First Amendment Commons^™

Comment, Francesca L. Procaccini

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Let's start with the antecedent question that both the theme of this conference and all three papers in this session present. That is, before we ask how law schools might better advance the freedom of expression on campus, and even before asking what role law schools play in protecting or suppressing free speech more generally, we must ask the first order question: whether freedom of expression at U.S. law schools is indeed imperiled?

There is an underlying assumption in all three papers that something is amiss, that things are not quite at their optimal, that improve- ment is needed. And …

Confidentiality Over Privacy, Stacey A. Tovino

Cardozo Law Review

No abstract provided.

Mandating Repair Scores, Aaron Perzanowski

Articles

Restrictions on the repair of consumer goods have generated no shortage of policy proposals. This Article considers the empirical and legal case for one particular intervention—requiring firms to calculate and disclose their products’ scores on a uniform reparability index. These repair scores would provide consumers with salient information at or before the point of sale, enabling them to compare products on the basis of the ease and cost of repair. There is considerable empirical research, including assessments of France’s implementation of a similar requirement in recent years, suggesting that repair scores would both inform and empower consumers. Despite likely First …

Citizen Enforcement Laws Threaten Democracy, David A. Carrillo, Stephen M. Duvernay

Fordham Law Voting Rights and Democracy Forum

No abstract provided.

Public School Teachers Who Refuse To Use Preferred Names And Pronouns: A Brief Exploration Of The First Amendment Limitations In K-12 Classrooms, Suzanne Eckes

ConLawNOW

This article focuses on whether a teacher has a First Amendment right under both the free speech and free exercise clauses of the U.S. Constitution when refusing to use a student’s preferred name or pronoun in a public school classroom. The article begins by briefly summarizing a recent case from Kansas and then examines prior precedent involving teachers’ classroom speech and teachers’ rights to freely exercise their religious rights in public schools. It then briefly highlights how these issues have been addressed in previous pronoun cases and concludes with a discussion of related constitutional issues.

Silencing Students: How Courts Have Failed To Protect Professional Students’ First Amendment Speech Rights, Shanelle Doher

Washington and Lee Law Review Online

Over the past two decades, social media has dramatically changed the way people communicate. With the increased popularity of virtual communication, online speech has, in many ways, blurred the boundaries for where and when speech begins and ends. The distinction between on campus and off campus student speech has become particularly murky given the normalization of virtual learning environments as a result of the COVID 19 pandemic. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court clarified that students retain their First Amendment rights on campus but that schools may sanction speech that materially and substantially …

A Continued Sign Of The Court's Unwillingness To Overrule Smith, Gader Wren

Nevada Law Journal Forum

Since its inception, the Supreme Court’s holding in Employment Division v. Smith has been attacked for diluting Free Exercise rights. In recent years, petitioners have asked the Court to reconsider Smith’s soundness. However, de-spite these challenges to Smith’s legitimacy, it has remained the law of the land.

On February 22, 2022, the Court granted certiorari on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Although Petitioner asked the Court to overrule Smith, the Court granted certiorari to answer only a single question: “[w]hether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the …

The Big Chill: Are Public Participation Rights Being Slapp-Ed?, Rachel E. Deming

Pace Environmental Law Review

This article focuses on the Petition Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and addresses a confounding situation caused by Supreme Court precedents that give greater protection to persons who engage in illegal business practices than to citizens who petition their governments. This dichotomy is especially detrimental to environmental protection.

The crux of the conflict lies in which standard courts should use to determine whether the petitioning activity is protected: the subjective Free Speech standard grafted onto Petition Clause activities or the objective standard initially developed by the Supreme Court for petition activities in antitrust cases. The result …

Using Bruen To Overturn New York Times V. Sullivan, Michael L. Smith, Alexander S. Hiland

Pepperdine Law Review

While New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is a foundational, well-regarded First Amendment case, Justice Clarence Thomas has repeatedly called on the Court to revisit it. Sullivan, Thomas claims, is policy masquerading as constitutional law, and it makes almost no effort to ground itself in the original meaning of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Thomas argues that at the time of the founding, libelous statements were routinely subject to criminal prosecution—including libel of public figures and public officials. This Essay connects Justice Thomas’s calls to revisit Sullivan to his recent opinion for the Court in New York State Rifle & …

Rectifying An Empty Gesture: Why Placement On Paid Administrative Leave Should Constitute "Adverse Employment Action" For The Purposes Of A First Amendment Retaliation Claim, Andrew White

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Freedom Of Algorithmic Expression, Inyoung Cheong

University of Cincinnati Law Review

Can content moderation on social media be considered a form of speech? If so, would government regulation of content moderation violate the First Amendment? These are the main arguments of social media companies after Florida and Texas legislators attempted to restrict social media platforms’ authority to de-platform objectionable content.

This article examines whether social media companies’ arguments have valid legal grounds. To this end, the article proposes three elements to determine that algorithms classify as “speech:” (1) the algorithms are designed to communicate messages; (2) the relevant messages reflect cognitive or emotive ideas beyond mere operational matters; and (3) they …

Brief Of Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioner, John A. Meiser, Meredith Holland Kessler

Court Briefs

No. 22-741
Faith Bible Chapel International v. Gregory Tucker

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

The First Amendment demands that courts refrain from intruding into disputes over a religious organization’s selection of important leaders. The ministerial exception enforces that demand. And thus, nearly every court to consider the issue has agreed: the ministerial exception promises something akin to an immunity from suit, which must be resolved early in litigation to be effective.

Beyond The Watchdog: Using Law To Build Trust In The Press, Erin C. Carroll

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Declining trust in the American press has been longstanding and corrosive—both to our information environment and to democracy. It is tempting to think that if journalists could just repeatedly and brilliantly play their key role—that of watchdog—it might be redemptive. But doubling down on the watchdog function holds risks in our polarized climate. Research shows that some conservatives recoil from watchdog journalism, finding it too cynical and politicized.

This essay argues that a different journalistic function—one that has received far less attention and adulation from judges and legal scholars—should be encouraged and amplified. This is the press’s role as a …

The Censorship Constraint And Rulemaker State Action: Are Section 230'S Immunity Provisions Unconstitutional Content-Based Regulations?, Scot A. Reader

West Virginia Law Review

Even casual watchers of T.V. crime dramas understand the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule. Under this rule, evidence obtained by the police in a search of a criminal suspect’s premises that exceeds the scope of a judicial warrant is almost always inadmissible in the suspect’s criminal trial. The rule is designed to deter unreasonable governmental intrusion into private affairs and applies without regard for the suspect’s guilt or innocence. This Article proposes that the First Amendment includes an analogous rule against governmental censorship. Under this rule, content-based speech regulations exceed the legislature’s speech rulemaking warrant and are almost always invalid. This …

Battlegrounds For Banned Books: The First Amendment And Public School Libraries, Jensen Rehn

Notre Dame Law Review

Embedded in each conversation about banning books are arguments that use legal terminology. A brief conversation about banned books with a librarian will likely lead to a discussion of the “Library Bill of Rights” published by the ALA. No one is bound by the ALA’s Bill of Rights, which lacks a method of enforcement. Thus, the question remains: what is the legal landscape of banning books? Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has not provided a clear precedent about banning books from public school libraries. In fact, the Supreme Court has only taken cases about libraries on three occasions, each of which …

The Limits Of Church Autonomy, Lael Weinberger

Notre Dame Law Review

American courts apply “church autonomy doctrine” to protect the self-governance of religious institutions, based on both of the First Amendment’s religion clauses. Church autonomy’s defenders have sometimes described the doctrine as establishing distinct spheres of sovereignty for church and state. But critics have argued that church autonomy puts religious institutions above the law. They contend that church autonomy doctrine lacks limiting principles and worry that the “sphere sovereignty” theory of church and state leaves no room for accountability for wrongdoing in religious institutions. The courts, for their part, have recognized that church autonomy must have limits but have struggled to …

First Amendment Speech Protections In A Post-Dobbs World: Providing Instruction On Instructional Speech, Samantha Mitchell

Fordham Law Review

In its June 2022 opinion, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, thus revoking the constitutional right to abortion. As states continue to pass laws outlawing abortion to varying degrees, not only has Dobbs led to uncertainty for medical professionals and those who might want to seek an abortion, but it has also prompted questions for internet users across the world. May an organization or an individual post instructions on the internet regarding how to obtain an abortion if a resident of a …

Warren/Burger Courts Exalted “Free” Expression Over Other American Values, Louis W. Hensler Iii

Marquette Law Review

Anglo-American defamation law started with a simple condemnation of the sin of evil speaking. Eventually, this value condemning harmful speech was accommodated to the value of speaking the truth, even hurtful truth. A third value of fostering responsible self-government was injected into American defamation law at and around the time of the American Revolution. This value makes it especially important for citizens to freely speak even hurtful truth about their government.

Defamation 2.0, Cortelyou C. Kenney

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

There is a literal prohibition in the media bar that media lawyers cannot represent plaintiffs in suits for defamation. The stated principle behind this rule—a rule that can result in excommunication from the premier media law organization if it is violated—is that playing both sides of the defamation game is disloyal to traditional media actors because any chance of victory could inadvertently distort the law of defamation to increase the risk of frivolous suits against media outlets or other innocent third parties. But has the maxim finally gone too far?

Fueled by a new model where media profits are driven …

Solving Slapp Slop, Nicole J. Ligon

University of Richmond Law Review

In a substantial minority of states, wealthy and powerful individuals can, without much consequence, bring defamation lawsuits against the press and concerned citizens to silence and intimidate them. These lawsuits, known as “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (“SLAPP”s), are brought not to compensate a wrongfully injured person, but rather to discourage the defendants from exercising their First Amendment rights. In other words, when well resourced individuals feel disrespected by public criticism, they sometimes sue the media or concerned citizens, forcing these speakers to defend themselves in exorbitantly expensive defamation actions. In states without anti-SLAPP statutes—statutes aimed at protecting speakers from …