First Amendment Commons^™

In Contracts We Trust (And No One Can Change Their Mind)! There Should Be No Special Treatment For Religious Arbitration, Michael J. Broyde, Alexa J. Windsor

Faculty Articles

The recent article In God We Trust (Unless We Change Our Mind): How State of Mind Relates to Religious Arbitration ("In God We Trust") proposes that those who sign arbitration agreements that consent to a religious legal system as the basis of the rules of arbitration be allowed to back out of such agreements based on their constitutional right to free exercise. This article is a response and is divided into two sections. In the first section, we show that such an exemption would violate the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) basic rules preventing the states from heightened regulation of arbitration …

Race And The First Amendment: A Compendium Of Resources, Solomon F. Worlds, Leonard M. Niehoff

Articles

This article provides summaries of law review articles and books that consider the complex relationship between racial justice and free speech. It seeks to assist law students, legal scholars, judges, and practitioners to think more deeply about the intersection between these critically important values. It describes scholarship that views these values as complementary, but also scholarship that views them as conflicting.

Hate Speech On Social Media: Content Moderation In Context, Richard A. Wilson, Molly Land

Faculty Articles and Papers

For all practical purposes, the policy of social media companies to suppress hate speech on their platforms means that the longstanding debate in the United States about whether to limit hate speech in the public square has been resolved in favor of vigorous regulation. Nonetheless, revisiting these debates provides insights essential for developing more empirically-based and narrowly tailored policies regarding online hate.

First, a central issue in the hate speech debate is the extent to which hate speech contributes to violence. Those in favor of more robust regulation claim a connection to violence, while others dismiss these arguments as tenuous. …

Fundamental Funds: Tax Credits And The Increasing Tension Between The Free Exercise Clause And Establishment Clause—Espinoza V. Montana Department Of Revenue, 140 S. Ct. 2246 (2020), Elizabeth Jacobson

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Elasticity Of Protected Speech: A Balance Of Breadth, Deborah Alexander

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Antisemitism, Near, And A Threshold For Ignominy, Anthony Winer

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Torts: Sacrificing Individual Recovery For Media Protection—Larson V. Gannett Co., 940 N.W.2d 120 (Minn. 2020), Rachel Lantz

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

Minnesota Revenge Porn Law: A Look At The State V. Casillas Decisions, Cheeyein "Winona" Yang

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions For Parsonages Yesterday, Today, And (If Constitutional) Tomorrow, Samuel D. Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In 2019, the Seventh Circuit decided an Establishment Clause question that had been percolating through the courts for two decades. It held that the parsonage allowance, which permits “ministers of the gospel” to receive an untaxed housing allowance, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. It grounded its conclusion in part on the “historical significance” test the Supreme Court established in its Town of Greece v. Galloway decision.

In coming to that conclusion, the Seventh Circuit cited a 200-year unbroken history of property tax exemptions for religious property. According to the Seventh Circuit, that history demonstrated that both …

Why Do The Poor Not Have A Constitutional Right To File Civil Claims In Court Under Their First Amendment Right To Petition The Government For A Redress Of Grievances?, Henry Rose

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Since 1963, the United States Supreme Court has recognized the constitutional right of entities and persons to pursue civil legal claims in American courts under the First Amendment right to petition government for redress of grievances. However, in a series of three cases decided by the Supreme Court in the early 1970’s - Boddie v. Connecticut, United States v. Kras and Ortwein v. Schwab - the Court inexplicably declined to address the appellants’ claims that they have a constitutional right to access the courts to seek resolution of their civil legal claims. In each of these three cases, the indigent …

The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.

This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …

Table Of Contents, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Table of Contents

Is This A Christian Nation? An Introduction, Carl T. Bogus

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Secular Invocations, The First Amendment, And The Promise Of Religious Pluralism, Jay Wexler

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Who Conquers With This Sign? The Significance Of The Secularization Of The Bladensburg Cross, Mary Anne Case

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

No, It Is Not A Christian Nation, And It Never Has Been And Should Not Be One, Erwin Chemerinsky

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Framers, Faith, And Tyranny, Marci A. Hamilton

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Wall Between A Secular Government And A Religious People, John A. Ragosta

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Health Originalism And The First Amendment, Claudia E. Haupt, Wendy E. Parmet

Washington and Lee Law Review

Current First Amendment doctrine has set public health regulation and protections for commercial speech on a collision course. This Article examines the permissibility of compelled public health and safety warnings after the Supreme Court’s decision in National Institute of Family & Life Advocates v. Becerra (NIFLA) through the lens of a concurrence to the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in American Beverage Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco (American Beverage II) suggesting that only health and safety warnings dating back to 1791 are presumptively constitutional under the First Amendment.

Rejecting this form of “public health originalism,” this Article …

Free Speech In The Modern Age, [email protected]

Fordham Intellectual Property, Media and Entertainment Law Journal

No abstract provided.