Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers an issue on which the U.S. Supreme Court recently heard oral argument: whether the First Amendment protects a government employee from adverse action based on the government’s mistaken belief that the employee was engaged in speech or association. Dorf highlights the nuances of the case and whether there is a meaningful difference between rule-guided conduct and reason-guided conduct.
Former counsel to the president John W. Dean continues his discussion of the controversial investigative report by Al Jazeera Investigates that implicates several elite American athletes of illegal doping. Dean discusses the two lawsuits filed in federal court in the District of Columbia and the possible role an anti-SLAPP statute might play in those lawsuits.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on a case involving free speech on license plates that may reach the U.S. Supreme Court in the near future. As Dorf points out, if the Court agrees to hear the case, it will be the third major license plate case it has decided. Dorf argues that the appeals court in the present case most likely erred in failing to protect the plaintiff’s right against compelled speech, but a broadly written Supreme Court opinion reversing the lower court could potentially undermine anti-discrimination law.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that Donald Trump and his extreme comments illustrate the need for civil, accurate discourse, rather than blunderbuss and showmanship. Hamilton points to the work by the Program in Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society at the University of Pennsylvania, which is conducting a social experiment that shows that people from different sides of the political/religious divide can have a meaningful conversation and reach agreement for the common good.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton argues that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution stands for the opposite of everything that ISIS stands for, and furthermore, that denying the religious roots of Islamic terrorists does a disservice both to peaceful Muslims and to the public at large. Hamilton points out that by identifying ISIS as religious extremists, we can better accept that they are dogmatic, unbending fundamentalists rather than mere political actors.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on the recent visit by Pope Francis to Philadelphia on the ten-year anniversary of the release of the landmark Grand Jury Report on Sexual Abuse in the Philadelphia Archdiocese. Hamilton argues that now is the time for state legislators to eliminate statutes of limitations for civil sex abuse suits and revive those claims that have expired due to short statutes of limitations.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda comments on the first of a wave of litigation sparked by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges recognizing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Rotunda points out that in some cases, lower courts handling these cases have not adequately discussed or distinguished the relevant cases.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamliton comments on the quandary of at-risk children in religious groups like the ultra-Orthodox Jewish communities, and cautions against government and political rhetoric that exalts and protects such lifestyles.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf comments on the developing situation regarding Kim Davis—the Rowan County, Kentucky, clerk who refuses to grant same-sex marriage licenses—and argues that, with one possible exception, the courts were right to reject the legal claims put forward by Davis.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda discusses relative change in attitudes toward Jews in the United States and elsewhere in the world.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf discusses the implications of a recent decision by a federal district court invalidating an Idaho law that criminalizes entering a “agricultural production facility” under false pretenses and also criminalizes creating an audio or video recording of what takes place there without authorization from the owners—known as an Ag-Gag law.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton explains how politicians have intentionally conflated constitutional religious liberty—which comes from the First Amendment of the Constitution—and statutory religious liberty—which originated in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993—for political gain. Hamilton describes the many differences between these two types of religious liberty and calls upon politicians and journalists to disambiguate the term.
Cornell University law professor Michael Dorf considers to what extent defamation law provides a remedy for people who appear in deliberately misleading audiovisual recordings, as in the recently released videos ostensibly showing senior officials of Planned Parenthood stating prices for selling fetal body parts.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses the federal First Amendment Defense Act—a bill that she argues is actually itself unconstitutional.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the Court held that Texas could, consistent with the First Amendment, reject a specialty license plate design application due to its prominent use of the Confederate battle flag. Amar argues that the Court’s reasoning might lead to problems in future disputes and offers a different rationale for reaching the same result that would have avoided such problems.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton discusses and contrasts the constitutional requirements—and limitations—on clergy and government officials.
Cardozo law professor Marci Hamilton comments on a recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit holding that RFRA does not immunize religious nonprofits from the requirement under the Affordable Care Act that they notify the government of their beliefs in order to be exempt from paying for their employees’ contraception.
Chapman University law professor Ronald Rotunda describes, both directly and by analogy, the ways in which federal, state, and local governments are attempting to weaken religion.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar describes some important takeaway points from two cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this week—Elonis v. United States and EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch.
UC Davis law professor Vikram David Amar discusses a recent decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that has received little attention despite its significance—Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar. In that case, a 5-4 majority of the Court upheld a Florida law that forbids candidates running in contested elections for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Amar argues that the ruling provides important insights about First Amendment doctrine and also about the membership of the Roberts Court.