First Amendment Commons^™

Here Stood My Dreaming Tree: A Proposal To Reform Non-Lpr Cancellation Of Removal To Bring Undocumented Immigrants Out Of The Shadows, Andrea Barrientos

Cardozo Journal of Equal Rights & Social Justice

The note advocates for expanding nonLPR (non-Lawful Permanent Resident) cancellation of removal as a pathway to lawful status for undocumented immigrants. It critiques the current system’s restrictive eligibility criteria, annual caps, and high hardship standards, arguing that these limitations exclude many deserving applicants. The proposed reforms aim to eliminate the 4,000-person cap, convert the relief into an affirmative process, and lower the hardship standard to align immigration policy with U.S. values of fairness and inclusion. By doing so, the reforms would stabilize families, reduce marginalization, and bring undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.

The Supreme Court's Worst Decision In Recent Years--Garcetti V. Ceballos, The Dred Scott Decision For Public Employees, David L. Hudson Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court decision of Garcetti v. Ceballos deserves its rightful place in the Court’s hall of shame. In Garcetti, the Court issued a decision that serves as a Dred Scott-type ruling for public employees, diminishing their free speech rights to an unacceptable level. The Court created a categorical rule that public employees have no free speech rights when engaged in official, job-related speech.

Under Garcetti, it does not matter how valuable an employee’s speech is, how much corruption that speech exposes, or whether the speech informs the public regarding an important issue. Instead, the five-justice majority focused …

Safety Net Or Trap? A Policy-Oriented Analysis Of The Public Sex Offender Registry As Compelled Speech, Ann Weigly Deam

Brigham Young University Journal of Public Law

No abstract provided.

Protecting The First Amendment Rights Of Video Games From Lanham Act And Right Of Publicity Claims, Yen-Shyang Tseng

Pepperdine Law Review

In 2013 and 2015, the Ninth Circuit decided two nearly identical cases in which professional football players alleged a video game publisher used their likenesses without authorization in a game that simulates real football games. One plaintiff brought a false endorsement claim under the Lanham Act, while others brought state law right of publicity claims. That made all the difference. The Ninth Circuit found the First Amendment protected the game against the false endorsement claim, but not against the right of publicity claims. These contradictory results stem from court’s application of the Rogers v. Grimaldi test to Lanham Act claims …

Federal Architecture And First Amendment Limits, Jessica Rizzo

Washington Journal of Law, Technology & Arts

In December of 2020, President Trump issued an executive order on “Promoting Beautiful Federal Civic Architecture,” a draft of which was leaked to the press in February under the title, “Making Federal Buildings Beautiful Again.” The order provided for updating the Guiding Principles of the General Services Administration’s Design Excellence Program to promote the use of “classical and traditional architectural styles,” which “have proven their ability to inspire…respect for our system of self-government.” According to the order, there would have been a presumption against the use of such modern architectural styles as Brutalism and Deconstructivism in the construction of new …

Self-Determination In American Discourse: The Supreme Court’S Historical Indoctrination Of Free Speech And Expression, Jarred Williams

Honors Program: Senior Projects (Public)

Within the American criminal legal system, it is a well-established practice to presume the innocence of those charged with criminal offenses unless proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Such a judicial framework-like approach, called a legal maxim, is utilized in order to ensure that the law is applied and interpreted in ways that legislative bodies originally intended.

The central aim of this piece in relation to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution is to investigate whether the Supreme Court of the United States has utilized a specific legal maxim within cases that dispute government speech or expression regulation. …

Corporations "Pac" A Punch: Corporate Involvement's Influence In Elections And A Proposal For Public Campaign Financing In Ohio, Taylor Hagen

Cleveland State Law Review

In 2010, the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision ruled that limiting corporate spending in elections violates the First Amendment right to free speech. With this decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that dated back more than a century. Before Citizens United v. FEC was decided, the Court had previously held that these restrictions were permissible because there is a governmental interest in preventing election and campaign corruption. Now, corporations may expend unlimited funds for outside election spending, to super PACs, and may even establish their own PACs. Increased corporate involvement in elections has deteriorated American …

Our Campaign Finance Nationalism, Eugene D. Mazo

Pepperdine Law Review

Campaign finance is the one area of election law that is most difficult to square with federalism. While voting has a strong federalism component—elections are run by the states and our elected officials represent concrete geographical districts—our campaign finance system, which is rooted in the First Amendment, almost entirely sidesteps the boundaries of American federalism. In so doing, our campaign finance system creates a tenuous connection between a lawmaker’s constituents, or the people who elect him, and the contributors who provide the majority of his campaign cash. The recent explosion of outside spending in American elections by wealthy individuals and …

Privileging Opinion, Denigrating Discourse: How The Law Of Defamation Incentivizes News Talk-Show Hyperbole, Clay Calvert

Pepperdine Law Review

This Article examines how defamation law promotes a culture of hyperbole and exaggeration on television news talk shows at the expense of more meaningful dialogue and discourse. The Article uses the 2020 federal court rulings in McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC and Herring Networks, Inc. v. Maddow as analytical springboards to address this problem. In both cases, judges dismissed defamation claims stemming from comments made by well-known talk-show hosts—Fox News’s Tucker Carlson in McDougal and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow in Herring Networks—on the ground that their remarks would not be understood by viewers as factual assertions. In concluding that Carlson’s …

Recent Developments, Clinton T. Summers

Arkansas Law Review

The United States Supreme Court upheld an Arkansas law regulating how pharmacies are reimbursed by pharmacy benefit managers. In Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass’n, a unanimous Court decided that Arkansas Act 900, passed in 2015, was not pre-empted by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).

Religion And Local Power, Brian M. Miller

Mercer Law Review

In December of 2017, hundreds of protestors descended on Washington, D.C., from all over the United States. The crowds converged on the blocks surrounding the Supreme Court of the United States, where onlookers might have spotted signs reading “It’s Not About the Cake,” and “Open to All,” rising from one side of the crowd, and signs reading “Serves All People, But Can’t Create All Art,” and “Justice for Jack” rising from the other side. That morning the Supreme Court heard a case about a Colorado cake shop owner who, because of his religious convictions, refused to create a cake that …

Hacks, Leaks, And Data Dumps: The Right To Publish Illegally Acquired Information Twenty Years After Bartnicki V. Vopper, Erik Ugland, Christina Mazzeo

Washington Law Review

This Article addresses a fluid and increasingly salient category of cases involving the First Amendment right to publish information that was hacked, stolen, or illegally leaked by someone else. Twenty years ago, in Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court appeared to give broad constitutional cover to journalists and other publishers in these situations, but Justice Stevens’s inexact opinion for the Court and Justice Breyer’s muddling concurrence left the boundaries unclear. The Bartnicki framework is now implicated in dozens of new cases— from the extradition and prosecution of Julian Assange, to Donald Trump’s threatened suit of The New York Times …

Reframing Church Property Disputes In Washington State, Theodore G. Lee

Washington Law Review

Real property disputes between units or members of the same church are common in the United States. To resolve such disputes, the Supreme Court has endorsed two doctrines: the hierarchical deference approach and the neutral-principles of law approach. The Court has justified both doctrines on the First Amendment’s Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, but this justification is problematic. Specifically, under the hierarchical deference approach courts must always give preferential treatment to one religious group over others—effectively endorsing a particular religion. On the other hand, courts can enforce their own interpretations of religious issues under the neutral-principles approach, thereby infringing free …

Kū Kia‘I Mauna: Protecting Indigenous Religious Rights, Joshua Rosenberg

Washington Law Review

Courts historically side with private interests at the expense of Indigenous religious rights. Continuing this trend, the Hawai‘i State Supreme Court allowed the Thirty- Meter-Telescope to be built atop Maunakea, a mountain sacred to Native Hawaiians. This decision led to a mass protest that was organized by Native Hawaiian rights advocates and community members. However, notwithstanding the mountain’s religious and cultural significance, Indigenous plaintiffs could not prevent construction of the telescope on Maunakea.

Unlike most First Amendment rights, religious Free Exercise Clause claims are not generally subject to strict constitutional scrutiny. Congress has mandated the application of strict scrutiny to …

The Costs Of Dissent: Protest And Civil Liabilities, Timothy Zick

Faculty Publications

This Article examines the civil costs and liabilities that apply to individuals who organize, participate in, and support protest activities. Costs ranging from permit fees to punitive damages significantly affect First Amendment speech, assembly, and petition rights. A variety of common law and statutory civil claims also apply to protest activities. Plaintiffs have recently filed a number of new civil actions negatively affecting protest, including "negligent protest," "aiding and abetting defamation," "riot boosting," "conspiracy to protest," and "tortious petitioning." The labels are suggestive of the threats these suits pose to First Amendment rights. All of these costs and liabilities add …

A Variable Number Of Cheers For Viewpoint-Based Regulations Of Speech, R. George Wright

Notre Dame Law Review Reflection

If there is one thing we think we know about the First Amendment, it is that speech restrictions based on viewpoint are especially objectionable. The Supreme Court has declared that “[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” For this proposition, the Court has on one occasion cited thirteen of its own precedents.

Much more broadly, the Court has also held that a government “has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its …

Free Speech, Strict Scrutiny And A Better Way To Handle Speech Restrictions, Aaron Pinsoneault

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

When it comes to unprotected speech categories, the Roberts Court has taken an amoral and inaccurate approach. When the Court first created unprotected speech categories-- defined categories of speech that are not protected by the First Amendment-- it was unclear what rendered a category of speech unprotected. One school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it provided little or no value to society. The other school of thought argued that speech was unprotected if it fell into a certain category of speech that was simply categorically unprotected. Then, in 2010, the Court strongly sided with the latter approach, …

The Right To Conscience Vs. The Right To Die: Physician-Assisted Suicide, Catholic Hospitals, And The Rising Threat To Institutional Free Exercise In Healthcare, Zachary R. Carstens

Pepperdine Law Review

An imminent conflict is developing between religious healthcare institutions opposed to physician-assisted death (PAD) and their healthcare employees who wish to offer PAD to their patients. When these interests clash, institutional conscience claims must prevail over doctors’ desires and patients’ demands. This article catalogues the incomplete patchwork of conscience protections guaranteed to American healthcare workers and institutions, as well as the swiftly accelerating wave of PAD legalization sweeping the states. The article documents the tactical vocabulary—deployed with nearly identical language in every state PAD statute—that conspicuously anticipates con-science objections from the massive, and staunchly anti-PAD, Catholic healthcare system. Notably, in …

Fact Or Phallus? Considering The Constitutionality Of Texas's Cyber-Flashing Law Under The True Threat Doctrine, Brenna Cheyne Miller

Texas A&M Law Review

As societal reliance on digital and online communication continues to grow, courts are grappling with how best to provide legal recourse for novel, technology-related issues while still protecting American citizens’ First Amendment right to free speech. The State of Texas recently enacted Penal Code section 21.19, which criminalizes the transmission of unsolicited sexually explicit images to another person—or as it is commonly known, “cyber-flashing.” Cyber-flashing occurs through digital and online platforms, including text messages, apps, and social media. Section 21.19 is one of the first statutes of its kind in the United States. In the age of “dick pics,” this …

The Limits Of Permissible Judicial Campaign Speech In New York, Vito M. Destefano

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

In December 2018, New York’s Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics (“ACJE”), which I proudly served on for ten years, issued Opinion 17-28, concerning an inquiry by a judicial candidate as to whether he or she could respond to a candidate questionnaire prepared by the New York State Right to Life Committee (“RTL questionnaire”). In the RTL questionnaire, the candidate is asked a series of questions concerning the candidate’s personal beliefs on abortion, the beginning of life, Roe v. Wade, the definition of personhood, the New York and United States Constitutions, and so on. Each question asking for the …