First Amendment Commons^™

In Search Of An Established Church, Teresa M. Bejan

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Legal Ramifications Of Christian Nationalism, Steven K. Green

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Curing The First Amendment Scrutiny Muddle Through A Breyer-Based Blend Up? Toward A Less Categorical, More Values-Oriented Approach For Selecting Standards Of Judicial Review, Clay Calvert

UF Law Faculty Publications

This Article argues that the United States Supreme Court should significantly alter its current categorical approach for discerning standards of judicial review in free-speech cases. The present system should become nondeterminative and be augmented with a modified version of Justice Stephen Breyer’s long-preferred proportionality framework. Specifically, the Article’s proposed tack fuses facets of today’s policy, which largely pivots on distinguishing content-based laws from content-neutral laws and letting that categorization determine scrutiny, with a more nuanced, values-and-interests methodology. A values-and-interests formula would allow the Court to climb up or down the traditional ladder of scrutiny rungs – strict, intermediate or rational …

Offensive Mark Owners Have An Enforcement Problem, Yvette Joy Liebesman

All Faculty Scholarship

In Iancu v. Brunetti, the Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act 2(a) bars for "immoral" or "scandalous" marks are facially unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination, and thus violate a trademark owner’s First Amendment rights. Brunetti, as well as its predecessor, Matal v. Tam, focused entirely on how the government might generate viewpoint discrimination at the point of trademark registration. The Court did not consider whether enforcement of trademarks—via courts of law, Customs and Border Protection, or the International Trade Commission—is government speech, and thus exempt from First Amendment free speech scrutiny. Yet the Court’s seminal holding of Shelley v. Kraemer illustrates …

Transparency And The First, Mark Fenster

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Professor Fish—Why Are You Still Picking On Liberalism?, Micah Schwartzman

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sport And Expression, Sport As Expression, Howard M. Wasserman

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

First Amendment Freedoms Diluted: The Impact Of Disclosure Requirements On Nonprofit Charities, Bailie Mittman

Indiana Law Journal

Since the birth of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the freedoms protected by the First Amendment have been cherished by all members of this nation. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” Over time, courts have acknowledged that the freedom to speak freely means very little if the guarantee is not protected by an additional right: the freedom to associate. Thus, the freedom of expressive association stands as an essential component of an individual’s free speech rights and state infringement on associative rights has the power of potentially …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents and Special Thanks.

Technological Transformation Of The Public Square: Government Officials Use Of Social Media And The First Amendment, Patricia Beety, Joline Zepcevski

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The recent article In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State of Mind Relates to Religious Arbitration ("In God We Trust") proposes that those who sign arbitration agreements that consent to a religious legal system as the basis of the rules of arbitration be allowed to back out of such agreements based on their constitutional right to free exercise. This article is a response and is divided into two sections. In the first section, we show that such an exemption would violate the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) basic rules preventing the states from heightened regulation of arbitration …

Debunking “De Minimis” Violations Of Prisoners’ Religious Rights: Further Problems With The Supreme Court’S “Hands Off” Approach, Samantha Sparacino

Touro Law Review

Circuits are split as there continues to be an inconsistent application of Supreme Court doctrine stemming from the notion of the separation of church and the state. Imprisonment does not strip a wrongdoer of his constitutionally guaranteed rights and protections. Some Circuits have held that a minor, or de minimis, interpretation of an inmate’s religious rights can constitute a substantial burden under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. In the absence of clear direction from the Supreme Court, I propose that courts should refrain from determining the value of a religious belief or practice as it relates …

Slapps Across America, Jack Toscano

Touro Law Review

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in New York Times v. Sullivan was meant to protect our fundamental right to free speech from defamation lawsuits. However, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, known as SLAPPS, continue to chill free speech through weak but expensive to defend defamation lawsuits. In response to SLAPPs many states have passed anti-SLAPP statutes that are meant to identify SLAPPs, quickly dismiss SLAPPS, and punish plaintiffs who bring SLAPPs. A difficult issue for federal courts throughout the country is whether these state anti-SLAPP statutes should apply in federal courts. This Note examines the Supreme Court opinions in Shady …

Fundamental Funds: Tax Credits And The Increasing Tension Between The Free Exercise Clause And Establishment Clause—Espinoza V. Montana Department Of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), Elizabeth Jacobson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Elasticity Of Protected Speech: A Balance Of Breadth, Deborah Alexander

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antisemitism, Near, And A Threshold For Ignominy, Anthony Winer

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Torts: Sacrificing Individual Recovery For Media Protection—Larson V. Gannett Co., 940 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2020), Rachel Lantz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Minnesota Revenge Porn Law: A Look At The State V. Casillas Decisions, Cheeyein "Winona" Yang

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions For Parsonages Yesterday, Today, And (If Constitutional) Tomorrow, Samuel D. Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In 2019, the Seventh Circuit decided an Establishment Clause question that had been percolating through the courts for two decades. It held that the parsonage allowance, which permits “ministers of the gospel” to receive an untaxed housing allowance, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It grounded its conclusion in part on the “historical significance” test the Supreme Court established in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision.

In coming to that conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited a 200-year unbroken history of property tax exemptions for religious property. According to the Seventh Circuit, that history demonstrated that both …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right of entities and persons to pursue civil legal claims in American courts under the First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. However, in a series of three cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970’s - Boddie v. Connecticut, United States v. Kras and Ortwein v. Schwab - the Court inexplicably declined to address the appellants’ claims that they have a constitutional right to access the courts to seek resolution of their civil legal claims. In each of these three cases, the indigent …

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Is This A Christian Nation? An Introduction, Carl T. Bogus

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Secular Invocations, The First Amendment, And The Promise Of Religious Pluralism, Jay Wexler

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Conquers With This Sign? The Significance Of The Secularization Of The Bladensburg Cross, Mary Anne Case

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

No, It Is Not A Christian Nation, And It Never Has Been And Should Not Be One, Erwin Chemerinsky

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Framers, Faith, And Tyranny, Marci A. Hamilton

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Wall Between A Secular Government And A Religious People, John A. Ragosta

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Free Speech And Democracy: A Primer For Twenty-First Century Reformers, Toni M. Massaro, Helen Norton

Publications

Left unfettered, the twenty-first-century speech environment threatens to undermine critical pieces of the democratic project. Speech operates today in ways unimaginable not only to the First Amendment’s eighteenth-century writers but also to its twentieth-century champions. Key among these changes is that speech is cheaper and more abundant than ever before, and can be exploited — by both government and powerful private actors alike — as a tool for controlling others’ speech and frustrating meaningful public discourse and democratic outcomes.

The Court’s longstanding First Amendment doctrine rests on a model of how speech works that is no longer accurate. This invites …

How The Supreme Court Talks About The Press (And Why We Should Care), Helen Norton

Publications

No abstract provided.