocacy Projects In Antisubordination Praxis To Connect Campuses And Communities For Material Long-Term Progress, Francisco Valdes, Steven W. Bender, Jennifer J. Hill

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Pledge Of Allegiance And Compelled Speech Revisited: Requiring Parental Consent, Caroline Mala Corbin

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court decided West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette in 1943, free speech law has been clear: public schools may not force students to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nevertheless, in two states—Texas and Florida— students may decline to participate only with parental permission. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law on the grounds that the parental requirement furthered parents’ substantive due process right to control the upbringing of their children.

The Eleventh Circuit decision is flawed both in its understanding of the First Amendment right to be free of compelled speech and the …

Compelled Speech And The Regulatory State, Alan K. Chen

Indiana Law Journal

Since the Supreme Court’s 1943 decision in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, it has been axiomatic that the First Amendment prohibits the government not only from censoring speech, but also from compelling it. The central holding of Barnette itself is largely uncontroversial—it seems obvious that the First Amendment’s free speech clause means that no government may require people to espouse or reproduce an ideological statement against their will. But the Court has extended the compelled speech doctrine to stop the government from forcing people to make even truthful, factual statements. These claims have resulted in some of the …

Tort Law Implications Of Compelled Physician Speech, Nadia N. Sawicki

Indiana Law Journal

Abortion-specific informed consent laws in many states compel physicians to communicate state-mandated information that is arguably inaccurate, immaterial, and inconsistent with their professional obligations. These laws face ongoing First Amendment challenges as violations of the constitutional right against compelled speech. This Article argues that laws compelling physician speech also pose significant problems that should concern scholars of tort law.

State laws that impose tort liability on physicians who refuse to communicate a state-mandated message often do so by deviating from foundational principles of tort law. Not only do they change the substantive disclosure duties of physicians under informed consent law, …

Compelled Disclosure And The Workplace Rights It Enables, Catherine Fisk

Indiana Law Journal

Worker and consumer protection laws often rely on the regulated entity to notify workers or consumers of their legal rights because it is effective and efficient to provide information at the time and place where it is most likely to be useful. Until the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra in 2018 that a California law regulating crisis pregnancy centers was an unconstitutional speaker-based, contentdiscriminatory regulation of speech, mandatory disclosure laws were constitutionally uncontroversial economic regulation. Yet, the day after striking down a disclosure law in NIFLA, the Court in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31 expanded the right of …

Platforms: The First Amendment Misfits, Jane R. Bambauer, James Rollins, Vincent Yesue

Indiana Law Journal

This Essay explains why previous First Amendment precedents that allowed government to require a private entity to host the speech of others have limited applicability to online platforms like Twitter and Facebook. Moreover, the backdrop of an open internet makes platforms sufficiently vulnerable to competition and responsive to “listener” preferences that the dominance of some firms like Facebook and Google is not really a chokepoint: aggressive changes to content curation will lead to user dissatisfaction and defection, whether those changes are made by the government or the companies themselves. As a result, there are no close analogies in First Amendment …

Nifla And The Construction Of Compelled Speech Doctrine, Robert Post

Indiana Law Journal

Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. There are good and convincing explanations for the Court’s decision in Barnette, but the Court’s recent expansion of the doctrine, culminating in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra, holds that compelled speech is in most instances “content-based” regulation requiring heightened judicial scrutiny.

Using examples ranging from professional malpractice to compulsory tax returns, this Article argues that the doctrinal rule of NIFLA is demonstrably incorrect. It suggests that the doctrinal category of “compelled speech” may itself be confused insofar as it imagines that all legal obligations to communicate are equally …

Anti-Speech Acts And The First Amendment, Richard K. Sherwin

Articles & Chapters

In many states today, there are laws on the books designed to protect the legitimacy and fairness of elections by barring the knowing or reckless dissemination of demonstrably false statements. Regulating this kind of deliberate deception protects the public against the erosion of First Amendment freedoms – such as the freedom to think and express one’s own thoughts and to meaningfully deliberate in an electoral process free from deliberate efforts to flood the zone of public discourse with confusion and mistrust based on deliberate and provable falsehoods. Some of these regulations, however, have been successfully challenged on First Amendment grounds. …

The President’S Remedy–What The Hydroxychloroquine Story Teaches Us About The Need To Limit Off-Lable Prescribing Powers, Jennifer Bard

Catholic University Law Review

When the history of the first year of the United States Government’s response to the COVID-19 virus is written, there is likely to be mention of the still unexplained vehemence with which then president Donald J. Trump made use of his access to social media to promote seldom used anti-malaria drug, hydroxychloroquine, for both the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 despite the active growing opposition of most of the world’s scientists, including his own government scientists. While the use of drugs developed and approved by the FDA for different purposes to combat new diseases, off-label prescribing, is legal in the …

The Kids Are All Right: The Law Of Free Expression And New Information Technologies, Mark Tushnet

Catholic University Law Review

Recently the literature on free expression has turned to the question, should the law of free expression be adjusted because of the availability of new information technologies (hereafter NIT), and if so, how? The only thing about NIT that distinguishes them from traditional media is that disseminating expression via NIT is much less expensive than doing so via traditional media. The tenor of recent scholarship on NIT and free expression is that the invention of NIT does support some modification of free expression law. This Essay argues that that conclusion might be correct, but that many of the arguments offered …

Tell Elon Musk, The Hell With It, Jethro K. Lieberman

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Fighting Words Today, R. George Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

For some time, the familiar free speech exception known as the “fighting words” doctrine has been subject to severe judicial and scholarly critique. It turns out, though, that the fighting words doctrine, in general, is neither obsolete nor in need of radical limitation. The traditionally neglected “inflict injury” prong of the fighting words doctrine can and should be vitalized, with only a minimal loss, if not an actual net gain, in promoting the basic purposes of freedom of speech in the first place. And the “reactive violence” prong can and should be relieved of its historic biases and dubious assumptions. …

Liberalism, Catholic Integralism, And The Question Of Religious Freedom, Xavier Foccroulle Ménard, Anna Su

BYU Law Review

This Article investigates new Catholic integralism and its critique of liberalism and aims to answer whether a liberal idea of religious freedom is possible under an integralist regime. To do so, we first sketch the respective views of liberalism and Catholic integralism on each other, with an emphasis on integralism. For integralism, liberalism is not merely a political phenomenon, but a comprehensive worldview with hidden metaphysical and theological implications. Integralism views the function of political rule as ordering human beings to their final cause. We specifically delve in foundational Catholic principles to guide rulers when governing—prudence and subsidiarity—to establish how …

Praying For America: The Anti-Theocracy And Equal Status Principles Of The Free Exercise, Equal Protection And Establishment Clauses, Corey Brettschneider

BYU Law Review

In this essay I argue that the Constitution’s Equal Protection, Establishment, and Free Exercise Clauses share common principled limits on the role that religion can play in public life. Specifically, drawing on the free-exercise case of Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, the equal protection case of Romer v. Evans, and the establishment clause case of Town of Greece v. Galloway, I propose two principles to describe the proper place of religious justification as a basis for law. The first requirement is that in addition to any religious reasons for laws, the state must have …

Political Partisanship And Sincere Religious Conviction, Mark Satta

BYU Law Review

In order for a religious conviction to receive protection under the First Amendment or the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), it must be a sincere religious conviction. Some critics of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby have suggested that the plaintiffs in that case and in related cases were motivated more by political ideology than by sincere religious conviction. The remedy, they argue, is for courts to be quicker to scrutinize claims of religious sincerity. In this Article, I consider another possibility—namely, that current sociopolitical partisanship in the United States has eroded a clear distinction between political …

Back To The Sources? What’S Clear And Not So Clear About The Original Intent Of The First Amendment, John Witte Jr.

BYU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Which Police Departments Make Black Lives Matter, Which Don’T, And Why Don’T Most Social Scientists Care?, Robert Anthony Maranto, Wilfred Reilly, Patrick Wolf, Mattie Harris

Education Reform Faculty and Graduate Students Publications

In part via skillful use of social media, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has become among the most influential social movements of the past half century, with support across racial lines, and considerable financial backing (Fisher, 2019). Will this translate into public policy reforms which save Black lives? After all, higher education is a key institutional backer of BLM, and a considerable literature dating back decades (e.g., Lindblom & Cohen, 1979) casts doubt on the effectiveness of social science in solving social problems, for numerous reasons. Often, the best social science is simple counting. This paper makes two unique contributions. First, …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative, Megan M. Wold, John A. Meiser

Court Briefs

No. 22-cv-000067
Columbus City School District v. State of Ohio

Judge Jaiza N. Page

From the Summary of Argument

Under Count 4 of their complaint, the plaintiffs ask this Court to do something that it unquestionably may not: invalidate Ohio's longstanding EdChoice Scholarship Program on the theory that it violates the "no-funding" provision of Article VI, § 2 of the Ohio Constitution, which bars any "religious or other sect" from receiving "any part of the school funds of this state." See Compl. ¶¶ 142-52. Under both state and federal law, this Court must dismiss that claim.

How To Regulate Online Platforms: Why Common Carrier Doctrine Is Inappropriate To Regulate Social Networks And Alternate Approaches To Protect Rights, Edward W. Mclaughlin

Fordham Law Review Online

Concerns about the “concentrated control of so much speech in the hands of a few private parties” and their ability to suppress some user speech have led to calls to regulate online platforms like common carriers or public accommodations. Advocates of that regulation theorize that social media platforms host today’s public forum and are open to all comers and so should have a responsibility to be content neutral and allow all voices to be heard. Traditionally, the argument that private players, as opposed to only government actors, can violate individuals’ free speech rights was a progressive cause, but recently conservative …

Recording Virtual Justice: Cameras In The Digital Courtroom, Matthew Bultman

Fordham Law Review Online

With in-person hearings limited during the COVID-19 pandemic, many courts pivoted to proceedings held over the telephone or on virtual platforms like Zoom. It appears these proceedings are here to stay, with various benefits having been realized from remote access to the courts. Remote hearings have, however, given rise to constitutional questions. This Essay focuses on one emerging issue: courts’ ability to prohibit the press and the public from recording or disseminating these proceedings. While the constitutionality of recording and broadcasting restrictions inside the real-world courtroom is established, little consideration was given to the extension of these rules to the …

Brief Of Amici Curiae Catholic Medical Association And Coptic Medical Association Of North America In Support Of Appellees, Eric N. Kniffin, John A. Meiser, Francesca M. Genova

Court Briefs

No. 2021CA1855
Barbara Morris v. Centura Health Corporation

Appeal from: Colorado District Court, Arapahoe County Case No. 2019CV31980 (Hon. Peter Frederick Michaelson)

From the Summary of Argument

At its core, this case concerns a religious hospital’s right to provide care in accordance with its faith commitments. Centura Health is a Christian healthcare system that is composed of Catholic and Seventh-day Adventist hospitals, including St. Anthony Hospital, the Catholic Hospital for which Dr. Morris worked. In service of their religious mission, Centura Health and St. Anthony Hospital (collectively, “Centura”) require their doctors to abide by the Ethical and Religious Directives for …

How Favored, Exactly? An Analysis Of The Most Favored Nation Theory Of Religious Exemptions From Calvary Chapel To Tandon, Luray Buckner

Notre Dame Law Review

In this Note, I argue that Justice Kavanaugh’s most favored nation test for religious exemptions actually differs from the one employed by the majority of the Court in Tandon. The majority’s formulation of the test is vague and explicitly requires courts to engage in a fact-intensive comparability analysis. Practically, lower courts applying Tandon to religious exemption questions have exploited this comparability step to rule against religious claimants generally, but more specifically to deny them strict scrutiny. Because the Tandon test was formulated to apply to all free exercise claims, the test is necessarily framed in more general terms and …

The First Amendment Weaponized: When Guns Become Public Discourse, Danny Li

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

This Article discusses First Amendment challenges asserted against gun control measures—inside and outside our courts. It explains at length why existing doctrinal approaches to resolving these challenges fail, providing an alternative account of why the First Amendment should not be construed liberally to protect the open carry of firearms. As guns in public spaces and protests become commonplace, we can expect not only continual First Amendment challenges to gun control measures, but also the growing prevalence of First Amendment claims asserted in the public by advocates and gun owners to justify open carry—and the forging of new constitutional meanings and …

Replacing Tinker, Noah C. Chauvin

University of Richmond Law Review

In this Article, I wish to question whether reaffirming the animating spirit of Tinker is the best way to protect student speech rights. In allowing schools to punish student speech that school officials reasonably believe could be substantially disruptive, Tinker founds students’ free expression rights on unstable ground. This is true for two reasons. First, the Tinker standard allows school officials to regulate student speech based on their own perceptions of what its impacts will be. While these perceptions must be reasonable, courts have shown extraordinary deference to educators’ claims that student speech could be substantially disruptive. Second, the substantial …

Moderating From Nowhere, Gilad Abiri

BYU Law Review

We are living in the midst of a battle over online hate speech regulation, and the stakes could not be higher. Hate speech not only harms its intended victims, be they individuals or groups, but it also polarizes and divides society in ways that undermine the health of democratic regimes. While there is widespread agreement that the current situation of online discourse is untenable, scholars and policymakers are deeply divided on the best way to improve it.

Until recently, American free speech norms have dominated the content moderation policies of digital media platforms. First Amendment norms are extremely resistant to …

Religious Freedom Vs. Compelled Vaccination: A Case-Study Of The 2018-2019 Measles Pandemic Or The Law As A Public Health Response, Barbara Pfeffer Billauer Esq.

Catholic University Law Review

Following the recent decision in Roman Catholic Diocese v. Cuomo,^[1] clear guidance regarding the state’s powers to act during a pandemic is wanting. I look here to the 2018–2019 global measles epidemic, with a focus on the New York and Israeli experiences, for that guidance. Measles rates increased dramatically during the 2018–2019 season, both in the United States and globally. This phenomenon reflects a general decline in worldwide vaccination and an increase in vaccine resistance stoked by anti-vax groups. In the United States, the epidemic targeted ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, as it did in Israel. This Article evaluates the …

The Economics Of Information And The Meaning Of Speech, Charles W. Collier

Catholic University Law Review

In common usage the communication of information is not sharply distinguished from the use of language or speech to make factual or propositional statements. So it should come as no surprise that one of the main legal justifications for protecting speech--that it underwrites a “marketplace of ideas” and thereby contributes to the search for truth--has strong parallels in the economic theory of information. “Indeed,” as Kenneth Arrow writes, “the market system as a whole has frequently been considered as an organization for the allocation of resources; the typical argument for its superiority to authoritative central allocation has been the greater …

You Have The Duty To Remain Silent: How Workplace Gag Rules Frustrate Police Accountability, Frank D. Lomonte, Jessica Terkovich

Akron Law Review

This Article traces the First Amendment caselaw that, for more than half a century, has sided with speakers facially challenging overbroad workplace policies that forbid sharing information with the press and public. The Article then reports on the results of a nationwide survey of police and sheriff’s department policies by the Brechner Center for Freedom of Information, concluding that well over half of the nation’s biggest law enforcement agencies have rules on the books that resemble—or are identical to—those struck down as unconstitutional when challenged, at times in defiance of binding circuit-level precedent. The Article examines why these legally dubious …

Law School News: Welcome, Professor Bernard Freamon 04-20-2022, Michael M. Bowden

Life of the Law School (1993- )

No abstract provided.