Julie Hilden

Julie Hilden

Julie Hilden graduated from Harvard College and Yale Law School, where she served as a Teaching Assistant and a Notes Editor on the Yale Law Journal.

From 1992-93, Hilden clerked for then-Chief Judge Stephen G. Breyer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

From 1993-95, she earned an M.F.A. in Fiction Writing from Cornell, and taught a course in Legal Writing at Cornell Law School.

From 1995-96, she clerked for Judge Kimba M. Wood of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

From 1996-99, she was a litigation associate at the Washington, D.C. firm of Williams & Connolly, where she focused primarily on First Amendment issues.

Since 2000, Hilden has worked as a freelance writer and editor. Her novel, 3, was published in 2003 and optioned for film. From 2000 to 2010, her legal commentary appeared regularly on FindLaw.com’s Writ and occasionally on other media venues such as Good Morning America, Court TV, CNN.com, NPR, and Slate.com.

Columns by Julie Hilden

When Do Message-Board Rants Count as Illegal Threats Against a Presidential Candidate? The Issue That Caused a Ninth Circuit Panel to Split, 2-1

Justia columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden comments on a recent, split decision from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. As Hilden explains, the case involved the “true threats” doctrine, which determines when a statement is an illegal threat, and when it is protected by the First Amendment. The defendant’s message-board postings about then-candidate Obama were ominous, but were they full-fledged threats under the legal test? Hilden explains why two Ninth Circuit judges said no, but one said yes.

The Strauss-Kahn Accuser’s Defamation Suit Against the New York Post: As a Matter of Strategy, Should It Have Been Filed Now, Later, or Never?

Justia columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden comments on a recent development in the criminal case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn: The accuser has filed a defamation claim against the New York Post for articles suggesting she has worked as a prostitute. Hilden comments on the timing of the defamation action, and the decision, in that action, to target only the Post’s claims that she is a prostitute, and not its other potentially damaging claims about her—including its claims that she has lied.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling on “Violent” Video Games: The Majority Opinion, and the Dissents

Justia columnist, attorney, and author Julie Hilden comments on the Supreme Court's decision yesterday, June 27, in the "violent" video games case. The Court decided, 7-2, to strike down California's law restricting minors' access to such games. Hilden explains the logic behind the opinion of the Court, written by Justice Scalia; contends that California made a mistake in framing its video-game law the way it did; and explains why Justice Breyer saw the case as more about the protection of children than about First Amendment rights, and accordingly dissented.