Litigation Commons^™

When Does F*** Not Mean F***?: Fcc V. Fox Television Stations And A Call For Protecting Emotive Speech, W. Wat Hopkins

Federal Communications Law Journal

The Supreme Court of the United States does not always deal cogently with nontraditional language. The most recent example is FCC v. Fox Television Stations, in which the Justices became sidetracked into attempting to define the f-word and then to determine whether, when used as a fleeting expletive rather than repeatedly, the word is indecent for broadcast purposes. The Court would do well to avoid definitions and heed Justice John Marshall Harlan's advice in Cohen v. California to provide protection for the emotive, as well as the cognitive, element of speech

The "Strong Medicine" Of The Overbreadth Doctrine: When Statutory Exceptions Are No More Than A Placebo, Christopher A. Pierce

Federal Communications Law Journal

In United States v. Stevens, the United States Supreme Court invalidated a federal statute criminalizing the interstate sale and distribution of depictions of animal cruelty on First Amendment grounds. While Stevens demonstrates the Court's reluctance to create a new category of speech outside of First Amendment protection, Stevens also stands for the proposition that borrowing the exceptions clause from the Court's obscenity standard will not adequately protect a statute from invalidation as overbroad. This Note discusses the use of the obscenity standard's exceptions clause in nonobscenity statutes and the Court's treatment of the exceptions clause in Stevens. This Note concludes …

Unwell: Indiana V. Edwards And The Fate Of Mentally Ill Pro Se Defendants, John H. Blume, Morgan J. Clark

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Coming Off The Bench: Legal And Policy Implications Of Proposals To Allow Retired Justices To Sit By Designation On The Supreme Court, Lisa T. Mcelroy, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In the fall of 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would have overridden a New Deal-era federal statute forbidding retired Justices from serving by designation on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Leahy bill would have authorized the Court to recall willing retired Justices to substitute for recused Justices. This Article uses the Leahy bill as a springboard for considering a number of important constitutional and policy questions, including whether the possibility of 4-4 splits justifies the substitution of a retired Justice for an active one; whether permitting retired Justices to substitute for recused Justices would …

Litigating Against An Epidemic: Hiv/Aids And The Promise Of Socioeconomic Rights In South Africa, Nathaniel Bruhn

Michigan Journal of Race and Law

With one of the highest incidence rates in the world, the HIV/AIDS epidemic has taken a large toll on South Africa. Despite medical advances that have made the disease more manageable, many South Africans still do not have access to the medicines needed to control the disease. At the same time, the Constitution of South Africa grants individuals far-reaching socioeconomic rights, including the right to access health care. This Comment explores the intersection of the socioeconomic rights and the HIV/AIDS crisis. Although the Constitutional Court has developed a deferential approach to enforcing socioeconomic rights, substantial room remains to litigate on …

The Roberts Court And Freedom Of Speech, Erwin Chemerinsky

Federal Communications Law Journal

This is an edited version of a speech delivered on December 16, 2010 in Washington, D.C., as part of the Federal Communications Bar Association's Distinguished Speaker Series.

This speech was given by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky in December 2010 as part of the FCBA's Distinguished Speaker Series. In the speech, Dean Chemerinsky offers his perspectives on and analysis of the Supreme Court's position on freedom of speech in recent years. He highlights important recent freedom of speech decisions made by the Roberts Court, and gives some projections as to where the court is heading in the years to come, given its …

International Media Law Reform And First Amendment Agnosticism: Review Of Lee Bollinger’S Uninhibited, Robust, And Wide-Open: A Free Press For A New Century, Enrique Armijo

Federal Communications Law Journal

Lee Bollinger's Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open argues that in an increasingly globalized world, the United States must seek to export First Amendment free press principles to other countries. His project, however, is belied by the fact that media law is a product of context and history as much as legalism. His proposals for reconceptualizing our own animating vision for a free press here in the States are also in many important respects inconsistent with the First Amendment itself.

Are Class Actions Unconstitutional?, Alexandra D. Lahav

Michigan Law Review

Are class actions unconstitutional? Many people-defendants and conservative legislators, not to mention scholars at the American Enterprise Institute-would like them to be. For opponents of the class action, Martin Redish's book Wholesale Justice provides some of the most theoretically sophisticated arguments available. The book is a major contribution both to the scholarly literature on class actions and to the larger political debate about this powerful procedural device. The arguments it presents will surely be debated in courtrooms as well as classrooms.

About Sdlp

Sustainable Development Law & Policy

No abstract provided.

What Will We Lose If The Trial Vanishes?, Robert P. Burns

Faculty Working Papers

The number of trials continues to decline andfederal civil trials have almost completely disappeared. This essay attempts to address the significance of this loss, to answer the obvious question, "So what?" It argues against taking a resigned or complacent attitude toward an important problem for our public culture. It presents a short description of the trial's internal structure, recounts different sorts of explanations, and offers an inventory of the kinds of wounds this development would inflict.

Barnes-Wallace V. City Of San Diego: "Psychological Injury" And Its Effect On Standing, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 507 (2011), Andrew Meyer

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Small-Donor Public Financing In The Post-Citizens United Era, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 619 (2011), Monica Youn

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Capitalist Joker: The Strange Origins, Disturbing Past, And Uncertain Future Of Corporate Personhood In American Law, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 643 (2011), David H. Gans, Douglas T. Kendall

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

So What If Corporations Aren't People?, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 701 (2011), Ilya Shapiro, Caitlyn W. Mccarthy

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizens United And Tiered Personhood, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 717 (2011), Atiba R. Ellis

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Convicted By A Sleeping Jury: Harmless Error Or A Challenge To The Integrity Of Our Criminal Justice System, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 751 (2011), Rhandi Childress

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

Amending The Prison Litigation Reform Act: Imposing Financial Burdens On Prisoners Over Tax Payers, 44 J. Marshall L. Rev. 1061 (2011), Mallory Yontz

UIC Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Constitutions And Individual Rights: Conceptual Convergence In School Finance Litigation, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

This Article begins by reviewing Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld's “fundamental conceptions” and expanding his theory to the arena of state constitutional rights, building on recent work by other scholars. From this foundation, it moves to a discussion of the sources of rights to education. The Article then examines the text of relevant state constitutional provisions, as well as the ever-changing landscape of school finance litigation, the principal vehicle through which litigants assert constitutional claims based on ostensible education rights. Next, it systematically analyzes the population of reported cases from the highest state courts to identify Hohfeldian conceptions of education rights held …

Checks, Balances And Judicial Wizardry: Constitutional Delegation And Congressional Legislation, Robert I. Reis

Journal Articles

No abstract provided.

American Academy Of Religion V. Napolitano, Margaret Laufman

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

Citizens United, Stevens And Humanitarian Law Project: First Amendment Rules And Standards In Three Acts, William D. Araiza

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Book Review: The Free Press Crisis Of 1800: Thomas Cooper's Trial For Seditious Libel, Eric Easton

All Faculty Scholarship

This article was an invited book review of a book of the same title by Peter Charles Hoffer. Hoffer, Distinguished Research Professor of History at the University of Georgia, has published this accessible case history as part of the University Press of Kansas’s Landmark Law Cases & American Society series, which he co-edits.

The book discusses one of the cases arising as a result of the Alien & Sedition Act under the presidency of John Adams, mostly targeting Republicans who editorialized against the Adams administration.

The Overhyped Path From Tinker To Morse: How The Student Speech Cases Show The Limits Of Supreme Court Decisions--For The Law And For The Litigants, Scott A. Moss

Publications

Each of the Supreme Court's high school student speech cases reflected the social angst of its era. In 1965's Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, three Iowa teens broke school rules to wear armbands protesting the Vietnam War. In 1983, amidst parental and political upset about youth exposure to sexuality in the media, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier allowed the censorship of an innuendo-filled student government speech and a school newspaper article on teen pregnancy and parental divorce. In 2007, Morse v. Frederick paralleled the rise of reality television …

From One [Expletive] Policy To The Next: The Fcc's Regulation Of "Fleeting Expletives" And The Supreme Court's Response, Brandon J. Almas

Federal Communications Law Journal

After the broadcast of the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, during which the lead singer from U2 uttered an expletive on national television, the FCC revisited its prior policy on the use of expletives on the airwaves and declared, for the first time, that "fleeting expletives" are offensive according to community standards and are therefore finable. In a lawsuit filed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Fox Television Stations, Inc. along with a number of other broadcasters argued that the FCC's new policy was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act and unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Second …

Examining The Fcc's Indecency Regulations In Light Of Today's Technology, Elizabeth H. Steele

Federal Communications Law Journal

Indecency regulations promulgated by the FCC used to be effective, but today's technological advances call those regulations into question. With the prevalence of digital video recorders and the availability of television shows on the Internet, children have unprecedented access to material broadcast at all times of day. As a result, the "safe harbor" rationale restricting the broadcast of indecent material no longer makes sense. A move toward deregulation is the most logical step to take, as it would prevent any First Amendment violations and would allow the networks freedom to broadcast material that the public may be interested in without …

Framing Change: Cause Lawyering, Constitutional Decisions, And Social Change, Mary Ziegler

Scholarly Publications

This article contends that current critics of change-oriented litigation assume a particular model of the relationship between law and social change: law is argued to mirror popular mores, and judicial decisions are thought at most to suppress unusual or outlying laws. This model is incomplete, because judicial decisions may help to change how a social cause is defined and labeled. In presenting a supplementary model, I argue that judicial decisions reframe debates, privileging some arguments, marginalizing others, altering the coalitions on either side and influencing the types of legal reform those coalitions are able to pursue.

A series of state …

Fcc V. Fox Television Stations And The Fcc's New Fleeting Expletive Policy, Jerome A. Barron

Federal Communications Law Journal

This Article focuses on the Supreme Court's decision in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 1800 (2009). In that case, the Supreme Court upheld an important change in the FCC indecency regulation. In the past, the FCC's policy had been that the broadcast of a single expletive did not violate FCC indecency policy. In order for such fleeting expletives to be actionable, the FCC required that they had to be repetitive and gratuitous. But in 2004, in response to the use of some expletives by entertainers during the Golden Globe Awards, the FCC changed its policy and …

Thwack!! Take That, User-Generated Content!: Marvel Enterprises V. Ncsoft, Carl Michael Szabo

Federal Communications Law Journal

Comic-book heroes show us how to be valiant, how to fight for those less fortunate, and, in some circumstances, how to combat those who break the law. Such is the situation in the case of Marvel Enterprises, Inc. v. NCSofl Corp., a battle between user-generated content and the copyright violations that resulted.

While the issue of copyright liability has been seen in hundreds of comments and notes from courts and attorneys alike, the issue of copyright liability on the internet remains an open question that if not addressed, could endanger the protection afforded to authors. Federal and state suits have …

The Fallacy Of Neutrality From Beginning To End: The Battle Between Religious Liberties And Rights Based On Homosexual Conduct, Rena M. Lindevaldsen

Faculty Publications and Presentations

The Bible plainly states that everyone must either "bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ" or continue as "enemies in your mind." Un-Biblical thinking, like un-Bibical actions, leads one on a path away from God. Part II of this Article will briefly introduce a Biblical approach to thinking about contemporary issues and discuss how Christians can unwittingly abandon distinctively Biblical thinking under the guise of neutrality. Part III will present a number of cases that highlight the fallacy of neutrality in the battle between religious liberties and rights based on homosexual conduct. Part IV will contend that …

Zoya's Standing Problem, Or, When Should The Constitution Follow The Flag?, Jeffrey Kahn

Michigan Law Review

Some federal courts have devised a new test of prudential standing that they use to dismiss suits filed by foreign plaintiffs alleging unlawful conduct by American officials abroad, even when these cases involve matters that may have nothing to do with foreign affairs, national security, or terrorism. Rather than decide the case on its merits or dismiss it on any number of legitimate grounds, the complaint is dismissed because the plaintiff lacks a "prior substantial connection" to the United States. I identify and critique this strange but proliferating test of standing. First, it is inconsistent with any theoretical view of …