DOCSLIB.ORG

Detroit Free Press V. U.S. Dep't of Justice and A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Detroit Free Press V. U.S. Dep't of Justice and A Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice Volume 37 Article 5 Issue 3 Electronic Supplement April 2016 Mean Muggin’ No More: Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs Meghan Looney Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons, Internet Law Commons, Law Enforcement and Corrections Commons, and the Privacy Law Commons Recommended Citation Meghan Looney, Mean Muggin’ No More: Detroit Free Press v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs, 37 B.C.J.L. & Soc. Just. E. Supp. 45 (2016), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/jlsj/vol37/iss3/5 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MEAN MUGGIN’ NO MORE: DETROIT FREE PRESS v. U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE AND A NON-TRIVIAL PRIVACY INTEREST IN BOOKING PHOTOGRAPHS * MEGHAN LOONEY Abstract: On July 14, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that criminal defendants have a legitimate privacy interest in their booking pho- tographs, thereby reversing and remanding a grant of summary judgment in favor of the Detroit Free Press’s request for the booking photographs of four police of- ficers who had recently been indicted for bribery and drug conspiracy. In holding that the public disclosure of booking photographs may constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, the majority overturned twenty years’ worth of Sixth Circuit precedent. The court properly acknowledged that booking photo- graphs convey a portrait of guilt to the viewer, and that the Freedom of Infor- mation Act’s exemptions are meant to protect individuals who have not yet been convicted from having humiliating personal information freely disclosed to the public. This Comment argues in favor of the majority’s holding, which acknowl- edged that defendants have a privacy interest in their booking photographs and adopted a case-by-case approach to balancing that privacy interest against the public interest in releasing the photographs. The Sixth Circuit’s decision protects the personal identity of the accused in the age of the Internet, and allows defend- ants to truly maintain their presumption of innocence until proven guilty. INTRODUCTION On January 25, 2013, the U.S. Marshal Service denied a request by the Detroit Free Press for the booking photographs, colloquially referred to as “mug shots,” of four police officers awaiting trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.1 The four police officers, indicted for bribery and drug conspiracy charges, were awaiting a federal trial.2 The Detroit Free * Staff Writer, BOSTON COLLEGE JOURNAL OF LAW & SOCIAL JUSTICE, 2016–2017. 1 See Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Detroit Free Press II), 16 F. Supp. 3d 798, 800–01 (E.D. Mich. 2014), aff’d, 796 F.3d 649 (6th Cir. 2015), rev’d and remanded en banc sub nom. Detroit Free Press Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Detroit Free Press IV), 829 F.3d 478 (6th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. Dep’t of Justice, No. 16-706, 2017 WL 2216947 (U.S. May 22, 2017). 2 See Detroit Free Press IV, 829 F.3d at 481. However, while Detroit Free Press II was being litigated, all four police officers pled guilty to the charges. See Detroit Free Press II, 16 F. Supp. 3d at 812. 45 46 Boston College Journal of Law & Social Justice [Vol. 37:E. Supp. Press, the largest daily newspaper publication in Detroit, Michigan, made the request for booking photographs pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), a statute enacted by Congress in 1966 to promote the disclosure and transparency of governmental records to the public.3 FOIA requires that each federal agency make their records readily available to the public upon request, to enhance the public’s understanding of the federal government’s activities.4 An agency may only withhold information from the public if the request falls within one of nine statutory exemptions to FOIA.5 At issue with the Detroit Free Press’ FOIA request in this case is exemption 7(C), which states that FOIA does not apply to records created for the purpose of law enforcement that “could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.”6 When the U.S. Marshals invoked exemption 7(C) to deny the news- paper’s request for booking photographs, the Detroit Free Press claimed that this denial violated FOIA.7 In response, the Detroit Free Press sued the U.S. Depart- ment of Justice, thereby commencing Detroit Free Press II.8 In 1996, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice (Detroit Free Press I), a case with facts analogous to Detroit Free Press II.9 In Detroit Free Press I, the majority held that upon receiving a FOIA request for booking photographs, government agencies were required to release the photographs to the requestor because defendants could not reasonably expect that this disclosure would im- plicate their privacy rights.10 The majority in Detroit Free Press I reasoned that the Detroit Free Press’ request did not fall within one of FOIA’s exemptions because the mere fact that the information was embarrassing or harmful to the individual did not necessarily establish an invasion of personal privacy.11 To reach this conclusion, the majority held that in an ongoing criminal proceeding where the defendant has already appeared in court and had his name made public, the dissemination of the defendant’s booking photograph did not vio- 3 See 5 U.S.C. § 552 (2016); Detroit Free Press IV, 829 F.3d at 481; see also U.S. Dep’t of Jus- tice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. 749, 754 (1989) (quoting Dep’t of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 360–61 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 4 See § 552(a); Reporters Comm. for Freedom of the Press, 489 U.S. at 775. 5 See § 552(b). 6 See § 552(b)(7)(C). 7 See Detroit Free Press II, 16 F. Supp. 3d at 801. 8 See id. 9 See Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (Detroit Free Press I), 73 F.3d 93, 95 (6th Cir. 1996), overruled by Detroit Free Press IV, 829 F.3d at 484. It is important to note that Detroit Free Press I is an entirely different case than Detroit Free Press II, even though the two cases have similar fact patterns and identical party names. See Detroit Free Press II, 16 F. Supp. 3d at 801. How- ever, Detroit Free Press II, Detroit Free Press III, and Detroit Free Press IV, all refer to the same case and set of facts, and only differ procedurally. See Detroit Free Press IV, 829 F.3d at 481. 10 See Detroit Free Press I, 73 F.3d at 97. 11 See id. 2017] Detroit Free Press and a Non-Trivial Privacy Interest in Booking Photographs 47 late any privacy rights.12 Adhering to this precedent set forth in Detroit Free Press I, in 2014 the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment to the Detroit Free Press in Detroit Free Press II, and or- dered that the U.S. Marshals release the booking photographs of the four po- lice officers awaiting federal prosecution to the newspaper.13 On appeal, a panel of the Sixth Circuit heard Detroit Free Press, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice (Detroit Free Press III), and, similarly constrained by the precedent set forth in Detroit Free Press I, affirmed the dis- trict court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Detroit Free Press.14 However, the panel strongly advocated for the full Sixth Circuit to rehear the case and reconsider the holding set forth in Detroit Free Press I.15 Upon grant- ing a rehearing en banc to reevaluate the Sixth Circuit’s precedent, the full Sixth Circuit reversed the district court and panel decisions in Detroit Free Press IV, holding that defendants in ongoing criminal proceedings have a “non-trivial” privacy interest in their booking photos.16 In overturning two decades of precedent, and reversing two separate Sixth Circuit decisions, the appeals court recognized the damaging and long-lasting effects that the public release of booking photographs has on an individual’s privacy interests.17 Part I of this Comment analyzes the history of the Sixth Circuit precedent surrounding the disclosure of booking photographs, beginning with FOIA and Detroit Free Press I, followed by the factual and procedural history of Detroit Free Press II, III, and I V. Part II of this Comment delves further into the Sixth Circuit’s analysis of booking photograph disclosure, and the long-lasting ef- fects of this practice as compared to the release of other types of documents. Part III of this Comment supports the Sixth Circuit majority’s holding in De- troit Free Press IV that defendants in ongoing criminal proceedings have a sig- nificant privacy interest in their booking photographs and are thus exempt from mandatory disclosure under FOIA.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • THE UNITED STATES COURTS of APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 a Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the Natio
    THE UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS DATA BASE DOCUMENTATION for PHASE 1 A Multi User Data Base Created by a Grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-8912678) Principal Investigator: Donald R. Songer Professor of Political Science University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208 email: Dsonger @ sc.edu Table of Contents General Introduction................................... 3 Files Distributed...................................... 7 Sampling & Weighting................................... 8 Reliability Analysis................................... 9 Variable list.......................................... 10 DESCRIPTION OF VARIABLES Basic Case Characteristics General Description.......................... 17 History & Nature of Case..................... 21 Participants Appellants................................... 32 Respondents.................................. 58 Other Participants........................... 66 Issue Coding Basic Nature of Issues & Decision............ 68 Provisions Cited in Headnotes................ 95 Threshhold Issues............................102 Criminal Issues..............................109 Civil Law Issues.............................118 Civil Government & Administrative Law........127 Diversity Issues.............................134 Judges and Votes..................................135 Appendix 1: Alphabetical List of Variables.............147 Appendix 2: Variable List in Input Order...............152 Appendix 3: List of Appeals Court Judge Codes..........158 Appendix 4: List of District Court Judge Codes.........173
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Download
    MARCH/APRIL 2019 TURN TO PAGE 5 FOR 2019 KBA Annual Convention Details Individual Own Occupation Disability Coverage for Kentucky Attorneys Affordable KBA Rates from Metlife KBA Member Semiannual Rates Monthly Coverage Amount: $3,000 $5,000 $10,000 Under 30 yrs $152 $252 $502 30-39 yrs $213 $354 $705 40-49 yrs $352 $585 $1,167 ✓ No Medical Exam (Under Age 50) ✓ No Tax Returns ✓ Apply for up to $10,000/month Coverage ✓ Residual Disability Coverage ✓ Industry Standard Disability Definition ✓ Easy Online Application Visit www.NIAI.com/Attorneys for KBA quotes and application Call or Email TODAY | 800.928.6421 | [email protected] | www.NIAI.com This issue of the Kentucky Bar Association’s VOL. 83, NO. 2 B&B-Bench & Bar was published in the month of March. COMMUNICATIONS & PUBLICATIONS COMMITTEE Contents James P. Dady, Chair, Bellevue 2 President’s Page Paul Alley, Florence By: Douglas C. Ballantine Elizabeth M. Bass, Gallatin, Tenn. Rhonda J. Blackburn, Pikeville 5 2019 KBA Annual Convention Preview and Jenn L. Brinkley, Bowling Green Registration Information Frances E. Catron Cadle, Lexington Anne A. Chesnut, Lexington 14 Q & A with “Survivor” Winner Kentucky Attorney Nick Wilson Elizabeth A. Deener, Lexington 16 Book Review: Brian Haara’s “Bourbon Justice: Tamara A. Fagley, Lexington How Whiskey Law Shaped America” Cathy W. Franck, Crestwood By: James P. Dady Lonita Baker Gaines, Louisville William R. Garmer, Lexington Features: Information Governance P. Franklin Heaberlin, Prestonsburg 20 Information Governance: “Do You Actually Know Judith B. Hoge, Louisville What You Don’t Know?” Jessica R. C. Malloy, Louisville By: Sandra J.
    [Show full text]
  • FIXING the VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS and the CRISIS in the COURTS Alicia Bannon R
    FIXING THE VOTE Wendy Weiser, Michael Waldman, Myrna Pérez, Diana Kasdan CONGRESS AND THE CRISIS IN THE COURTS Alicia Bannon REFORMS TO CURB MASS INCARCERATION Inimai Chettiar, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, Nicole Fortier NATIONAL SECURITY, LOCAL POLICE Michael Price PLUS: DEMOCRACY TODAY Bill Moyers ‘MONEYBALL’ FOR CRIMINAL JUSTICE Peter Orszag ON POLITICAL POLARIZATION Richard Pildes, Monica Youn, Robert Bauer, Benjamin Ginsberg WILL SOCIAL MEDIA CHANGE OUR POLITICS? Walter Shapiro THE LIES WE TELL ABOUT THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL Andrew Cohen AN INNOVATION MOMENT FOR CAMPAIGN REFORM Gov. Andrew Cuomo, AG Eric Schneiderman, Lawrence Norden, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Lawrence Lessig1 The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law is a nonpartisan law and policy institute that seeks to improve our systems of democracy and justice. We work to hold our political institutions and laws accountable to the twin American ideals of democracy and equal justice for all. The Center’s work ranges from voting rights to campaign finance reform, from racial justice in criminal law to Constitutional protection in the fight against terrorism. A singular institution — part think tank, part public interest law firm, part advocacy group, part communications hub — the Brennan Center seeks meaningful, measurable change in the systems by which our nation is governed. About Democracy & Justice: Collected Writings 2013 The material in this volume is excerpted from Brennan Center reports, policy proposals, and issue briefs. We’ve also excerpted material from public remarks, legal briefs, congressional testimony, and op-ed pieces written by Brennan Center staff in 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • If You Have Issues Viewing Or Accessing This File Contact Us at NCJRS.Gov
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. • COURT',.---------. DIRECTORY MARCH 1987 '. 106091 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization cfiglnating it. Points of view or opinions stated in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this c~d material has been granted by Public Domain/Administrative Office of the United states Courts to the National Crimi nat Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of th~ht owner. UNITED STATES COURT DIRECTORY Issued by: The Administrative Office of the United States Courts Wa~hington, D.C. 20544 Contents: Personnel Division " Office of the Chief (202-633-6115) Printing & Distribution: Administrative Services Division Printing & Distribution Facility (301-763-1865) The information in this Directory is current as of February I, 1987. TABLE OF CONTENTS Supreme Court . ................................................................................ United States Courts of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit ............................................... "................... 2 First Circuit. .. 4 Second Circuit. .. 5 Third Circuit. .. 8 Fourth Circuit. .. 10 Fifth Circuit ................................................................................. 12 Sixth Circuit ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Judicial Branch
    JUDICIAL BRANCH SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street, NE., 20543, phone (202) 479–3000 JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., Chief Justice of the United States, was born in Buffalo, NY, January 27, 1955. He married Jane Marie Sullivan in 1996 and they have two children, Josephine and Jack. He received an A.B. from Harvard College in 1976 and a J.D. from Harvard Law School in 1979. He served as a law clerk for Judge Henry J. Friendly of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from 1979–80 and as a law clerk for then Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court of the United States during the 1980 term. He was Special Assistant to the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1981–82, Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Coun- sel’s Office from 1982–86, and Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice from 1989–93. From 1986–89 and 1993–2003, he practiced law in Washington, DC. He was appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2003. President George W. Bush nominated him as Chief Justice of the United States, and he took his seat September 29, 2005. ANTONIN SCALIA, Associate Justice, was born in Trenton, NJ, March 11, 1936. He married Maureen McCarthy and has nine children, Ann Forrest, Eugene, John Francis, Catherine Elisabeth, Mary Clare, Paul David, Matthew, Christopher James, and Margaret Jane. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg, Switzerland, and his LL.B.
    [Show full text]
  • Enough for a Minyan: a Jewish Who's Who of Biden's Cabinet
    YOUR SHABBAT EDITION • JANUARY 22, 2021 Stories for you to savor over Shabbat and Sunday GET THE LATEST AT FORWARD.COM 1 GET THE LATEST AT FORWARD.COM News Enough for a minyan: A Jewish who’s who of Biden’s cabinet-to-be By Jacob Kornbluh As President-elect Joe Biden announced his picks for Hannah and Michael — would be raised Jewish, but that the Cabinet, the joke went around on Jewish Twitter the family would also celebrate Christmas. that the West Wing would have a minyan. A Harvard Law School graduate, Klain first served as Indeed, at least 10 prominent Jews have been chief of staff to former Vice President Al Gore and later nominated to key positions. There’s Ronald Klain (chief as chief of staff to Biden during his first term as vice of staff); Anthony Blinken (Secretary of State); Janet president. In 2014 he was appointed as President Yellen (Treasury); Merrick Garland (Attorney General); Barack Obama’s Ebola response coordinator. Alejandro Mayorkas (Homeland Security); and Avril Klain — an active Twitter user — played a key role in Haines (Director of National Intelligence). One level drafting Biden’s plan to address COVID-19 during the down are Wendy Sherman (deputy Secretary of State); presidential campaign. Eric Lander (science and technology adviser); Ann Neuberger (deputy National Security Adviser); and Tevi Troy, a historian and author of “Fight House,” a David Cohen (deputy CIA director). book about rivalries at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, pointed out that a number of Jews have preceded Klain Plus there’s Doug Emhoff, the Jewish husband of Vice in the role.
    [Show full text]
  • Judiciary Supreme Court of the United States
    JUDICIARY SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES One First Street NE 20543, phone 479±3000 WILLIAM HUBBS REHNQUIST, Chief Justice of the United States; born in Milwaukee, WI, October 1, 1924; son of William Benjamin and Margery Peck Rehnquist; married to Natalie Cornell of San Diego, CA; children: James, Janet, and Nancy, member of Faith Lutheran Church, Arlington, VA; served in the U.S. Army Air Corps in this country and overseas from 1943±46; discharged with the rank of sergeant; Stanford University, B.A., M.A., 1948; Harvard University, M.A., 1950; Stanford University, LL.B., 1952, ranking first in class; Order of the Coif; member of the Board of Editors of the Stanford Law Review; law clerk for Justice Robert H. Jackson, Supreme Court of the United States, 1952±53; private practice of law, Phoenix, AZ, 1953±69; engaged in a general practice of law with primary emphasis on civil litigation; appointed Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, by President Nixon in January 1969; nominated Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States by President Nixon on October 21, 1971, confirmed December 10, 1971, sworn in on January 7, 1972; nominated by President Reagan as Chief Justice of the United States on June 17, 1986; sworn in on September 26, 1986. JOHN PAUL STEVENS, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States; born in Chicago, IL, April 20, 1920; son of Ernest James and Elizabeth Street Stevens; A.B., University of Chicago, 1941, Phi Beta Kappa, Psi Upsilon; J.D. (magna cum laude), Northwestern University, 1947, Order of the Coif, Phi Delta Phi, co-editor, Illinois Law Review; married to Maryan Mulholland; children: John Joseph, Kathryn Jedlicka, Elizabeth Jane Sesemann, and Susan Roberta Mullen; entered active duty U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present
    Federal Cases Involving Unauthorized Disclosures to the News Media, 1778 to the Present Introduction and Methodology This chart attempts to comprehensively survey every federal case involving an effort by law enforcement, an executive branch agency, the courts, or Congress to formally investigate or prosecute someone for, or compel the disclosure of information about, the unauthorized disclosure of government information to the news media. In short, it is our attempt at an exhaustive list of “leak” cases. Please note that, in addition to the cases one would usually think of as “leaks” matters—that is, cases arising out of the disclosure of national defense information, such as those involving Daniel Ellsberg, Chelsea Manning, and Edward Snowden—we include cases where courts have ordered an investigation into grand jury leaks (e.g., BALCO, Taricani, and Walters), where Congress has formally investigated a leak (e.g., Nugent, Schorr, and Phelps/Totenberg), where the leak involved non-national security information (e.g., Agnew and Lacker), where the surveillance or targeting of reporters was conducted as part of domestic espionage activity (e.g., Project Mockingbird), and where a Privacy Act plaintiff who has had information leaked to the press about a pending investigation seeks a subpoena to uncover the source (e.g., Lee and Hatfill). This chart excludes cases involving purely internal unauthorized disclosure inquiries within the government (such as the Raj Rajaratnam inquiry at the SEC1), unless they involve the formal investigation of members of the news media. We include the two cases involving U.S. submarine-based surveillance (Operations Holystone and Ivy Bells), where senior officials actively discussed using the 1950 amendment to the Espionage Act regarding the publication of communications intelligence to prosecute the outlet.
    [Show full text]
  • Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-Elect Biden's Cabinet Is Currently Expected to Incl
    Overview: Biden Administration: Cabinet Members and Biographies President-elect Biden’s Cabinet is currently expected to include all heads of major agencies and departments; the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations; the Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers; the Director of National Intelligence; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the White House Chief of Staff. This document is organized alphabetically by last name. General Lloyd J. Austin III Secretary of Defense Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III was born in Mobile, Alabama and raised in Thomasville, Georgia before graduating from the United States Military Academy (West Point) with a BS. General Austin also holds an MA in counselor education from Auburn University and an MBA from Webster University. General Austin’s Army career began in 1975. Since then he has led joint forces in combat at the one-, two-, three- and four-star ranks. He has been a Commanding General for the 10th Mountain Division and Fort Drum; Chief of Staff and Commander for U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) at the Department of Defense; Commander of the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corps; Director of the Joint Staff; member of the Reserve Forces Policy Board; Vice Chief of Staff for the Army; and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Joint Requirements Oversight Council. He has served around the world, including Operation Safe Haven in Panama with the 82nd Airborne Division; Operation Iraqi Freedom as the assistant division commander for the 3rd Infantry Division; and Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan as the commander of the 10th Mountain Division.
    [Show full text]
  • Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School
    University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Event Materials Law School History and Publications 2017 Luxembourg Forum 2017 University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/events Part of the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "Luxembourg Forum 2017" (2017). Event Materials. http://repository.law.umich.edu/events/29 This Program is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Event Materials by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LUXEMBOURG FORUM 2017 COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION VISIT TO THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL April 15-17, 2017 6 Conference Schedule 12 Participant Bios 22 Central Campus Map 3 WELCOME It is a great pleasure and honor to welcome the Court of Justice of the European Un ion to Ann Arbor for discussions with the Law School faculty, the Michigan Supreme Court, and judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The visit comes as part of a series of exchanges between the U.S. Supreme Court and the European Court of Justice, which have been taking place for nearly two decades, and which have more recently become known as the "Luxembourg Forum." The Law School, which pioneered the study of European Union law and whose collective faculty scholarship places Michigan Law among the leaders in international legal education , has a special and longstanding connection to these exchanges, having facilitated the meetings on both sides of the Atlantic since their inception.
    [Show full text]
  • P. Brooks Fuller a Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of The
    WORDS, WOUNDS, AND RELATIONSHIPS: A MIXED-METHOD STUDY OF FREE SPEECH AND HARM IN HIGH-CONFLICT ENVIRONMENTS P. Brooks Fuller A dissertation submitted to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the School Media and Journalism. Chapel Hill 2017 Approved by: Cathy L. Packer R. Michael Hoefges George W. Noblit William P. Marshall Victoria S. Ekstrand © 2017 P. Brooks Fuller ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT P. Brooks Fuller: Words, Wounds, and Relationships: a Mixed-Method Study of Free Speech and Harm in High-Conflict Environments (Under the direction of Cathy L. Packer) This dissertation is a mixed-method, socio-legal study of First Amendment issues and social practices surrounding free expression and harm in high-conflict speech environments, such as ongoing political protests. Scholarly literature and case law on harmful speech makes clear that context is crucial for courts to understand the relative harms and values associated with speech in such environments. The outcome of a court’s contextual analysis can profoundly impact the outcome of a case involving allegedly harmful speech that falls at the borderlines of First Amendment protection. However, American courts have not articulated clear frameworks for conducting contextual analysis. Thus, lower courts have used an array of contextual factors, often implicitly and in ways that fail to grasp aspects of context that are critical for participants who engage daily in persistent, heated ideological debate in high-conflict environments. Using legal analysis and ethnographic field methods, this dissertation studies how courts conduct contextual analysis in true threats and incitement cases and how participants who engage daily in pro-and-anti-abortion advocacy at a local clinic use context to determine whether and to what extent speech causes harm.
    [Show full text]