First Amendment Commons^™

Aba Model Rule 8.4(G), Discriminatory Speech, And The First Amendment, Bruce Green, Rebecca Roiphe

Articles & Chapters

The ABA adopted Model Rule 8.4(g), which targets certain speech and conduct that are based on “race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status.” In particular, according to the accompanying comment, Rule 8.4(g) reaches speech that is “derogatory and demeaning” or that “manifests bias or prejudice towards others” and is “harmful” (including, presumably, emotionally harmful). This rule targets a significant amount of speech that would be constitutionally protected if it were uttered by a nonlawyer. This article argues that there is no justification for treating lawyers differently from others in many …

The Roberts Court's Transformative Religious Freedom Cases: The Doctrine And The Politics Of Grievance, Stephen M. Feldman

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The article argues that the Roberts Court has adopted a conservative approach in religious freedom cases, shifting toward a jurisprudence that favors Christianity and undermines the separation of church and state. This approach, rooted in tradition and a de facto Christian America, has led to significant changes in both Establishment Clause and Free Exercise Clause doctrines. The Court's decisions increasingly protect Christian practices and institutions while marginalizing non-Christian religions, reflecting a broader ideological shift toward judicial engagement and away from principles of federalism and judicial restraint.

Teacher Prayer In Public Schools, Maya Syngal Mcgrath

Fordham Law Review

When American citizens elect to work in government positions, they relinquish certain free speech rights granted by the First Amendment. In Garcetti v. Ceballos, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that when public employees make statements pursuant to their government job duties, they do not speak as citizens for First Amendment purposes. As such, they are not constitutionally insulated from employer discipline. Determining whether public employees speak as a result of, or in accordance with, their official responsibilities can be difficult, and one government job has proven more challenging than most: the public school teacher. In 2021, the Ninth Circuit …

The Political And Social Change Driven By Protest: The Need To Reform The Anti-Riot Act And Examine Anti-Riot Provisions, Ronald E. Britt Ii

Fordham Law Review

The right to join in peaceful assembly and petition is critical to an effective democracy and is at the core of the First Amendment. The assault of peaceful protestors in the pursuit of racial justice is not a new phenomenon, and legislators at the federal and state levels have drafted anti-riot provisions as a measure to target protestors they deem an existential threat to American society. As these provisions have become increasingly prevalent in light of the protests following the murders of Breonna Taylor and George Floyd, they have the likelihood of severely chilling the effect on protestors’ right to …

Against Political Speech, John M. Kang

Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has dedicated itself to the proposition that political speech, more than any other category of speech, is deserving of the highest protection. A succession of cases amply supports this proposition. In Virginia v. Black, the Court announced that "lawful political speech [is] at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect." The Court similarly declared in Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy that the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application" to political speech. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, the Court held that "handing out leaflets in the advocacy of …

Proving Racism: Gibson Bros. Inc. V. Oberlin College And The Implications On Defamation Law, Liam H. Mcmillin

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

Lochner's Revenge: Tiered Scrutiny And The Acceptance Of Judicial Subjectivity, Phillip J. Closius

University of Cincinnati Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Call For State Legislators To Reconsider Their Stance On School Choice And School Funding, Leah Blake

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Hip Hop And The Law : Presented By Intellectual Property Law Association 03/31/2022, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Health Choice Or Health Coercion? The Osha Emergency Temporary Standard Covid-19 Vaccination Mandates: Ax Or Vax, Savannah Snyder

Helm's School of Government Conference - 2021-2024

No abstract provided.

Inviting An Impermissible Inquiry? Rfra’S Substantial-Burden Requirement And “Centrality”, D. Bowie Duncan

Pepperdine Law Review

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) prohibits the federal government from substan-tially burdening a person’s religious exercise unless the government can satisfy strict scrutiny. The statute also defines religious exercise to prohibit courts from inquiring into how central a particular religious exercise is to a person’s religion. “The term ‘religious exercise,’” reads the relevant provision, “includes any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” Despite this prohibition on centrality inquiries, some scholars argue that RFRA’s substantial-burden element requires courts to consider the religious costs a law imposes on a religious adherent …

Sharpening The Focus Of Free Speech Law: The Crucial Role Of Government Intent, R. George Wright

Texas A&M Law Review

Contemporary free speech law is typically misfocused. This misfocus serves neither the purposes underlying the institution of free speech nor any broader social rights and interests in conflict with freedom of speech. As a general matter, the adjudication of free speech claims should properly focus, centrally, on the intent of the regulating government. More specifically, courts should focus crucially on whether the government has, in enacting or enforcing its speech regulation, intended to suppress or disadvantage a presumed or actual idea or its expression. This sharpened focus would allow the courts to responsibly address a surprisingly broad range of free …

Brief Of Amicus Curiae Notre Dame Law School Religious Liberty Initiative In Support Of Petitioner, Nicole Stelle Garnett, Richard W. Garnett Iv, Francesca Genova Matozzo, Steven A. Engel, Michael H. Mcginley

Court Briefs

No. 21-418
Joseph A. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

From the Summary of Argument

This case offers the Court a much-needed opportunity to resolve the longstanding confusion caused by its conflicting and erroneous interpretations of the Establishment Clause. Although recent decisions clarify that the government may not suppress private religious expression, the Court has yet to clear away an undergrowth of older precedents that are often read to suggest the opposite. Rather than permit those outdated decisions to persist and perpetuate confusion, the Court should …

Social Media, Section 230, And Free Expression, Russell L. Weaver

Mercer Law Review

Throughout history, as new communications technologies have been developed, they have been controlled by “gatekeepers” who had the power to decide who could access those technologies. Although Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press in the Fifteenth century was revolutionary and ultimately led to major innovations in science and technology, as well as to dramatic societal changes, Gutenberg’s invention was not accessible by everyone. Because printing presses were expensive, only wealthy individuals could afford to own and operate them, and those few individuals had the power to control who could use their technologies to mass communicate. Many of the technologies …

Campaign Finance Reform, Union Dues, And The First Amendment: The Collision Of Politics And Rights, Mark Adams

Articles

No abstract provided.

Queer And Convincing: Reviewing Freedom Of Religion And Lgbtq+ Protections Post-Fulton V. City Of Philadelphia, Arianna Nord

Washington Law Review

Recent increases in LGBTQ+ anti-discrimination laws have generated new conversations in the free exercise of religion debate. While federal courts have been wrestling with claims brought under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment since the nineteenth century, city and state efforts to codify legal protections for LGBTQ+ individuals in the mid-twentieth century birthed novel challenges. Private individuals who do not condone intimate same-sex relationships and/or gender non-conforming behavior, on religious grounds seek greater legal protection for the ability to refuse to offer goods and services to LGBTQ+ persons. Federal and state courts must determine how to resolve these …

Against Political Speech, John M. Kang

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Social Media And Democracy After The Capitol Riot, Or, A Cautionary Tale Of The Giant Goldfish, Seth Oranburg

Mercer Law Review

Lately, people have been finding giant pet goldfish in lakes across America. You may see these tiny fish swimming in bowls at the county fair, but left alone in a lake or large pond, where they are dropped perhaps by a well-meaning child, they can grow to 20 pounds or more—and destroy ecosystems. The goldfish is a cautionary tale that has been told time and again in different forms, like Pandora’s box.

On January 6, 2021, a somewhat organized group of rioters overran and briefly took control of the U.S. Capitol. Social media clearly played a role in the riots …

The Unbearable Emptiness Of Formalism: Autonomy, Equality, And The Future Of Affirmative Action, Rachel F. Moran

Faculty Scholarship

Debates over affirmative action in higher education generally focus on equality interests under the Fourteenth Amendment but ignore liberty interests under the First Amendment. That tendency persists, even though the academic freedom to enroll a diverse student body has allowed colleges and universities to defend race-conscious admissions programs against legal challenges for decades. Today, the rise of formalism in judicial interpretation poses new perils for these programs. Justice Powell’s seminal decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke was a pragmatic compromise that used diversity to temper the polarized debate over equality that sharply divided the Court. In …

Social Media Platforms And Free Expression: An Introduction, Eric J. Segall

Mercer Law Review

On Friday, October 8, 2021, the Mercer Law Review hosted a virtual Symposium on “Social Media Platforms and Free Expression.” This important topic could not be timelier. With the Right calling for regulation of Facebook and Twitter in order to stop the removal of conservatives from their platforms, to the direct effect of social media on our elections and our politics, the worldwide spread of this technology has brought with it new and difficult legal issues regarding freedom of expression and social harms. Congratulations to the Mercer Law Review for addressing these controversial and complex questions.