First Amendment Commons^™

"Riding With The Cops And Cheering For The Robbers:" Employee Speech, Doctrinal Cubbyholes, And The Duty Of Loyalty, Marvin F. Hill Jr., James A. Wright

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Meiklejohn, Monica, & Mutilation Of The Thinking Process, Clay Calvert

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Analyzing An Experiment Gone Awry: A Unique Application Of Bacon's Corrective Model To The First Amendment Protection Of Essential Rights And Liberties, Nancy S. Williams

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Televised Political Debates And Arkansas Educational Television Commission V. Forbes: Excluding The Public From Public Broadcasting, Joshua Dale

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Protected Petitioning Or Unlawful Retaliation? The Limits Of First Amendment Immunity For Lawsuits Under The Fair Housing Act, David K. Godschalk

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Nea V. Finley: Explicating The Rocky Relationship Between The Government And The Arts , Gary E. Devlin

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: A Constitutional Victory For School Choice, Robert L. Mcfarland

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

State Action And The Supreme Court's Emerging Consensus On The Line Between Establishment And Private Religious Expression, Michael W. Mcconnell

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Sex, Money, And Groups: Free Speech And Association Decisions In The October 1999 Term, Kathleen M. Sullivan

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Disentangling Symmetries: Speech, Association, Parenthood, Laurence H. Tribe

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

Substance And Method In The Year 2000, Akhil Reed Amar

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.

With Religious Liberty For All: A Defense Of The Affordable Care Act's Contraception Coverage Mandate, Frederick Mark Gedicks

Faculty Scholarship

The “contraception mandate” of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 poses a straightforward question for religious liberty jurisprudence: Must government excuse a believer from complying with a religiously burdensome law, when doing so would violate the liberty of others by imposing on them the costs and consequences of religious beliefs that they do not share? To ask this question is to answer it: One's religious liberty does not include the right to interfere with the liberty of others, and thus religious liberty may not be used by a religious employer to force employees to pay the costs …

Talking Drugs: The Burden Of Proof In Post-Garcetti Speech Retaliation Claims, Thomas E. Hudson

Washington Law Review

Law Enforcement agencies fire their employees for speaking out in favor of drug legalization, which leads the employees to sue their former employers for violating their First Amendment Free Speech rights. These employee claims fall under the U.S. Supreme Court’s complex speech retaliation test, most recently articulated in Garcetti v. Ceballos. The analysis reveals that circuit courts are inconsistent as to who bears the burden of proving that they prevail under “Pickering balancing,” and how they should construct that burden. This Comment argues that U.S. Supreme Court precedent demands that the employer bears the “Pickering balancing” burden, and that …

Free Expression And Censorship: The Evolving Role Of American Companies In The Age Of The Internet, Daniel Witt

In the Balance

No abstract provided.

Defining Religion Down: Hasanna-Tabor, Martinez, And The U.S. Supreme Court, Carl H. Esbeck

Faculty Publications

While two recent Supreme Court cases on religious freedom appear sharply at odds, in one material respect they harmonize around an understanding that religion is fully protected only when exercised in private. CLS v. Martinez involved Hastings College of Law. Hastings' regulation of extracurricular organizations was unusual in requiring that any student can join an organization. This all-comers rule had a discriminatory impact on organizations with exclusionary memberships, such as the Christian Legal Society (CLS) which required subscribing to a statement of faith and conduct. The Court acknowledged the discriminatory effect, but said that the Free Speech Clause protects speech …

Smile For The Camera - The Long Lost Photos Of The Supreme Court At Work—And What They Reveal., Sonja R. West

Popular Media

In a day when even our cellphones can capture images unobtrusively, why were we forced to stare at pixels on our computer screens or at a static televised image of the Supreme Court’s exterior? In 2012, why is there a wall of separation between the American people and their high court?

For decades, the debate over cameras in the court has gone something like this: the press pleads for permission and the court says no; academics make policy arguments that the court ignores; and Congress threatens to force cameras into the court, but the justices don’t blink. The argument remains …

Public Forum 2.1: Public Higher Education Institutions And Social Media, Robert H. Jerry Ii, Lyrissa Lidsky

Faculty Publications

Public colleges and universities increasingly are using Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, Twitter, and other social media communications tools. Yet public colleges and universities are government actors, and their creation and maintenance of social media sites or forums create difficult constitutional and administrative challenges. Our separate experiences, both theoretical and practical, have convinced us of the value of providing guidance for public higher education institutions wishing to engage with their constituents-including prospective, current, and former students and many others-through social media.

Together, we seek to guide public university officials through the complex body of law governing their social media use and …

Public Forum 2.1: Public Higher Education Institutions And Social Media, Robert H. Jerry Ii, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky

UF Law Faculty Publications

Like most of us, public colleges and universities increasingly are communicating via Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, Twitter and other social media. Unlike most of us, public colleges and universities are government actors, and their social media communications present complex administrative and First Amendment challenges. The authors of this article — one the dean of a major public university law school responsible for directing its social media strategies, the other a scholar of social media and the First Amendment — have combined their expertise to help public university officials address these challenges. To that end, this article first examines current and …

Who Watches The Watchmen? Big Brother's Use Of Wiretap Statutes To Place Civilians In Timeout, Travis S. Triano

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Putting State Courts In The Constitutional Driver's Seat: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno And Winn, Edward A. Zelinsky

Articles

This article explores the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. In Cuno and Winn, the Court held that state taxpayers lacked standing in the federal courts. Because the states have more liberal taxpayer standing rules than do the federal courts, Cuno and Winn will not terminate taxpayers’ constitutional challenges to state taxes and expenditures, but will instead channel such challenges from the federal courts (where taxpayers do not have standing) to the state courts (where they do). Moreover, municipal taxpayer standing in the federal courts, which …