First Amendment Commons^™

The Contraception Mandate Accomodated: Why The Rfra Claim In Zubik V. Burwell Fails, Caroline Mala Corbin

Short Works

No abstract provided.

Contents, First Amendment Law Review

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Preventing An Ex Machina Future: Search Engine Speech And The Advisor Theory, Luke Pettyjohn

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disaggregating Corpus Christi: Illiberal Implications Of Hobby Lobby'S Right To Free Exercise, Katharine Jackson

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Killer Cartoons: Islamophobia, Depictions Of The Prophet Muhammad, And The Possible Limitations Of Free Speech, Chidiebere T. Madu

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Town Of Greece And City Of Saguenay: Non-Establishment Principles With Or Without An Establishment Clause, Donald L. Beschle

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Striking A Balance: Ensuring The Safety And Efficacy Of A Drug's Use, While Recognizing The First Amendment Protection Of Truthful, Non-Misleading Off-Label Drug Communications, Hannah Smoot Combs

First Amendment Law Review

No abstract provided.

Panhandling After Mccullen V. Coakley, Cynthia Barmore

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Religion In The Public Square, H.E. Baber

San Diego Law Review

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution both prohibits the establishment of religion and guarantees its free exercise. There is, however, a tension between the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause, which has been understood to erect a “wall of separation” between church and state. Prima facie, the Establishment Clause prohibits the state from providing special benefits to institutions or individuals in virtue of their religious affiliations or convictions. The Free Exercise Clause, however, is cited in support of accommodations for individuals who, because of their religious commitments, cannot in good conscience conform to laws or regulations. This seems …

Byrne: Closing The Gap Between Hipaa And Patient Privacy, Austin Rutherford

San Diego Law Review

HIPAA’s lack of an individualized remedy harmed individuals and left the law a toothless monster, but Byrne begins to fill the longstanding gap by offering greater protection for individuals and their sensitive information. Byrne will also incentivize better compliance with HIPAA by instilling in companies a fear of sizeable tort suit damage awards.

Part II of this Note introduces HIPAA and its ability to protect sensitive health information. Part III discusses the facts, holding, and reasoning of Byrne, in which a state supreme court, for the first time, recognized HIPAA requirements as a duty owed in negligence claims. Part IV …

This Is Just Not Working For Us: Why After Ten Years On The Job It Is Time To Fire Garcetti, Jason Zenor

Richmond Public Interest Law Review

In Lane v. Franks, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public employees who give truthful testimony in court are protected so long as it was outside their ordinary job duties. This issue arose after ten years of the Garcetti rule which does not protect employee speech pursuant to their job duties- a nebulous topic in the digital era. In applying Garcetti, lower courts have extended it to include any speech that is a product of job duties, even if it would serve the public interest. In Lane v. Franks, the Court amended the employee speech doctrine to protect …

The Opposite Of Anarchy And The Transmission Of Faith: The Freedom To Teach After Smith, Hosanna-Tabor, Obergefell, And The Ascendancy Of Sexual Expressionism, Helen M. Alvaré

San Diego Law Review

There are several avenues available for protecting religious schools’ freedom but none involving rote application of the summary holdings of Smith or Hosanna-Tabor. This shouldn’t surprise; little is simple where the religion clauses are concerned. Nevertheless, to provide free exercise and nonestablishment “on the ground” and to allow core tenets of Judeo-Christian traditions a genuine, not just theoretical, chance of reaching the next generation, the Supreme Court needs to find a way within the labyrinth of its current First Amendment jurisprudence to allow religious schools and parents the freedom to teach.

This Article will treat this question as follows. Part …

This Is Just Not Working For Us: Why After Ten Years On The Job- It Is Time To Fire Garcetti, Jason Zenor

Richmond Journal of Law and the Public Interest

In Lane v. Franks, the U.S. Supreme Court held that public employees who give truthful testimony in court are protected so long as it was outside their ordinary job duties. This issue arose after ten years of the Garcetti rule which does not protect employee speech pursuant to their job duties- a nebulous topic in the digital era. In applying Garcetti, lower courts have extended it to include any speech that is a product of job duties, even if it would serve the public interest. In Lane v. Franks, the Court amended the employee speech doctrine to protect …

Master Metaphors And Double-Coding In The Encounters Of Religion And State, Perry Dane

San Diego Law Review

That term “existential encounter” is meant to convey several important ideas. First, it suggests that what is at stake here is not merely a set of legal doctrines or policy prescriptions, but something deeper and more constitutive. The sovereign nation-state, in some sense, looks out at the world around it and sees other entities that do not easily fit into its own internal sovereign architecture. Some of these are other nation-states. Some might be other types of essentially secular, but non-state, human associations. And others are, or should be, communities—large and small, organized or not, united or splintered—whose normative commitment …

Free Exercise By Moonlight, Marc O. Degirolami

San Diego Law Review

How is the current condition of religious free exercise, and religious accommodation in specific, best understood? What is the relationship of the two most important free exercise cases of the past half-century, Employment Division v. Smith and Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC? This essay explores four possible answers to these questions.

1. Smith and Hosanna-Tabor are the twin suns of religious accommodation under the Constitution. They are distinctively powerful approaches.

2. Hosanna-Tabor’s approach to constitutional free exercise is now more powerful than Smith’s. Smith has been eclipsed.

3. Hosanna-Tabor has shown itself to be feeble. It has …

Why The Ministerial Exception Is Consistent With Smith—And Why It Makes Sense, William A. Galston

San Diego Law Review

This conference puts on the table two linked questions: Can Hosanna-Tabor be reconciled with Employment Division v. Smith and, if so, on what basis? Let me say straightway that I have at most an amateur’s understanding of constitutional law and jurisprudence. I bring to our questions some intuitions about the best framework for thinking about them, and whatever light my home discipline of political theory can shed on them. I have also benefitted enormously from Christopher Lund’s splendid law review article on the topic of this conference.

Rfra, State Rfras, And Religious Minorities, Christopher C. Lund

San Diego Law Review

Now fully a generation ago, the Supreme Court decided Employment Division v. Smith, which held that religious believers generally have no right to exemptions from neutral and generally applicable laws. But in the twenty-five years since Smith, the situation has grown more complex. Shortly after Smith, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) and later the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). And many states followed suit, either adopting state Religious Freedom Restoration Acts (state RFRAs) or construing generously the religious-freedom provisions of their state constitutions. As a result, the compelling-interest test discarded by Smith now again …

Be Careful What You Wish For: Why Hobby Lobby Weakens Religious Freedom, Frank S. Ravitch

BYU Law Review

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., which brought for-profit corporations under the protection of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, has been the subject of widespread support and criticism. Some have lauded the Hobby Lobby decision as an important step in protecting religious freedom. Others have derided it as an affront to the civil rights of corporate employees. This Article suggests a third perspective, namely, that Hobby Lobby harms, rather than helps, religious freedom. Both legally and politically, Hobby Lobby is likely to lead to a reduction in protection for religious individuals and entities …

Neutral Principles And Some Campaign Finance Problems, John O. Mcginnis

William & Mary Law Review

This Article has both positive and normative objectives. As a positive matter, it shows that the Roberts Court’s campaign finance regulation jurisprudence can be best explained as a systematic effort to integrate that case law with the rest of the First Amendment, making the neutral principles refined in other social contexts govern this more politically salient one as well. It demonstrates that the typical Roberts Court majority in campaign finance cases follows precedent, doctrine, and traditional First Amendment theory, while the dissents tend to carve out exceptions at each of these levels.

As a normative matter, it argues that following …

The Effect Of Rluipa’S Land Use Provisions On Local Governments, Alan C. Weinstein

Fordham Urban Law Journal

No abstract provided.