Category: First Amendment

0

FAN 20.3 (First Amendment News) — The Roberts Court & Unanimous First Amendment Judgments

  • Who would have guessed the 9-0 vote in McCullen v. Coakley? Back in January there was this assessment from a veteran Court reporter:

Equally Divided: “Inside the Supreme Court, the questioning was fast and furious, with the justices apparently divided equally, and for the first time in memory, Chief Justice John Roberts asking no questions. The Chief Justice’s silence seemed to indicate that he likely will be the deciding vote in the case.” – Nina Totenberg, Jan. 15, 2014

That Catholic University Law Professor Mark L. Rienzi would have prevailed in his case in defense of the Petitioners seemed likely enough. But unanimous? The vote surely surprised many seasoned Court watchers.

Professor Mark Rienzi

Professor Mark Rienzi

Take note: It was the third time in one Term that the Roberts Court was unanimous in a free speech case, and also the first time that the Court was unanimous in sustaining a First Amendment free expression claim in two cases:

  1. Lane v. Franks (2014) [vote-9-0 on FA issue only, not on qualified immunity]
  2. McCullen v. Coakley (2014)

This is significant because in every other free speech case where there was a unanimous judgment the Court denied the First Amendment claim.  The 9 cases are:

  1. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights (2006) [vote: 8-0]
  2. Davenport v. Washington Educ. Association (2007) [vote: 9-0]
  3. New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres (2008) [vote: 9-0]
  4. Pleasant Grove City, UT, et al v. Summum (2009) [vote: 9-0]
  5. Locke v. Karass (2009) [vote: 9-0]
  6. Milavetz, Gallop, & Milavetz v. United States (2010) [vote: 9-0]
  7. Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan (2011) [vote: 9-0]
  8. Reichle v. Howards (2012) [vote: 8-0]
  9. Wood v.Moss (2014) [vote: 9-0] [FA and qualified immunity]

A Princely Move?  

So what gives in McCullen? Not even a whisper of a separate opinion from any of the liberal Justices, especially the female ones. Could it be that the Chief Justice wanted unanimity enough that he stayed his hand in reversing Hill v. Coloradothis to secure four votes from the liberal bloc? Maybe Nina Totenberg was right; they were divided until, that is, the Chief Justice made his “Machiavellian” move. The result: the law is struck down, which pleases the conservatives, though on narrow grounds, which pleases the liberals. No one is really happy, but the judgment is unanimous . . . in an abortion case! 

Meanwhile, Justice Scalia (joined by Justices Kennedy, and Thomas) would have none of it:

Today’s opinion carries forward this Court’s practice of giving abortion-rights advocates a pass when it comes to suppressing the free-speech rights of their opponents. There is an entirely separate, abridged edition of the First Amendment applicable to speech against abortion. . . . This is an opinion that has Something for Everyone, and the more significant portion continues the onward march of abortion-speech-only jurisprudence. . . .  Just a few months past, the Court found it unnecessary to “parse the differences between . . . two [available] standards” where a statute challenged on First Amend­ment grounds “fail[s] even under the [less demanding] test.” McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n . . . (plurality opinion) What has changed since then? Quite simple: This is an abortion case, and McCutcheon was not. . . . In concluding that the statute is con­ tent based and therefore subject to strict scrutiny, neces­sarily conclude that Hill should be overruled. 

  One more thing: this is another First Amendment majority/plurality opinion by the Chief Justice (that makes 12). In that regard, he leads all other Justices by a wide margin.

NOTE: My next scheduled FAN column will provide detailed information re the Roberts Court’s overall record in First Amendment freedom of expression cases. It will also include facts and figure re the Court’s 1-A work this Term.

Last FAN Columns

1

FAN 20.2 (First Amendment News) — 28 Briefs Filed in McCullen, Only 1 Cited by Court

The Court in McCullen v. Coakley had plenty of help offered to it — 28 amicus briefs were filed. Those submitting amicus briefs included the following groups:

  • Cato Institute (Ilya Shapiro) for Petitioners
  • American Center for Law & Justice (Jay Sekulow) for Petitioners
  • Rutherford Institute (John W. Whitehead) for Petitioners
  • Michigan & 11 other States (Bill Schuette) for Petitioners
  • ACLU (Steven R. Shapiro) for Neither Party
  • New York State, et  al (Eric T. Schneiderman) for Respondents
  • Planned Parenthood (Walter Dellinger) for Respondents
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al (Jack R. Bierig) for Respondents
  • National League of Cities, et al (Mary Jean Dolan) for Respondents
  • Anti-Defamation League, et al (Jeffrey S. Robbins) for Respondents
  • National Abortion Federation, et al (Maria T. Vullo) for Respondents

That said, the Court elected to reference only one amicus brief, and it did so in Chief Justice John Roberts opinion.

The brief the Chief Justice found particularly useful was one filed by New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman, a brief submitted on behalf of New York and 12 other states along with the territory of the Virgin Islands.  The brief was submitted on behalf of the Respondents, who lost by way of a unanimous judgment.  

As it turned out, the Chief Justice and his colleagues referenced the New York brief  in support of the Petitioners:
The buffer zones burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the Commonwealth’s asserted interests. At the outset, we note that the Act is truly exceptional: Respondents and their amici identify no other State with a law that creates fixed buffer zones around abortion clinics. [fn to NY et al amicus brief]  That of course does not mean that the law is invalid. It does, however, raise concern that the Commonwealth has too readily forgone options that could serve its interests just as well, without substantially burdening the kind of speech in which petitioners wish to engage. 

And then later in the opinion, the New York amicus brief was also tapped to help defeat the case for the Respondents:

If Massachusetts determines that broader prohibitions along the same lines are necessary, it could enact legislation similar to the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act of 1994 (FACE Act), 18 U. S. C. §248(a)(1), which subjects to both crimi­ nal and civil penalties anyone who “by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction, intentionally injures, intimidates or interferes with or attempts to injure, intim­ idate or interfere with any person because that person is or has been, or in order to intimidate such person or any other person or any class of persons from, obtaining or providing reproductive health services.” Some dozen other States have done so. See Brief for State of New York et al. as Amici Curiae 13, and n. 6.

0

FAN 20.1 (First Amendment News) – Supreme Court Hands Down Abortion Buffer Zone Case (9-0)

Thursday, June 29, 10:28 a.m.: The Supreme Court just handed down its decision in McCullen v. Coakley (9-0).

→ The opinion can be found here.

→ Yet another First Amendment majority opinion by the Chief Justice (that makes 12).

Commentary by Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog: The abortion protests ruling is relatively narrow. The Court makes clear that states can pass laws that specifically ensure access to clinics. It holds that states cannot more broadly prohibit speech on public streets and sidewalks. It also notably rejects the protesters’ broadest arguments that such restrictions require strict constitutional scrutiny and are viewpoint based. A state can go beyond narrow laws that block obstructions to clinics, and more broadly ban abortion protests, only if it builds a record showing that the narrower measures don’t work. The S. Ct. majority says nothing about its prior buffer zone ruling in Hill, the validity of which now seems in real question. 

→ Harris v. Quinn (opinion to be handed down this Monday).

Review still pending in Minority Television Project, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, which involves a federal law that prohibits public radio and television stations from transmitting paid advertisements for for-profit entities, issues of public importance or interest, and political candidates. The 9th Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled against the broadcasters. Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (joined by Judge John Noonan) dissented, and Judge Consuelo Callahan concurred in part and dissented in part.

fce54ef58f5b9d01480f6a7067000873

Petitioner: Eleanor McCullen (pic by Steven Senne)

The Abortion Clinic Buffer Zone Case: McCullen v. Coakley

Facts: “Three of the plaintiffs regularly engage in ‘sidewalk counseling’ at the Boston clinic. McCullen parks her car on Commonwealth Avenue and festoons it with pro-life signage; Zarrella sometimes prays aloud; and Cadin from time to time holds aloft a large pro-life sign. A fourth plaintiff, Smith, has demonstrated outside the Boston clinic for many years. He has displayed a crucifix, sung religious hymns, and prayed aloud. His prayers are meant to be heard by passersby in hopes of persuading them to opt against abortion. He sometimes brings a loudspeaker to amplify group prayers that occur outside the clinic on the second Saturday of every-month and on Good Friday.” (Source: 1st Cir. opinion)

A Massachusetts law provided for a fixed 35-foot buffer zone around the entrances, exits, and driveways of abortion clinics.

The issues in the case were:

(1) Whether the First Circuit erred in upholding Massachusetts’s selective exclusion law – which makes it a crime for speakers other than clinic “employees or agents . . . acting within the scope of their employment” to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk” within thirty-five feet of an entrance, exit, or driveway of “a reproductive health care facility” – under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, on its face and as applied to petitioners; and

(2) whether, if Hill v. Colorado permits enforcement of this law, Hill should be limited or overruled.

The First Circuit rejected the Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims. The Supreme Court reversed.

Vote: 9-0

Majority Opinion: Chief Justice Roberts

Concurring Opinion: Justice Scalia (joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas) concurs in judgment. Justice Alito wrote a separate opinion, concurring in the judgment.

Justice Scalia argues that Hill v. Colorado  should be overruled, which today’s opinion does not formally do.

Counsel

  • Mark L. Rienzi for Petitioners
  • Jennifer Grace Miller for Respondents
  • Ian H. Gershengorn for United States (amicus curiae for Respondents)

Amicus Briefs

Among those filing amicus briefs were the following:

  • Cato Institute (Ilya Shapiro) for Petitioners
  • American Center for Law & Justice (Jay Sekulow) for Petitioners
  • Rutherford Institute (John W. Whitehead) for Petitioners
  • Michigan & 11 other States (Bill Schuette) for Petitioners
  • ACLU (Steven R. Shapiro) for Neither Party
  • New York State, et  al (Eric T. Schneiderman) for Respondents
  • Planned Parenthood (Walter Dellinger) for Respondents
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al (Jack R. Bierig) for Respondents
  • National League of Cities, et al (Mary Jean Dolan) for Respondents
  • Anti-Defamation League, et al (Jeffrey S. Robbins) for Respondents
  • National Abortion Federation, et al (Maria T. Vullo) for Respondents

Hat tip to SCOTUSblog for its remarkable real-time coverage of today’s decisions.

NOTE: My next scheduled FAN column will provided detailed information re the Roberts Court’s overall record in First Amendment freedom of expression cases. It will also include facts and figure re the Court’s 1-A work this term.

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 20 (First Amendment News) — New Book, New Legislation, New Study & More News

No First Amendment cases from the Supreme Court today. Most likely tomorrow (perhaps Monday?).

→ What’s left? The only First Amendment free expression cases left to be decided this Term are:

  1. McCullen v. Coakley
  2. Harris v. Quinn

New Book — Tribe & Matz on Roberts Court & Free Speech 

Laurence Tribe

Laurence Tribe

In May of 2013 I profiled a forthcoming book, which has just been released. “Forty-five years after the publication of his first book (Technology: Process of Assessment and Choice), Laurence Tribe is preparing to release another book, tentatively titled Uncertain Justice (2014).” I wrote that in SCOTUSblog. “This forthcoming offering,” I added, “will come out six years after Tribe’s last book (The Invisible Constitution). The book will be the Harvard Law professor’s sixteenth. Like a few of his other works, Uncertain Justice will be co-authored – this time Joshua Matz is his literary partner on this work on the Roberts Court.” Well, wait no more; here it is: Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court & The Constitution (Henry Holt, 2014). Mr. Matz is a Harvard law graduate who clerked for Judge Stephen Reinhardt and will soon clerk for Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Joshua Matz

Joshua Matz

While Uncertain Justice has received some early favorable reviews, my focus here is on only two chapters in the book: Chapter 3 (“Campaign Finance: Follow the Money”) and Chapter 4  (“Freedom of Speech: Sex, Lies & Video Games”). Together, these chapters consume 165 of the book’s 320 pages of text.

↓→ Campaign Finance

“The truth is somewhere in the middle.”

In a galvanized world of frenzied litmus-test beliefs over the role of money in our electoral system, Tribe and Matz (T&M) can be refreshingly open-minded: “It is easy to lose sight of the fact that Citizens United posed incredibly difficult questions about free speech, popular sovereignty, and political equality,” they write. “Deciding when Congress can ban certain disfavored speakers from the marketplace of ideas or limit how much they can speak is no easy task. It certainly isn’t outlandish to conclude, as the Court did, that free speech rights must prevail over hard-to-document fears that corporate wealth will distort public discourse or corrupt politicians.”

Then again, they do speak of the “Roberts Court’s broader agenda of deregulating campaign finance” reforms.  On that score, they maintain that by “reshaping the architecture of money, influence, and political organization, the Roberts Court is transforming how America conducts — and funds — politics.” In an endnote (p. 342, n. 64) they state: “While we do not purport to identify specific instances in which electoral outcomes shifted because of trends triggered by Citizens United, it seems to us highly likely that this has occurred in at least some races.”

While the authors freely offer the views of the “many critics of Citizens United,” they also concede that “Citizens United was a hard case because the Court faced a choice among evils.” With welcome objectivity and nuance, they add: “it’s extremely hard to determine whether any given campaign finance rule has a big enough impact to survive judicial scrutiny.  Judges have long implemented the First Amendment by requiring — among other things — that  restrictions on speech demonstrably achieve a legitimate goal. The causes of political corruption in America,” they stress, “and the reasons why politicians act the way they do . . . are many and complex.  Money in politics is only part of that story . . . .”

On the one hand, T&M understand how the Roberts Court’s narrow definition of corruption might be viewed as necessary in order to foster a “workable” body of First Amendment law sensitive to the concerns of free speech. On the other hand, they think that the Citizens United Court might have resorted to a “more modest” course of action that would “have left more room for politicians to use campaign finance laws, carefully reviewed by courts, as one tool among many in their efforts to restore public confidence in government integrity.” In other words, they tread cautiously in this ideological minefield.

So what should reformers do? In an endnote, Professor Tribe discloses that he “assisted Representative Adam Schiff of California in drafting a proposed [constitutional] amendment that was introduced in the 112th Congress.” That said, no defense of such radical constitutional surgery is offered in the book. In fact, the authors skip quickly past calls for constitutional amendments. Instead, they counsel that “critics of Citizens United would be well served to move past issues like corporate personhood and money’s status as speech. Instead, they might aim to ensure greater transparency in our brave new world of Super PACs and 501(c) organizations.” {See DISCLOSE Act item below}

If there were ever to be a national forum on the First Amendment and campaign finance reform, the organizers would be wise to invite Messrs. Tribe and Matz, if only to add some light in an otherwise overheated universe.

Note: Since Uncertain Justice was completed in “early 2014,” the Court’s April 2014 ruling in McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) is not discussed.

 Sex, Lies & Video Games Read More

1

Fifty Years of “I know it when I see it.”

On June 22, 1964, Justice Potter Stewart coined the phrase “I know it when I see it” in his concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio. Fifty years later, that expression holds the distinction of being one of the few modern legal phrases to become a regularly accepted expression among educated Americans. The half-century anniversary of Jacobellis provides a fitting opportunity to ask why “I know it when I see it” has enjoyed such popularity and what lessons that phrase and its history might hold for us today.

Jacobellis reversed the conviction of an Ohio movie theater manager for showing obscene material in the form of the French film Les Amants (The Lovers), which included a sex scene at its conclusion. The court’s 6-3 decision was highly fragmented, with six opinions in total and the plurality garnering only two votes.

Potter Stewart

In a short 144-word concurring opinion, Stewart wrote that he found it almost impossible to define obscenity precisely, which should only include “hard-core pornography.” His now famous line concluded the opinion:

 “But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

At the time, the pithy phrase actually garnered little interest in the public sphere. Many newspapers chose instead to focus on another obscenity case decided that same day, Quantity of Books v. Kansas. Those journalists who did write about Jacobellis largely ignored “I know it when I see it” and chose to focus on the legal technicalities the case posed.

While it is difficult to pinpoint exactly when Stewart’s iconic expression became common, we can chart its growing popularity via Google’s Ngram search engine. Google Ngram measures the percentage of English language books that contain a phrase up to five words long. Because “I know it when I see it” is seven words, I ran the search for each five-letter segment of the phrase (“I know it when I;” “know it when I see;” “it when I see it.”). The graph clearly shows the steeply rising and still growing interest in Stewart’s phrase, starting slightly after 1964:

I know it when I see it Ngram

 

The Ngram search also reveals some interesting instances of similar phrases, both legal and not, pre-dating Jacobellis. Consider two examples: In an obituary for Benjamin Cardozo that ran in the Columbia, Yale and Harvard law journals in 1939, Learned Hand praised Justice Cardozo for his wisdom, writing:

“And what is wisdom — that gift of God which the great prophets of his race exalted? I do not know; like you, I know it when I see it, but I cannot tell of what it is composed.”

Read More

0

FAN 19.5 (First Amendment News) — Supreme Court Decides Public Employee Speech Case: 1-A Claim Prevails 9-0

The Supreme Court just handed down its opinion in Lane v. Franks.  The vote was unanimous and the opinion for the Court was authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor.  The opinion can be found here. Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion in which Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito joined.

Issues: (1) Whether the government is categorically free under the First Amendment to retaliate against a public employee for truthful sworn testimony that was compelled by subpoena and was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities; and (2) whether qualified immunity precludes a claim for damages in such an action.

  1. Held: “The Court holds that Lane’s sworn testimony outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is entitled to First Amendment protection. His testimony was speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern.” (Amy Howe)
  2. The Court also holds that “the individual defendant has qualified immunity from this suit because prior precedent wasn’t clear enough that you could not fire an employee for sworn testimony.” (Tom Goldstein)

Tejinder Singh (Goldstein & Russell) counsel for Petitioner.

Select Excerpts from Majority Opinion

First Amendment Issues

  • Matters of Public Concern & Encouraging Public Employee Speech — “Speech by citizens on matters of public concern lies at the heart of the First Amendment, which “was fashioned to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” This remains true when speech concerns information related to or learned through public employment. After all, public employees do not renounce their citizenship when they accept employment, and this Court has cautioned time and again that public employers may not condition employment on the relinquishment of constitutional rights. . . . There is considerable value, moreover, in encouraging, rather than inhibiting, speech by public employees.”
  • Reserved for a Future Case: “We . . . need not address in this case whether truthful sworn testimony would constitute citizen speech under Garcetti when given as part of a public employee’s ordinary job duties, and express no opinion on the matter today.” (emphasis added)
  • Truth is a Defense: “Truthful testimony under oath by a public employee outside the scope of his ordinary job duties is speech as a citizen for First Amendment purposes. That is so even when the testimony relates to his public employment or concerns information learned during that employment. . . . When the person testifying is a public employee, he may bear separate obligations to his employer—for example, an obligation not to show up to court dressed in an unprofessional manner. But any such obligations as an employee are distinct and independent from the obligation, as a citizen, to speak the truth. That independent obligation renders sworn testi- mony speech as a citizen and sets it apart from speech made purely in the capacity of an employee.”
  • Garcetti Distinguished: “Garcetti said nothing about speech that simply relates to public employment or concerns information learned in the course of public employment. The Garcetti Court made explicit that its holding did not turn on the fact that the memo at issue “concerned the subject matter of [the prosecutor’s] employment,” because “[t]he First Amendment protects some expressions related to the speaker’s job.” In other words, the mere fact that a citizen’s speech concerns information acquired by virtue of his public employment does not transform that speech into employee—rather than citizen—speech.”
  • Key Garcetti Question: “The critical question under Garcetti is whether the speech at issue is itself ordinarily within the scope of an employee’s duties, not whether it merely concerns those duties.
  • Value of Speech by Public Employees: “It bears emphasis that our precedents dating back to Pickering have recognized that speech by public employees on subject matter related to their employment holds special value precisely because those employees gain knowledge of matters of public concern through their employment.”
  • Preventing Corruption: “It would be antithetical to our jurisprudence to conclude that the very kind of speech necessary to prosecute corruption by public officials—speech by public employees regarding information learned through their employment—may never form the basis for a First Amendment retaliation claim. Such a rule would place public employees who witness corruption in an impossible position, torn between the obligation to testify truthfully and the desire to avoid retaliation and keep their jobs.”

Justice Thomas’ Concurrence

  • Limited Application of Garcetti: Deciding this case “requires little more than a straightforward application of Garcetti. There, we held that when a public employee speaks “pursuant to” his official duties, he is not speaking “as a citizen,” and First Amendment protection is unavailable. The petitioner in this case did not speak “pursuant to” his ordinary job duties because his responsibilities did not include testifying in court proceedings, and no party has suggested that he was subpoenaed as a representative of his employer.”
  • Employee Speech re Work-Related Responsibilities: “We accordingly have no occasion to address the quite different question whether a public employee speaks “as a citizen” when he testifies in the course of his ordinary job responsibilities. For some public employees—such as police officers, crime scene techni- cians, and laboratory analysts—testifying is a routine and critical part of their employment duties. Others may be called to testify in the context of particular litigation as the designated representatives of their employers.” 
0

Richard Posner & NAACP v. Button — A Short History

Since I had to prepare remarks for a panel discussion for today, I was unable to do my weekly First Amendment News column. Instead, I opted to present an abbreviated essay from a work-in-progerss, actually two. In the main, I  stitched together something from one of my books (We Must not be Afraid to be Free) and a future article (“The Maverick – A Biographical Sketch of Richard Posner”), this in addition to some reliance on Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion (2010) by Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel and other works. I also benefitted from the thoughtful assistance of Judge Posner and Robert M. O’Neil. The result is this post, also a prelude to a more scholarly work on NAACP v. Button (1963). Shortly, I will say more about Judge Posner’s involvement in Button, but before I do I thought it might useful to say a few prefatory things about the history of the case.

* * * *

The case’s original name was NAACP v. Patty, which began in 1957. After cert. was granted, the case name changed to NAACP v. Gray. Later it would be changed to Button, the last name of the Virginia Attorney General at the time. The controversy involved a challenge to five Virginia laws which, according to Fourth Circuit Court Judge Morris Aimes Soper, “were enacted [in 1956] for the express purpose of impeding the integration of the races in the public schools of the state which the plaintiff corporations are seeking to promote.” The laws in question banned the encouragement of certain kinds of litigation (“barratry” statutes) and the solicitation of clients (including in pro bono cases) and/or the financing of litigation (“champerty” statutes). The lawyer who represented the NAACP was Robert L. Carter (1917-2012), Thurgood Marshall’s chief legal assistant (and later General Counsel to the NAACP). By 1957, recalled Carter in his memoir (A Matter of Law), the group was involved in 25 cases in various states employing barratry and champerty laws aimed at halting civil rights litigation. Henry T. Wickham (1920-2008) represented the state of Virginia. In his obituary it was noted that Mr. Wickham “served as a special assistant to former Virginia Attorney General J. Lindsay Almond Jr. representing Virginia in an effort to preserve segregated public schools” in Brown v. Board.

 For an informative and thoughtful account of Button, see Harry Kalven, Jr., The Negro and the First Amendment 75-90 (1965).

The Hand of Fate

Robert Button was the Attorney General of Virginia (1962-1970) who backed policies of Massive Resistance to prevent public school desegregation.

Robert Young Button was the Attorney General of Virginia (Dem. –1962-1970) who backed policies of Massive Resistance to prevent public school desegregation (see short video clip here)

When it came time for a conference vote in the Button case, Chief Justice Earl Warren, predictably, voted to reverse. “The purpose of the statute is obviously to circumvent Brown,” he said. Justice Hugo Black agreed. “This is part of a scheme to defeat the Court’s order, and sooner or later we will have to grapple with these problems in those terms. The NAACP is finished if this law stands.” But Justice Felix Frankfurter pushed back. “I can’t imagine a worse disservice than to continue being the guardians of the Negroes. . . . There is nothing in the record to show that this statute is aimed at Negroes as such.” Justices Tom Clark and Charles Evans Whittaker agreed. “To strike this law down, we would have to discriminate in favor of Negroes,” said Clark, to which Whittaker added: “We should be color blind on this law.”

Warren added up the votes. It was a five-to-four split in favor of the state of Virginia. Justice Frankfurter eagerly began work on his majority opinion upholding Virginia’s law—the laws that made the NAACP’s brand of non-pecuniary solicitation and financing of litigation a disciplinary offense that could result in disbarment. (For a discussion of Frankfurter’s early role in the case, see Mark V. Tushnet, Making Civil Rights Law 277-278 (1994).)

At the same time, Justice Black circulated drafts of a dissent in which he claimed, among other things, that perhaps the law should be renamed “[a]n Act to make it difficult and dangerous for the [NAACP] and Virginia lawyers to assert the constitutional rights of Virginia Negroes in state and federal courts.” Then Black added a passage revealing how far removed he was from his days as a hooded member of the Ku Klux Klan. “The job of lawyers under [the] Constitution is not to lead revolutions, but to lead their people in taking advantage of the American methods for correcting injustice.” And courts, Black continued, had a responsibility to serve as “sanctuaries of justice.” To ignore that role here, he concluded, was to leave the courts “a little less havens of refuge than they were before this Virginia law was sustained.”

Robert L. Carter, lawyer for the NAACP

Robert L. Carter, lawyer for the NAACP

Justice Black’s internal comments exposed just how wide the ideological chasm had grown between the members of this Court. But Robert Carter wouldn’t get a chance to read them. Nor, for that matter, would anyone else. On April 1, 1962, before the Court could announce its decision in NAACP v. Button, Justice Whittaker retired on the advice of his physician. He was sixty-one. The “great volume and continuous stresses of the court’s work,” he explained in a written statement, had brought him to the “point of physical exhaustion.” That left a four-to-four split among the remaining jurists, who scheduled a rehearing of the case the following term. Then, a few days later, seventy-nine-year-old Felix Frankfurter collapsed at his desk from a stroke. He lived, but shortly afterwards he announced his retirement. Just like that, President Kennedy could appoint two new Justices—and Robert Carter could feel new hope.

 An audio of the arguments in NAACP v. Gray can be found here.

New Faces, New Result

By the fall of 1962, President Kennedy had successfully appointed to the bench his top two choices—Byron White and Arthur Goldberg. And it promised to be a busy fall at the Supreme Court after they were both confirmed. Sometime around then, as Stern and Wermiel recount it, Justice Brennan busily circulated a 63-page memo that detailed the activities of the NAACP and its Virginia branch.

After hearing rearguments in Button, the Justices met privately to discuss the case on October 12, 1962. Chief Justice Warren had not changed his mind since first discussing the facts a year earlier. “The NAACP has a right to be in business,” he began. “If this suit goes against the NAACP, it is out of business.” Justices Black, Douglas, and Clark also maintained their original opinions. So did the typically restrained Justice John Marshall Harlan, who continued to claim that Virginia’s new law was “plainly constitutional. . . . Brown v. Board of Education will never work out if it is left in the federal domain. The states must do it. We have no reason to reverse Virginia on this law.” Justice Potter Stewart, the Eisenhower appointee from Cincinnati with the unpredictable voting record, was the first of the veteran Justices to suggest a possible change of heart. “I am not sure,” he said, “but I am inclined to reverse.” Justice White, the first of the two new members to speak at the private conference, was even less certain than Stewart. “I do not know where I stand.” Goldberg was more certain. “There is a substantial equal protection point here and I could reverse on that,” he said. Read More

0

FAN 19.3 (First Amendment News) 9th Cir. Strikes California Requirement of Initiative-Proponent Identification on Initiative Petitions

Earlier today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held unconstitutional California’s requirement that ballot initiative petition forms identify the official initiative proponents. This follows court opinions allowing anonymity at the point of petition circulation.

The opinion in Chula Vista Citizens for Jobs v. Norriscan be found here.

Opinion by Judge O’Scannlain, in which Judge Graber joins, except as to Part IV, and in which Judge Bea joins, except as to Part III. Judge Graber filed an opinion dissenting as to Part IV. Judge Bea filed an opinion concurring as to Part III.

→  Prevailing Counsel: James Bopp, Jr. for the Plaintiff-Appellant.

Prediction: Professor Richard Hasen (on Election Law Blog): “I expect this issue will go en banc and perhaps to the Supreme Court—with a decent chance of reversal.”

0

FAN 19.2 (First Amendment News) — High Court Finds Art. III Standing in False Statements Case & Grants Review in Threats Case

The Supreme Court just handed down its ruling in Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus. The vote was 9-0. Here is the opinion.

The issues in the case were:

(1) Whether, to challenge a speech-suppressive law, a party whose speech is arguably proscribed must prove that authorities would certainly and successfully prosecute him, as the Sixth Circuit holds, or should the court presume that a credible threat of prosecution exists absent desuetude or a firm commitment by prosecutors not to enforce the law, as seven other Circuits hold; and

(2) whether the Sixth Circuit erred by holding, in direct conflict with the Eighth Circuit, that state laws proscribing “false” political speech are not subject to pre-enforcement First Amendment review so long as the speaker maintains that its speech is true, even if others who enforce the law manifestly disagree.

The Sixth Circuit rejected the Plaintiff’s claims. The Supreme Court reversed.

Article III Standing (from Justice Thomas’ opinion) Read More

1

FAN 19.1 (First Amendment News) — Media Scholar Named Next Dean of GW Law School

It’s now official: Blake D. Morant, dean of the Wake Forest University School of Law and president-elect of the Association of American Law Schools, will be the next Dean of the George Washington Law School. According to a GW press release: Dean Morant “will assume the deanship on Sept. 1 after having served seven years as dean of the Wake Forest University School of Law. ‘Blake Morant is not only a seasoned dean but also a national leader in legal education,’ said GW President Steven Knapp. ‘He brings to this important position a proven record of accomplishments, and his extensive leadership experience will make him an extremely valuable addition to our law school and the entire university.'”

Dean Blake Morant

Dean Blake Morant

“‘I have respected and admired the George Washington Law School throughout my career and consider serving as its next dean to be a distinct privilege,’ Mr. Morant said. “‘I look forward to working with the constituency of this historic institution during this time of both challenge and extraordinary opportunity.'”

Media Law Scholarship

Though his scholarship includes other areas of law (such as contracts, administrative law, and legal education), Dean Morant’s articles on media law include the following:

Advance Greeting: Welcome to Washington, D.C., Dean Morant!