DOCSLIB.ORG

Courtside Paul M

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Courtside Paul M College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Popular Media Faculty and Deans 2005 Courtside Paul M. Smith Katherine A. Fallow Daniel Mach Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Repository Citation Smith, Paul M.; Fallow, Katherine A.; Mach, Daniel; and Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P., "Courtside" (2005). Popular Media. 412. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media/412 Copyright c 2005 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/popular_media COURTSIDE BY PAUL M. SMITH, KATHERINE A. FALLOW, DANIEL MACH, AND AARON A. BRUHL As sometimes happens, the most dramatic efforts. Shortly thereafter, columnist a libertarian advocacy group, and the development at the Supreme Court for Robert Novak wrote a piece revealing attorneys general of thirty-four states and First Amendment lawyers in recent that "senior administration officials" the District of Columbia. The brief of the weeks probably was the denial of review told him that Wilson had been sent to attorneys general in support of certiorari in reporter's privilege cases arising Iraq on the recommendation of his wife, was particularly striking in arguing that from the disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame, a CIA "operative." Critics the absence of a federal privilege frustrat­ Valerie Plame as a CIA operative-an of the Bush administration alleged that ed state policies because all of those action that resulted in the jailing of one White House officials leaked the infor­ states (in addition to almost every other prominent journalist. mation in order to retaliate against state in the country) recognize some form Wilson. The Department of Justice began of reporter's privilege. Miller v. United States; an investigation into whether administra­ The Supreme Court, however, Cooper v. United States tion officials had violated a federal law declined to accept review. (Justice Turning away a request to rule on the prohibiting disclosing the identity of a Breyer did not participate in the decision viability of a federal reporter's privilege, covert agent. to deny certiorari.) Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court on June 27, 2005, The special counsel heading the Miller was sent to jail in Alexandria, denied certiorari in Miller v. United investigation opened a grand jury inquiry Virginia; Cooper testified before the States, No. 04-1507, and Cooper v. and subpoenaed several reporters in an grand jury after receiving a direct waiver United States, No. 05-1508. The peti­ effort to determine the source of the from his source, Karl Rove; and Time tioners-New York Times reporter Judith leak. Miller, Cooper, and Time refused released Cooper's notes to the special Miller, Time magazine reporter Matthew to reveal their sources, claiming that counsel. The future and scope of the Cooper, and Time's corporate publish­ they enjoyed a privilege under the First federal reporter's privilege continues to er-had been held in contempt of court Amendment and federal common law. be uncertain, thus prompting renewed for refusing to disclose the identities of The district court rejected those argu­ efforts to enact federal legislation that their confidential sources. ments and held the petitioners in con­ will afford protection to journalists simi­ The case arose in the wake of tempt, with imposition of sanctions lar to that given by forty-nine states and President George W. Bush's statement, stayed pending the completion of appel­ the District of Columbia. during the 2003 State of the Union late proceedings. On appeal, the D.C. address, that British intelligence had Circuit (Judges Sentelle, Henderson, Johanns v. Livestock Marketing Ass 'n learned that Iraq had sought uranium and Tatel) affirmed the judgment. The In one of the few merits cases last from Africa. In July 2003, amid public court held that Branzburg v. Hayes' Term involving the First Amendment controversy over the justification for the foreclosed the First Amendment argu­ guarantee of freedom of speech, the war in Iraq, former Ambassador Joseph ment. The court split three different Supreme Court in Johanns v. Livestock Wilson published an op-ed reporting ways on the common law argument but Marketing Ass'n, Nos. 03-1164 and that in 2002 he had been dispatched to concluded that, if such a privilege exist­ 03-1165, reversed a lower court deci­ Niger to investigate the matter and had ed at all, the government had made a sion that had invalidated a federal pro­ found no credible evidence of such sufficient showing to overcome it. gram arranging for a beef promotional The petitions for certiorari argued campaign funded via a mandatory Paul M. Smith ([email protected]), that the lower courts are in disarray in assessment on all beef producers and Katherine A. Fallow ([email protected]), their interpretations of Branzburg and in importers. The Eighth Circuit, relying and Daniel Mach ([email protected]) their rulings on the reporter's privilege. on the Supreme Court's prior decision are partners in the Washington, D.C., office The petitions urged the Court to recog­ in United States v. United Foods, Inc., 2 of Jenner & Block LLP. Aaron A. Bruhl nize a common law privilege under had held that this mandatory assessment ([email protected]) is an associate in the Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and to of fees to fund commercial speech on same office. Mr. Smith, Ms. Fallow, and clarify or revisit the holding in Branzburg. behalf of the beef industry constituted Mr. Bruhl filed an amicus brief on behalf The petitions also renewed the argu­ a form of coerced speech violating the of numerous media organizations in support ment, rejected below, that the contempt First Amendment. The United Foods of the petitions for certiorari in Miller v. United States and Cooper v. United States. proceedings violated due process case, which barred a mandatory assess­ Mr. Mach filed an amicus brief in the because the courts relied on evidence to ment to fund mushroom advertising, Livestock Marketing case. Messrs. Smith which the petitioners never had been had in turn distinguished the earlier and Mach are filing an amicus brieffor the given access. The petitioners were sup­ decision of the Supreme Court in American Association of Law Schools in ported by amicus briefs from dozens of Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, the Rumsfeld v. FAIR case. major media and journalists' entities, Inc., 3 which upheld a mandatory assess- Spring 2005 D Communications Lawyer D 23 ment on growers of California tree fruit government speech argument unless it Solomon Amendment interferes with on the theory that the generic advertis­ has revealed to the public its responsi­ the schools' constitutional rights in two ing at issue was part of a larger regula­ bility for the speech at issue-especial­ related ways. First, the Third Circuit tory program that in effect collectivized ly when the funding comes from a tar­ reasoned, the law dilutes the schools' the operations of those growers. geted assessment. First Amendment right of associational In the Livestock Marketing case, the expression by requiring federally funded Court for the first time addressed the Rumsfeld v. FAIR schools not only to permit, but actually to argument that these types of mandatory On November 29, 2005, the Supreme facilitate, activities the schools seek to assessments do not implicate First Court will hear argument in Rumsfeld v. condemn. Second, the court of appeals Amendment concerns because the adver­ Forum for Academic and Institutional held, the Solomon Amendment effectu­ tising at issue constitutes "government Rights ("FAIR"), No. 04-1152, a chal­ ates a system of compelled speech, under speech" and the Constitution allows the lenge to a series of federal funding which law schools must affirmatively aid government to demand that the citizenry, restrictions collectively known as the military recruiters in disseminating their or some subset thereof, fund government Solomon Amendment. The FAIR case message. Addressing the government's speech. (That issue had been raised in raises several core First Amendment asserted interest in seeking to raise and United Foods but too late to be address­ issues, including the contours of the support a military, the Third Circuit ed by the Court.) In an opinion written unconstitutional conditions doctrine, deemed that interest to be a "vital" one, by Justice Scalia, joined by the Chief the delineation between speech and but noted that the government had Justice and Justices O'Connor, Thomas, conduct, and the constitutional limits offered "no evidence that would support and Breyer, the Court accepted the argu­ on government-compelled speech. the necessity of requiring law schools to ment that the advertising was really the In its present form, the Solomon provide the military with a forum for, government speaking and thus the beef Amendment denies federal funds to and assistance in, recruiting."5 producers who objected to funding it any institution of higher education that lacked a valid constitutional claim. does not provide military recruiters Potential Reverberations with access to its campus and students In the Supreme Court, the government "Government Speech" on par with the access available to other advances several arguments that, if Responding to the argument that the employers. The statute not only covers accepted, likely would reverberate well Cattlemen's Beef Promotion and funding from a wide variety of federal beyond this case. For example, the gov­ Research Board Operating Committee agencies-including, among others, the ernment advocates a narrow view of the that actually receives the money and Departments of Defense, Labor, Health unconstitutional conditions doctrine, arranges for the advertising is not the and Human Services, Education, under which the First Amendment limits government, the Court noted that its Homeland Security, and Transportation­ Congress's Spending Clause authority activities were comprehensively con­ but also penalizes a parent university for only when a funding condition aims "at trolled by the Secretary of Agriculture.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Constitutional Law Mnemonics
    CONSTITUTIONAL LAW MNEMONICS 1) PEG a violation of the Establishment Clause: P – The state statute or activity must have a primarily secular PURPOSE as opposed to the purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion E – The law’s primary or inevitable EFFECT must neither disapprove of nor endorse religion AND G – The law or conduct can’t foster excessive GOVERNMENTAL religious entanglement 2) A content-neutral regulation must be a reasonable SON of the First Amendment: S – The restriction must be justified by a SIGNIFICANT governmental interest O – The regulation must leave OPEN ample alternative channels of communication AND N – The regulation must be NARROWLY tailored to further the government’s goal, but doesn’t have to be least restrictive means of doing so 3) All commercial speech restrictions with STAN are valid: S – Government must have a SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST to restrict the speech T – Advertisements must be TRUTHFUL and concern lawful products and services A – Governmental restrictions must directly and materially ADVANCE the government’s “substantial interest” in enacting the law (and there must be “reasonable fit” between the state’s goal and means used to achieve that goal) N – The regulation must be NARROWLY-DRAWN and must not be more extensive than necessary to achieve the government’s substantial interest 4) The statute’s primary purpose must be a secular (non-religious) purpose, as opposed to a DOE purpose of Disapproving Or Endorsing religion 5) SLAP POP’S PAW is simply obscene, and is not constitutionally protected: SLAP –
    [Show full text]
  • US Constitution First Amendment: an Overview
    US Constitution first amendment: an overview The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference. See U.S. Const. amend. I. Freedom of expression consists of the rights to freedom of speech, press, assembly and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and the implied rights of association and belief. The Supreme Court interprets the extent of the protection afforded to these rights. The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Court as applying to the entire federal government even though it is only expressly applicable to Congress. Furthermore, the Court has interpreted, the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the rights in the First Amendment from interference by state governments. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. Two clauses in the First Amendment guarantee freedom of religion. The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. The most basic component of freedom of expression is the right of freedom of speech. The right to freedom of speech allows individuals to express themselves without interference or constraint by the government. The Supreme Court requires the government to provide substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech.
    [Show full text]
  • Matal V. Tam & the Right to Own Disparaging Words
    WHAT’S IN A NAME?: MATAL V. TAM & THE RIGHT TO OWN DISPARAGING WORDS I. INTRODUCTION In June 2017, the Supreme Court decided Matal v. Tam,1 a rare case in which intellectual property and First Amendment law collided.2 The principal question was whether the Lanham Act’s (“the Act”) Disparagement Clause was constitutional.3 While the Court had declined to answer this question with previous plaintiffs, such as the Washington Redskins (“the Redskins”), the Court granted certiorari to Simon Tam (“Tam”) and his Asian-American bandmates to decide whether the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) had wrongly denied trademark registration for their band name: The Slants.4 Tam and his bandmates (collectively “The Slants”) are more sympathetic plaintiffs than the Washington Redskins: they are Asian-Americans reclaiming an outdated term derogatory to Asian-Americans.5 The Redskins, on the other hand, operate under a long-reviled racist term for Native Americans, and at best, a slim minority of their members is Native American.6 The Slants won their Supreme Court case, but the Court left unresolved the next question, which is what this decision means for less-than-sympathetic parties like the Redskins.7 This paper will explore what rights individuals and organizations have in owning derogatory terminology. Part II provides the background of trademark registration criteria and benefits, a summary of the process to appeal rejected trademarks, an introduction to the Act and Disparagement Clause, and a brief overview of First Amendment law. Part III provides a history 1 137 S. Ct. 1744 (2017). 2 See generally id.
    [Show full text]
  • First Amendment Tests from the Burger Court: Will They Be Flipped?
    FIRST AMENDMENT TESTS FROM THE BURGER COURT: WILL THEY BE FLIPPED? David L. Hudson, Jr. † and Emily H. Harvey †† I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................ 52 II. THE LEMON TEST ..................................................................... 53 III. THE MILLER TEST .................................................................... 58 IV. THE CENTRAL HUDSON TEST ..................................................... 63 V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................... 66 I. INTRODUCTION When scholars speak of the Burger Court, they often mention the curtailing of individual rights in the criminal justice arena, 1 federalism decisions, 2 its “rootless activism,” 3 a failure in equal † David L. Hudson, Jr., is a Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow with the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and the Newseum Institute First Amendment Fellow. He teaches at the Nashville School of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. He would like to thank his co-author Emily Harvey, the student editors of the Mitchell Hamline Law Review , and Azhar Majeed of FIRE. †† Emily H. Harvey is the senior judicial law clerk for the Hon. Frank G. Clement, Jr., of the Tennessee Court of Appeals. 1. See Yale Kamisar, The Warren Court and Criminal Justice: A Quarter-Century Retrospective , 31 TULSA L.J. 1, 14, 44 (1995); Steven D. Clymer, Note, Warrantless Vehicle Searches and the Fourth Amendment: The Burger Court Attacks the Exclusionary Rule , 68 CORNELL L. REV . 105, 129, 141, 144–45 (1982). 2. See David Scott Louk, Note, Repairing the Irreparable: Revisiting the Federalism Decisions of the Burger Court , 125 YALE L.J. 682, 686–87, 694, 710, 724–25 (2016); Lea Brilmayer & Ronald D. Lee, State Sovereignty and the Two Faces of Federalism: A Comparative Study of Federal Jurisdiction and the Conflict of Laws , 60 NOTRE DAME L.
    [Show full text]
  • Limiting Political Contributions After Mccutcheon, Citizens United, and Speechnow Albert W
    Florida Law Review Volume 67 | Issue 2 Article 1 January 2016 Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow Albert W. Alschuler Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr Part of the Election Law Commons Recommended Citation Albert W. Alschuler, Limiting Political Contributions After McCutcheon, Citizens United, and SpeechNow, 67 Fla. L. Rev. 389 (2016). Available at: http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/flr/vol67/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida Law Review by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alschuler: Limiting Political Contributions After <i> McCutcheon</i>, <i>Cit LIMITING POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS AFTER MCCUTCHEON, CITIZENS UNITED, AND SPEECHNOW Albert W. Alschuler* Abstract There was something unreal about the opinions in McCutcheon v. FEC. These opinions examined a series of strategies for circumventing the limits on contributions to candidates imposed by federal election law, but they failed to notice that the limits were no longer breathing. The D.C. Circuit’s decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC had created a far easier way to evade the limits than any of those the Supreme Court discussed. SpeechNow held all limits on contributions to super PACs unconstitutional. This Article argues that the D.C. Circuit erred; Citizens United v. FEC did not require unleashing super PAC contributions. The Article also considers what can be said for and against a bumper sticker’s declarations that “MONEY IS NOT SPEECH!” and “CORPORATIONS ARE NOT PEOPLE!” It proposes a framework for evaluating the constitutionality of campaign-finance regulations that differs from the one currently employed by the Supreme Court.
    [Show full text]
  • Taking First Amendment Procedure Seriously: an Analysis of Process in Libel Litigation
    Taking First Amendment Procedure Seriously: An Analysis of Process in Libel Litigation SUSAN M. GiLLEs* This Article addresses a critical problem in libel law: when should established procedural rules be altered to protect free speech. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that special or modified proceduralrules are necessary to safeguard First Amendment interests. Yet, as Professor Gilles demonstrates, the Court has failed to articulate a rationalefor determining what proceduralrules should apply in libel cases. Instead, it has proceeded on a case by case basis, granting and denying procedural breaks without explanation. While the process created by the Court seems highly effective at safeguardingfree speech interests, a second glance reveals that jury error is rampant, with reversal, remand, and damage reduction rates running at over 70%. Professor Gilles argues that the Court has created a procedural quagmire which serves neitherplaintiffs, defendants, nor the FirstAmendment. Professor Gilles then reexamines what we mean by First Amendment process. She contends that the problems of the current system stem from the Court's preoccupation with accuracy and its failure to recognize the equally vital goals of speed and efficiency. Professor Gilles argues that ifthe Court adopted a more balancedapproach, giving consistent consideration of all three goals, it could rationalize and improve the process for deciding libel cases. This Article concludes by offering a number of specific reforms toward that end. "[It is important to ensure not only that the substantiveFirst Amendment standardsare sound, but also that they are applied through reliable procedures.,,1 I. INTRODUCTION I have often imagined a debate between Justices Brennan and Black over the case of New York Times Co.
    [Show full text]
  • MORSE V. FREDERICK
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2006 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 MORSE ET AL. v. FREDERICK CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT No. 06–278. Argued March 19, 2007—Decided June 25, 2007 At a school-sanctioned and school-supervised event, petitioner Morse, the high school principal, saw students unfurl a banner stating “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS,” which she regarded as promoting illegal drug use. Consistent with established school policy prohibiting such messages at school events, Morse directed the students to take down the banner. When one of the students who had brought the banner to the event—respondent Frederick—refused, Morse confiscated the banner and later suspended him. The school superintendent upheld the suspension, explaining, inter alia, that Frederick was disciplined because his banner appeared to advocate illegal drug use in violation of school policy. Petitioner school board also upheld the suspension. Frederick filed suit under 42 U. S. C. §1983, alleging that the school board and Morse had violated his First Amendment rights. The Dis- trict Court granted petitioners summary judgment, ruling that they were entitled to qualified immunity and that they had not infringed Frederick’s speech rights.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief Amici Curiae of Goldwater Institute
    No. 19-988 ================================================================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- LIVING ESSENTIALS, LLC; INNOVATION VENTURES, LLC, Petitioners, v. STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- On Petition For A Writ Of Certiorari To The Washington Court Of Appeals, Division One --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE GOLDWATER INSTITUTE, CATO INSTITUTE, AND REASON FOUNDATION IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS --------------------------------- ♦ --------------------------------- ILYA SHAPIRO JACOB HUEBERT* TREVOR BURRUS SCHARF-NORTON CENTER CATO INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL 1000 Mass. Ave. NW LITIGATION AT THE Washington, DC 20001 GOLDWATER INSTITUTE (202) 842-0200 500 E. Coronado Rd. [email protected] Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 462-5000 MANUEL S. KLAUSNER litigation@ LAW OFFICE OF goldwaterinstitute.org MANUEL S. KLAUSNER *Counsel of Record 333 S. Grand Ave., Ste. 4200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 (213) 617-0414 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae ================================================================================================================ COCKLE LEGAL BRIEFS (800) 225-6964 WWW.COCKLELEGALBRIEFS.COM i QUESTION PRESENTED Under the “prior substantiation” doctrine, a busi- ness may be held liable for making a factual claim if a court concludes the business lacked adequate
    [Show full text]
  • Equity Will Not Enjoin a Libel”: Well, Actually, Yes, It Will
    SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 11, Issue 2 Spring 2016 “EQUITY WILL NOT ENJOIN A LIBEL”: WELL, ACTUALLY, YES, IT WILL ∗ ANN C. MOTTO Cite as: Ann C. Motto, “Equity Will Not Enjoin a Libel”: Well, Actually, Yes, It Will, 11 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REV. 271 (2016), at http://www.kentlaw.iit.edu/Documents /Academic Programs/7CR/11-2/motto.pdf. INTRODUCTION “If there is one amendment, that is literally first among equals, then it is truly the First Amendment.”1 The First Amendment prohibits prior restraints on speech, i.e., judicial suppression of material that would be published or broadcast, on the grounds that it is libelous, defamatory, or harmful.2 However, the imposition of subsequent liability for defamation does not abridge the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.3 It is this important distinction drawn by the United States Supreme Court—subsequent punishment vs. prior restraint—that denotes the permissible remedies and punishments in a court of law for defamation. One question remains unanswered by the Supreme Court: while the First Amendment allows for after-the-fact punishment for defamation in the form of money damages, or even imprisonment, does the First Amendment permit ∗ J.D., Chicago-Kent College of Law, May 2016. 1 Cailah E. Garfinkel, The Importance of an Independent Judiciary and a Free Press, 22 SUM DEL. LAW. 28 (2004). 2 There are a few exceptions to the prohibition on prior restraint discussed infra Part I. 3 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 301–02 (1964). 271 SEVENTH CIRCUIT REVIEW Volume 11, Issue 2 Spring 2016 permanent injunctions against published or spoken speech that has been found to be defamatory by a judge or jury? Permanently enjoining defamatory speech is preventing speech before it happens.
    [Show full text]
  • Free Advertising: the Case for Public Relations As Commercial Speech
    LCB10.2_PIETY.DOC 5/17/2006 4:50:09 PM FREE ADVERTISING: THE CASE FOR PUBLIC RELATIONS AS COMMERCIAL SPEECH by Tamara R. Piety* The commercial speech doctrine, the doctrine establishing a subcategory of protected speech under the First Amendment, has been under increased fire, most prominently in 2003 with Nike v. Kasky, but also in other cases around the country covering a variety of contexts. A key distinguishing attribute of the commercial speech doctrine is that it permits the government to regulate the speech that it covers for its truth. This is precisely what the government may not regulate in the area of political and expressive speech. Many critics would like to see the commercial speech doctrine done away with altogether. They argue commercial speech should be treated like political and expressive speech under the First Amendment. Professor Piety has argued elsewhere that subjecting commercial speech to the same strict scrutiny as political and expressive speech would have far reaching negative consequences. In this Article, Professor Piety addresses a narrower concern: the argument that (assuming efforts to eliminate it altogether fail) the commercial speech doctrine’s application should be expressly limited to “traditional advertising,” excluding corporate speech in the form of public relations. She proposes that this argument is misplaced because the purposes articulated by the Supreme Court in establishing the commercial speech doctrine would be better served by applying it to all marketing-related speech, including public relations. I. COMMERCIAL SPEECH ........................................................................375 A. The Listeners’ Rights.........................................................................376 B. The Need for Accurate Information in the Operation of a Free Market ...............................................................................................378 C.
    [Show full text]
  • Janus V. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees: an Unprecedented Departure from Precedent
    JANUS V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY, AND MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES: AN UNPRECEDENTED DEPARTURE FROM PRECEDENT I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 474 II. FACTS AND HOLDING ........................................................ 475 III. LEGAL BACKGROUND ....................................................... 477 A. ABOOD .......................................................................... 478 B. PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND THEIR ABRIDGED FREEDOMS OF SPEECH .......................................... 480 C. STARE DECISIS ........................................................... 482 IV. THE COURT’S DECISION ................................................... 484 A. ABOOD WAS INCONSISTENT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT PRINCIPLES ..................................... 484 B. ABOOD USED FLAWED REASONING TO JUSTIFY IMPOSING AGENCY FEES ....................... 485 1. AGENCY FEES ARE NOT INEXTRICABLY LINKED TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ARRANGEMENTS ...... 485 2. AGENCY FEES ARE NOT NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN LABOR PEACE AND PREVENT FREE RIDERS ................................................................... 486 3. FAIR REPRESENTATION CAN BE MAINTAINED WITHOUT REQUIRING AGENCY FEES ..................... 486 4. ABOOD DID NOT UPHOLD THE DECISION IN PICKERING ............................................................. 488 5. THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT AGENCY FEES ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ....................................... 489 C. STARE DECISIS DID NOT REQUIRE THIS COURT TO UPHOLD ABOOD ..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Injunctions for Defamation, Juries, and and the Clarifying Lens of 1868
    Buffalo Law Review Volume 56 Number 3 Article 2 7-1-2008 Injunctions for Defamation, Juries, and and the Clarifying Lens of 1868 Stephen A. Siegel DePaul University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Torts Commons Recommended Citation Stephen A. Siegel, Injunctions for Defamation, Juries, and and the Clarifying Lens of 1868, 56 Buff. L. Rev. 655 (2008). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/buffalolawreview/vol56/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BUFFALO LAW REVIEW VOLUME 56 JULY 2008 NUMBER 3 Injunctions for Defamation, Juries, and the Clarifying Lens of 1868 STEPHEN A. SIEGELt INTRODUCTION Over the past half century, constitutional protection for freedom of speech has broadened' and strengthened. 2 In t Distinguished Research Professor and Associate Dean for Research, Scholarship, and Faculty Development, DePaul University College of Law. The author thanks Alfred Brophy, Andrew Gold, Mark Moller, and Spencer Waller for critical commentary on earlier drafts. My interest in injunctions for defamation began when I participated in the Brief Amici Curiae of Historians Alfred L. Brophy, Paul Finkelman, Kermit L. Hall, Michael I. Meyerson, and Stephen A. Siegel in Support of Petitioners, Tory v. Cochran, 544 U.S. 734 (2005).
    [Show full text]