DOCSLIB.ORG

First Amendment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FIRST AMENDMENT RELIGION AND FREE EXPRESSION CONTENTS Page Religion ....................................................................................................................................... 1063 An Overview ....................................................................................................................... 1063 Scholarly Commentary ................................................................................................ 1064 Court Tests Applied to Legislation Affecting Religion ............................................. 1066 Government Neutrality in Religious Disputes ......................................................... 1070 Establishment of Religion .................................................................................................. 1072 Financial Assistance to Church-Related Institutions ............................................... 1073 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Released Time ...... 1093 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Prayers and Bible Reading ..................................................................................................................... 1094 Governmental Encouragement of Religion in Public Schools: Curriculum Restriction ................................................................................................................ 1098 Access of Religious Groups to Public Property ......................................................... 1098 Tax Exemptions of Religious Property ...................................................................... 1101 Exemption of Religious Organizations from Generally Applicable Laws ............... 1102 Sunday Closing Laws .................................................................................................. 1103 Conscientious Objection .............................................................................................. 1104 Regulation of Religious Solicitation ........................................................................... 1105 Religion in Governmental Observances .................................................................... 1105 Religious Displays on Government Property ............................................................ 1107 Miscellaneous ............................................................................................................... 1111 Free Exercise of Religion ................................................................................................... 1112 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 1112 Interaction with the Establishment Clause .............................................................. 1115 The Mormon and Jehovah’s Witnesses Cases .......................................................... 1117 Oaths and Religious Disqualifications ....................................................................... 1120 General Governmental Requirements ....................................................................... 1121 Corporations ................................................................................................................. 1130 Freedom of Expression—Speech and Press ............................................................................. 1132 Adoption and the Common Law Background .................................................................. 1132 Freedom of Expression: The Philosophical Basis ............................................................ 1138 Freedom of Expression: Is There a Difference Between Speech and Press? ................ 1139 The Doctrine of Prior Restraint ........................................................................................ 1142 Injunctions and the Press in Fair Trial Cases ......................................................... 1145 Obscenity and Prior Restraint ................................................................................... 1147 Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other Tests ......................... 1148 Clear and Present Danger .......................................................................................... 1150 The Adoption of Clear and Present Danger .............................................................. 1153 Contempt of Court and Clear and Present Danger ................................................. 1154 Clear and Present Danger Revised: Dennis .............................................................. 1157 Balancing ..................................................................................................................... 1158 The “Absolutist” View of the First Amendment, With a Note on “Preferred Position” .................................................................................................................... 1162 1059 1060 AMENDMENT 1—RELIGION, FREE SPEECH, ETC. Freedom of Expression—Speech and Press—Continued Subsequent Punishment: Clear and Present Danger and Other Tests—Continued Modern Tests and Standards: Vagueness, Overbreadth, Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Effectiveness of Speech Restrictions ....................... 1164 Is There a Present Test? ............................................................................................. 1169 Freedom of Belief ............................................................................................................... 1170 Flag Salutes and Other Compelled Speech .............................................................. 1171 Imposition of Consequences for Holding Certain Beliefs ........................................ 1174 Right of Association ............................................................................................................ 1176 Political Association .................................................................................................... 1181 Conflict Between Organization and Members .......................................................... 1186 Maintenance of National Security and the First Amendment ....................................... 1190 Punishment of Advocacy ............................................................................................. 1191 Compelled Registration of Communist Party ........................................................... 1193 Punishment for Membership in an Organization That Engages in Proscribed Advocacy ................................................................................................................... 1194 Disabilities Attaching to Membership in Proscribed Organizations ....................... 1195 Employment Restrictions and Loyalty Oaths ........................................................... 1197 Legislative Investigations and the First Amendment .............................................. 1202 Interference With Vietnam War Effort ...................................................................... 1203 Suppression of Communist Propaganda in the Mails .............................................. 1204 Exclusion of Certain Aliens as a First Amendment Problem .................................. 1204 Material Support of Terrorist Organizations ................................................................... 1205 Particular Governmental Regulations That Restrict Expression ................................... 1206 Government as Employer: Political and Other Outside Activities ......................... 1206 Government as Employer: Free Expression Generally ............................................ 1209 Government as Educator ............................................................................................ 1217 Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Elections and Referendums . 1222 Government as Regulator of the Electoral Process: Lobbying ................................ 1239 Government as Regulator of Labor Relations .......................................................... 1240 Government as Investigator: Reporter’s Privilege ................................................... 1240 Government and the Conduct of Trials ..................................................................... 1243 Government as Administrator of Prisons .................................................................. 1246 Government and the Power of the Purse .................................................................. 1251 Governmental Regulation of Communications Industries .............................................. 1256 Commercial Speech ..................................................................................................... 1256 Taxation ........................................................................................................................ 1267 Labor Relations ........................................................................................................... 1269 Antitrust Laws ............................................................................................................ 1270 Broadcast Radio and Television ................................................................................. 1270 Governmentally Compelled Right of Reply to Newspapers ..................................... 1274 Cable Television .................................................................................................................. 1275 Government Restraint of Content of Expression ............................................................. 1277
Recommended publications
  • VAGUENESS PRINCIPLES Carissa Byrne Hessick*

    VAGUENESS PRINCIPLES Carissa Byrne Hessick*

    VAGUENESS PRINCIPLES Carissa Byrne Hessick ABSTRACT Courts have construed the right to due process to prohibit vague criminal statutes. Vague statutes fail to give sufficient notice, lead to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and represent an unwarranted delegation to law enforcement. But these concerns are hardly limited to prosecutions under vague statutes. The modern expansion of criminal codes and broad deference to prosecutorial discretion imperil the same principles that the vagueness doctrine was designed to protect. As this Essay explains, there is no reason to limit the protection of these principles to vague statutes. Courts should instead revisit current doctrines which regularly permit insufficient notice, arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, and unwarranted delegations in the enforcement of non-vague criminal laws. I. INTRODUCTION Last term, in Johnson v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a portion of the Armed Career Criminal Act was unconstitutionally vague.1 This is the second time in five years that the Court has used the vagueness doctrine to strike down or significantly limit a criminal statute.2 The void-for- vagueness doctrine is hardly a new invention. Since 1914,3 the Court has Anne Shea Ransdell and William Garland "Buck" Ransdell, Jr. Distinguished Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law. J.D., Yale Law School; B.A., Columbia University. I would like to thank Shima Baradaran Baughman, Rick Bierschbach, Jack Chin, Beth Colgan, Paul Crane, Dan Epps, Andy Hessick, Ben Levin, Richard Meyers, Ion Meyn, Eric Miller, Larry Rosenthal, Meghan Ryan, John Stinneford, and Mark Weidemaier for their helpful comments on this project.
  • Right/ Classification Purpose/Statutory Fit

    Right/ Classification Purpose/Statutory Fit

    RIGHT/ CLASSIFICATION PURPOSE/STATUTORY FIT 1) FUNDAMENTAL/SUSPECT = COMPELLING/NECESSARY TO THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF 2) INTERMEDIATE = IMPORTANT/SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED 3) MERE = LEGITIMATE/RATIONALLY RELATED CHARLOTTESVILLE, PORTLAND - ALT RIGHT MARCHING IN REVERSE (LIBERAL COLLEGE TOWNS, JEWISH CITY) FACT SPECIFIC – WHAT SAID, WHERE 1. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH STREETS OR SIDEWALKS (COSTS AND LIABILITY) ? 2. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH CAMPUS OF PUBLIC UNIVERSITY ? 3. RIGHT TO MARCH THROUGH CAMPUS OF PRIVATE UNIVERSITY ? ACTUALLY PRACTICE THIS – EVEN IN SMALL TOWNS. BASIC FIRST AMENDMENT FOUNDATION: 1) CONGRESS/STATE (14 AMENDMENT) CAN VIOLATE FIRST AMENDMENT (NOT EMPLOYER – NFL - KAPERNICK) 2) PRIVATE = TORT, NOT FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION 3) BEWARE IF NON SPEECH ELEMENT – CAN BE PUNISHED EG SPRAY PAINT ANTI-SEMETIC ON SCHOOL WALLS 4) MANY CRAZY LAWS AND ORDINANCES IN EXISTENCE. USSC DOES NOT REPEAL – STILL ON BOOKS 5) MANY PRACTICES VIOLATING THE FIRST AMENDMENT AREN’T CHALLENGED (EG PUBLIC PROFANITY ARREST) BASIC – WHAT IS THE MEANING OF FIRST AMENDMENT ? ASSUME NO KNOWLEDGE OF CASE LAW. EVERYONE IS A FIRST AMENDMENT LIBERAL. 1) MUSIC ? RHAPSODY IN THE RAIN (1966). 2) PROCREATE, INTERCOURSE, FORNICATE, FREAKING 3) GENOCIDE ? HATE SPEECH ? INTERNET TROLLS ? 4) SNOWDEN AND THE HACKIVISTS 5) TRY TO BRIBE JUDGE ? 6) WHEN CAN GOV’T ARREST ? BIG DATA AND PROBLEMS USA TODAY - AUGUST 19, 2019 1. CONNECTICUT – TRYING TO BUY HIGH CAPACITY RIFLE MAGAZINES ON LINE AND FACEBOOK “AN INTEREST IN COMMITTING A MASS SHOOTING”. COPS FOUND 2 GUNS, AMMUNITION, BODY ARMOR AND OTHER EQUIP. 2. FLORIDA – MULTIPLE TEXTS WITH PLANS TO COMMIT A MASS SHOOTING. “LARGE CROWD FROM 3 MILES AWAY. 100 KILLS WOULD BE NICE.
  • Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California Robert C

    Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California Robert C

    Hastings Law Journal Volume 31 | Issue 5 Article 5 1-1980 Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California Robert C. Black Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Robert C. Black, Attorney Discipline for Offensive Personality in California, 31 Hastings L.J. 1097 (1980). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol31/iss5/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Attorney Discipline for "Offensive Personality" in California By ROBERT C. BLACK* According to one of the most venerable and dubious of legal fictions, everyone is presumed to know the law.' Fortunately for our peace of mind, most of us know little of the myriad laws we are obliged to obey. Although they never discuss the subject, lawyers are well aware that any serious attempt by the authorities to enforce all the en- actments which technically are in force would sabotage the social or- der.2 Despite the strictures of legal ethics,3 insofar as lawyers provide guidance for the practical conduct of real life they necessarily counte- nance and even commit nominal infractions routinely. With law, as with everything else, there can be too much of a good thing; and if there is anything we have too much of, it is law: "There is not much danger of erring upon the side of too little law.
  • Petitioner, V

    Petitioner, V

    No. 19-___ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States _________ MARK JANUS, Petitioner, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES, COUNCIL 31, ET AL., Respondents. _________ On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit _________ PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI _________ JEFFREY M. SCHWAB WILLIAM L. MESSENGER LIBERTY JUSTICE CENTER Counsel of Record 190 South LaSalle Street AARON B. SOLEM Suite 1500 c/o NATIONAL RIGHT TO Chicago, IL 60603 WORK LEGAL DEFENSE (312) 263-7668 FOUNDATION, INC. 8001 Braddock Road Suite 600 Springfield, VA 22160 (703) 321-8510 [email protected] Counsel for Petitioner QUESTION PRESENTED Is there a “good faith defense” to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that shields a defendant from damages liability for de- priving citizens of their constitutional rights if the de- fendant acted under color of a law before it was held unconstitutional? (i) ii PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS AND RULE 29.6 STATEMENT Petitioner, a Plaintiff-Appellant in the court below, is Mark Janus. Respondents, Defendants-Appellees in the court be- low, are American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31; Simone McNeil, in her official capacity as the Acting Director of the Illi- nois Department of Central Management Services; and Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul. Other parties to the original proceedings below who are not Petitioners or Respondents include plaintiffs Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner, Brian Trygg, and Ma- rie Quigley, and defendant General Teamsters/Profes- sional & Technical Employees Local Union No. 916. Because no Petitioner is a corporation, a corporate disclosure statement is not required under Supreme Court Rule 29.6.
  • Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes

    Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes

    The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law CUA Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions Faculty Scholarship 2002 Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes Mark L. Rienzi The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law Stuart Buck Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/scholar Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation Mark L. Rienzi & Stuart Buck, Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitution Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes, 2002 Utah L. Rev. 381. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Articles and Other Contributions by an authorized administrator of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Federal Courts, Overbreadth, and Vagueness: Guiding Principles for Constitutional Challenges to Uninterpreted State Statutes Stuart Buck* and Mark L. Rienzi** I. INTRODUCTION When a state statute is challenged in federal court as unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, the federal court is caught between two fundamental principles of constitutional law. On the one hand, federal courts have been instructed numerous times that they should invalidate a state statute only when there is no other choice. The Supreme Court has noted that it is a "cardinal principle" of statutory interpretation that a federal court must accept any plausible interpretation such that a state statute need not be invalidated. Moreover, the doctrines of abstention, certification, and severance all exist in order to show deference to a state's power to interpret its own laws and to allow as much of a state law to survive as possible.
  • Reopening the Public Forum--From Sidewalks to Cyberspace

    Reopening the Public Forum--From Sidewalks to Cyberspace

    01O STATE LAW JOURNAL Volume 58, Number 5, 1998 Reopening the Public Forum-From Sidewalks to Cyberspace STEVEN G. GEY* The publicforum doctrine has been afxture offree speech law since the beginning of the modem era of First Amendment jurisprudence. The doctrine serves several functions. It is a metaphorical reference point for the strong protection offree speech everywhere, and it provides specific rules protecting free speech in public places. In this Article, Professor Gey reviews the development of the public forum doctrine. Professor Gey argues that serious problems have developed within the doctrine in recent times due to the Supreme Court's refusal to extend the fidl protection of the doctrine to new forwms that do not resemble the parks and sidewalks of the traditionalpublic forum cases. Professor Gey then reviews Justice Kennedy's recent contributions to the debate over the public forum doctrine, in which Justice Kennedy advocates erpanding the protective scope of the doctrine. Professor Gey draws on Kennedy's suggestions to propose a reinterpretationof public forum doctrine. Under this reinterpretation, the First Amendment would protect speech in a public space unless the speech would significantly interfere with the government's noncommunicative activities in that space. Professor Gey also argues that the reinterpreteddoctrine should extend beyond physical spaces to cover "metaphysical"forums, including any government property that provides an instrunentalty of communication. In the final sections of the Article, Professor Gey considers the application of his theory to two new, "metaphysical"forums: government subsidy programs and government access to the Internet. In many respects, the story of the First Amendment is the story of the public forum doctrine.
  • AAUP Annual Legal Update August, 2020

    AAUP Annual Legal Update August, 2020

    AAUP Annual Legal Update August, 2020 Aaron Nisenson, Senior Counsel American Association of University Professors I. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 5 II. First Amendment and Speech Rights ...................................................................................... 5 A. Garcetti / Citizen Speech ......................................................................................................... 5 Lane v. Franks, 134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014) .................................................................................. 5 B. Faculty Speech ......................................................................................................................... 5 Demers v. Austin, 746 F.3d 402 (9th Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 5 Wetherbe v. Tex. Tech Univ. Sys., 699 F. Appx 297 (5th Cir. 2017); Wetherbe v. Goebel, No. 07-16-00179-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 1676 (Mar. 6, 2018) ................................... 5 Buchanan v. Alexander, 919 F.3d 847 (5th Cir. March 22, 2019) ......................................... 6 EXECUTIVE ORDER, Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities (D. Trump March 21, 2019) ........................................................ 8 C. Union Speech............................................................................................................................ 9 Meade v. Moraine Valley Cmty.
  • Free Speech for Lawyers W

    Free Speech for Lawyers W

    Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly Volume 28 Article 3 Number 2 Winter 2001 1-1-2001 Free Speech for Lawyers W. Bradley Wendel Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation W. Bradley Wendel, Free Speech for Lawyers, 28 Hastings Const. L.Q. 305 (2001). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_constitutional_law_quaterly/vol28/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Free Speech for Lawyers BYW. BRADLEY WENDEL* L Introduction One of the most important unanswered questions in legal ethics is how the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression ought to apply to the speech of attorneys acting in their official capacity. The Supreme Court has addressed numerous First Amendment issues in- volving lawyers,' of course, but in all of them has declined to consider directly the central conceptual issue of whether lawyers possess di- minished free expression rights, as compared with ordinary, non- lawyer citizens. Despite its assiduous attempt to avoid this question, the Court's hand may soon be forced. Free speech issues are prolif- erating in the state and lower federal courts, and the results betoken doctrinal incoherence. The leader of a white supremacist "church" in * Assistant Professor, Washington and Lee University School of Law. LL.M. 1998 Columbia Law School, J.D. 1994 Duke Law School, B.A.
  • 19-267 Our Lady of Guadalupe School V. Morrissey-Berru (07/08/2020)

    19-267 Our Lady of Guadalupe School V. Morrissey-Berru (07/08/2020)

    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2019 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus OUR LADY OF GUADALUPE SCHOOL v. MORRISSEY- BERRU CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 19–267. Argued May 11, 2020—Decided July 8, 2020* The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions “to de- cide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine.” Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U. S. 94, 116. Applying this principle, this Court held in Hosanna- Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U. S. 171, that the First Amendment barred a court from entertaining an employment discrimination claim brought by an elementary school teacher, Cheryl Perich, against the religious school where she taught. Adopting the so-called “ministerial exception” to laws governing the employment relationship between a religious institution and certain key employees, the Court found relevant Perich’s title as a “Minister of Religion, Commissioned,” her educational training, and her respon- sibility to teach religion and participate with students in religious ac- tivities. Id., at 190–191.
  • The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years

    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years

    The First Amendment in Its Forgotten Years David M. Rabbant TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Free Speech Before the Courts 522 A. Supreme Court Cases 524 I. Avoiding First Amendment Issues 525 Resisting Incorporation into the Fourteenth Amendment 525 Excluding Publications from the Mails 526 Neglecting First Amendment Issues 529 Limiting the Meaning of Speech 531 2. Addressing First Amendment Issues 533 Justice Holmes and the Bad Tendency of Speech 533 Review of Statutes Penalizing Speech 536 The First Amendment as the Embodiment of English Common Law 539 3. Hints of Protection 540 4. Summary 542 B. Decisions Based on State Law 543 1. The Bad Tendency Doctrine 543 Speech by Radicals 543 Obscenity and Public Morals 548 2. Libel 550 3. Political Speech 551 4. Labor Injunctions 553 5. Speech in Public Places 555 C. The Judicial Tradition 557 t Counsel, American Association of University Professors. 514 Prewar Free Speech II. Legal Scholarship 559 A. The Social Interest in Free Speech 563 B. The Distinction Between Public and Private Speech 564 1. Schofield's Formulation of the Distinction 564 2. Other Scholarly Support for the Distinction 566 C. The Expanding Conception of Free Speech 568 D. The Rejection of Blackstone 570 E. The Limits of Protected Speech 572 1. The Direct Incitement Test 572 2. Pound's Balancing Test 575 3. Schroeder's Test of Actual Injury 576 4. The Benefits of LibertarianStandards 578 F. The Heritage of Prewar Scholarship 579 III. The Role of the Prewar Tradition in the Early Develop- ment of Modern First Amendment Doctrine 579 A.
  • Court Order Enjoining Local DBE Program

    Court Order Enjoining Local DBE Program

    Case 1:07-cv-00019-BAE-WLB Document 19 Filed 03/14/07 Page 1 of 10 FILED E ,!"T COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 0 V. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA AUGUSTA DIVISIO N 7 !T 1 4 P}1 3: 32 THOMPSON BUILDING WRECKING COMPANY, INC., PAULETTE TUCKER ENTERPRISES, INC., ;~J; C L d/b/a TUCKER GRADING AND HAULING, S0. D S) -. OF GA . RICHARD CALDWELL, d/b/a CLASSIC ROCK HAULING, SIDNEY CULLARS, d/b/a SIDNEY CULLARS TRUCKING, The plaintiffs allege that prime contract bids Plaintiffs , containing DBE participation at the subcontract level are treated more favorably than bids V. 107CV019 without DBE participation at the subcontract ; in other words, the DBE Program AUGUSTA, GEORGIA, level encourages prime contractors to discriminate Defendant. against subcontractors on the basis of race, gender, and relative economic advantage . Doc. ORDER # 1 at 14-15 ; see doc. # 5, exh. C at 1-66 (AUGUSTA CODE § 1-10-62(b)(9)) ; see also doc. 1. INTRODUCTIO N # 13 at 1 (the parties have stipulated that the City currently adds up to "20 points" to a In this civil rights action, various plaintiffs proposal or bid that utilizes DBEs) . According challenge the City of Augusta, Georgia's Disadvantaged Business Enterprises ("DBE") Program as unconstitutionally discriminatory. Doc. # 1 . They claim that the Program violates for a project to demolish the Candy Factory Buildings in Augusta . See doc. # 1 at 5-8 (describing facts surrounding the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth the bidding for the Candy Factory Buildings demolition Amendment to the United States Constitution, as contract) .
  • Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights Through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine

    Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights Through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine

    Indiana Law Journal Volume 28 Issue 4 Article 4 Summer 1953 Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons Recommended Citation (1953) "Judicial Acquiescence in the Forfeiture of Constitutional Rights through Expansion of the Conditioned Privilege Doctrine," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 28 : Iss. 4 , Article 4. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol28/iss4/4 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL from detruction by Communism, there is vital need to salvage consti- tutionally guaranteed rights from annihilation by these same efforts. Both courts and legislatures should re-examine the Communist threat and should then determine whether recent laws do themselves present more of a threat to our freedom than does subversion. JUDICIAL ACQUIESCENCE IN THE FORFEITURE OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS THROUGH EXPANSION OF THE CONDITIONED PRIVILEGE DOCTRINE Mr. Justice Douglas, dissenting in Adler v. Board of Education of the City of New York, declared: "I have not been able to accept the recent doctrine that a citizen who enters the public service can be forced to sacrifice his civil rights. I cannot for example find in our constitutional scheme the power of the state to place its employees in the category of second class citizens by denying them freedom of thought and expres- sion."' It is both surprising and noteworthy that Mr.