Tagged: Constitutional Law

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

FAN 26 (First Amendment News) — Akhil Amar on the “First” Amendment

First: First?

Less cryptically, the first and main question that I shall explore . . . is whether [the First] Amendment is genuinely first — first in fact, first in law, and first in the hearts of Americans. In the process of exploring this question, I also hope to shed some light on the meaning of this amendment in particular and the nature of constitutional interpretation in general. Akhil Amar

Professor Akhil Reed Amar

Professor Akhil Reed Amar

Akhil Amar, the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale, is well known in the worlds of constitutional law and history. His six books include The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction (1998) and America’s Unwritten Constitutions: The Precedents & Principles We Live By (2012). Among Professor Amar’s many honors is his 2012 National Archives dialogue with Justice Clarence Thomas. More recently, he has returned to his study of constitutional history by way of a new scholarly essay.

The essay is entitled “The First Amendment’s Firstness,” which appears in the UC Davis Law Review. The work derives from the Central Valley Foundation/James B. McClatchy lecture on the First Amendment, which Amar delivered on October 16, 2013 at the University of California at Davis Law School (see video of lecture here). Below I summarize the Essay by a series of questions and answers based on the author’s observations and conclusions.

Question: “Do the actual words ‘the First Amendment’ or ‘Amendment I’ themselves appear in what we all unselfconsciously refer to as ‘the First Amendment?'”

Answer: No.  The answer has to do with what is known as the “correct copy” of the Constitution.

Question: What, then, was the official (“correct”) name of what we now call the First Amendment?

Answer: The official title was “Article the Third” — no “First” and no “Amendment.” In this regard, what is crucial is the text that was first submitted to and then ratified by the states, which is not the same as the commonplace copy contained in all our books and those pocket-size constitutions some carry with Hugo Black-like pride.

Question: In terms of their importance, how significant is the ordering of the ten amendments in the Bill of Rights?

Answer: Not significant at all. Says Amar: “the ultimate textual ordering of the first set of amendments was a remarkably random thing.” Moreover, he adds: “the initial ordering of the proposed amendments in the First Congress had little to do with their intrinsic importance or relative rank. Rather, the amendments were originally sequenced in the First Congress so as to track the textual order of the original Constitution. Thus an amendment modifying congressional size came first, because that issue appeared first in the original Constitution . . . .”

Question: “who says that the official text of the Constitution must govern for all purposes — even for all legal purposes”?

Answer: Here is how Amar answers his question: “The brute fact that millions of copies of the U.S. Constitution . . . include the words ‘Amendment I’ or something closely approximating these words alongside the amendment’s meat — ‘Congress shall make no law . . .’ — should arguably suffice for us to treat these technically unratified words as if they had indeed been formally voted upon in 1789–91.”

Question: Does the fact that the Reconstruction Amendments were officially captioned “XIII,” “XIV,” and “XV” have any constitutional significance with reference to the Bill of Rights?

Answer: Yes. “The Reconstruction Amendments invite/compel us to read the earlier amendments in a new way,” says Amar.  In other words, at that pinpoint in ratification time “Article the Third” became “Amendment I.” Moreover, adds Amar, “a great deal of what we now think about ‘the Bill of Rights’. . . owes a greater debt to the vision of the Reconstruction generation than to the Founders’ world-view.”

In the process of answering these and other related questions, Professor Amar goes on to examine the First Amendment’s “firstness” by way of structural, historical, doctrinal, and cultural considerations.  Having done so, he raises a more fundamental question:

Might the very strength of the amendment today, its very firstness, be grounds for concern? Precisely because we all love the First Amendment — because it truly is first in our text and first in our hearts — is there a danger that all sorts of less deserving ideas and principles will cleverly try to camouflage themselves as First Amendment ideas when they are really wolves in sheep’s clothing?

Against that backdrop, he questions the First Amendment validity of decisions affirming free speech rights related to alcohol and tobacco advertising, pornography, animal cruelty, and campaign finance. Furthermore, he stresses the importance of “the deeply democratic and egalitarian structure of this free-speech principle, properly construed” — though for Amar freedom of the press “is less intrinsically democratic.”

There is, of course, more to say about this thought-proving essay, which I urge you to read . . . even if some of its claims might raise your ideological eyebrows.

Sam Walker to Launch Civil Liberties Web Site Read More

1

FAN 25.1 (First Amendment News) — Mass. Gov. signs abortion buffer zone bill

The bill, titled an Act to Promote Public Safety and Protect Access to Reproductive Health Care Facilities, was signed earlier today by Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick.

Pro-choice demonstrators in front of Supreme Court

Pro-choice demonstrators in front of Supreme Court

The law, which is effective immediately, allows a police to order a person who “impedes” access to a reproductive health facility to stand at least 25 feet away from the entrance (or driveway) of the facility. The officer’s order will remain in place for eight hours or until the facility closes for the day (whichever is earlier). The law defines “impede”  as making it impossible or very difficult to access the clinic. If the person does not obey the order, he or she will face criminal penalties (a fine and potential jail time).  The penalties increase with each transgression. There are also penalties for threatening to harm or harming a person going to or from the facility and penalties for attempting to stop a car from accessing or leaving the facility.

The new law comes in the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in  McCullen v. Coakley, which struck down a 2007 Massachusetts buffer zone law as violative of the First Amendment.

In a prepared statement, Governor Patrick said: “I am incredibly proud to sign legislation that continues Massachusetts leadership in ensuring that women seeking to access reproductive health facilities can do so safely and without harassment, and that the employees of those facilities can arrive at work each day without fear of harm.”

“This bill,” said Attorney General Martha Coakley, “takes an important step toward protecting the rights of women and public safety around reproductive health facilities. We now have new tools to help ensure access to these facilities free from intimidation and threats.”

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
1

FAN 25 (First Amendment News) — High Court again asked to intervene in state judicial elections

maxresdefault

Lanell Williams-Yulee

If the State has a problem with judicial impartiality, it is largely one the State brought upon itself by continuing the practice of popularly electing judges. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (2002)

The case is Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar. The issue in the case is whether a rule of judicial conduct that prohibits candidates for judicial office from personally soliciting campaign funds violates the First Amendment. In a per curium opinion, a divided Florida Supreme Court denied the First Amendment challenge. (See here re video and transcript of oral arguments in Florida Supreme Court.)

A petition for certiorari has been filed by Andrew Pincus, Charles Rothfeld, and Michael Kimberly with assistance from Ernest Myers and Lee Marcus along with Eugene Fidell of the Yale Law School Clinic.

→ Flashback: FAN 15, “Free Speech & Judicial Elections: The Return of Kaus’ Crocodile,” May 14, 2014

Facts – Here is how Judge Chris Helinger, a referee for the Florida State Bar described the key facts in the case: “The Florida Bar alleges that on or about September 2009, the Respondent became a candidate for County Court Judge, Group 10, Hillsborough County, Florida. On September 4, 2009, the Respondent signed a campaign fundraising letter wherein the Respondent personally solicited campaign contributions. The Respondent admits that she reviewed and approved the September 4, 2009 letter. The Respondent further testified that prior to approving the letter she reviewed Canon 7C(1) of the Code of Judicial Conduct regarding solicitation of funds. However, the Respondent testified that she interpreted the Canon to only apply if there was another candidate in the race. At the time the solicitation letter was sent no other candidate had been announced. Canon 7C(1) states that the prohibition of personal solicitation of campaign funds apply to any candidate for ‘judicial office that is filled by public election between competing candidates.'” In that regard, the Florida Supreme Court noted: “[T]he referee found that the Respondent misrepresented the fact that there was no incumbent in the judicial race for which she was running. Further, the referee found that the Respondent’s misrepresentation [which she claims was the result of a good faith mistake based on a misunderstanding of the Canon] was published in a newspaper article on November 3, 2009.”  (Source: here)

Offending Mass-Mail Solicitation Letter 

LANELL WILLIAMS-YULEE

_____________________________________________

Bringing Diversity to the Judicial Bench

Elect Lanell Williams-Yulee For County Court Judge Group 10 and Campaign Fundraiser

Dear Friend:

I have served as a public servant for this community as Public Defender as well as a Prosecutor for the past 18 years. Having been involved in various civic activities such as “The Great American Teach In,” Inns Of Court, Pro Bono Attorney, Metropolitan Ministries outreach program, as well as a mentor for various young men and women residing within Hillsborough County, I have long worked for positive change in Tampa. With the support of my family, I now feel that the time has come for me to seek elected office. I want to bring fresh ideas and positive solutions to the Judicial bench. I am certain that I can uphold the Laws, Statutes, Ordinances as prescribed by the Constitution of the State of Florida as well as the Constitution of the United States Of America.

I am confident that I can serve as a positive attribute to the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit by running for County Court Judge, Group 10. To succeed in this effort, I need to mount an aggressive campaign. I’m inviting the people that know me best to join my campaign and help make a real difference. An early contribution of $25, $50, $100, $250, or $500, made payable to “Lanell Williams-Yulee Campaign for County Judge”, will help raise the initial funds needed to launch the campaign and get our message out to the public. I ask for your support In meeting the primary election fund raiser goals. Thank you in advance for your support.

Sincerely,
/s/
Lanell Williams-Yulee, Esq.

(Source: here)

See YouTube video of TV political ad here.

State Judicial Elections 

As Professor Richard Briffault has observed: “The vast majority of judicial offices in the United States are subject to election. The votes of the people select or retain at least some judges in thirty-nine states, and all judges are elected in twenty-one states.” Consistent with the American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct, states such as Florida have enacted laws or rules barring judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

Conflicts in Lower Courts  Read More

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

FAN 24 (First Amendment News) — Stephen Barnett: The Little-Known Man Behind the Well-Known Words

We live by falsehoods. They feed the myths of the great figures whose words are etched in our collective memory as if they were tablets from on High. We know those words; we are moved by those words; and those words define who we are or yearn to be.

Words fitly selected and artfully strung together can change minds and even alter the arc of history. Take, for example, the following words:

Thus we consider this case against the background of a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials. 

Of course, they are the words of Justice William Brennan — the famous words from his celebrated opinion in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan.

Stephen Barnett

Stephen Barnett

Those words have had a profound impact on the direction of American law and culture. Their importance transcends the mere holding of the case and all the black-letter law that followed them. Talk about doctrine as much as you will; stress the importance of this or that theory of constitutional interpretation as you like; and laud or condemn either judicial activism or judicial restraint as you see fit; but in the end, nothing really matches a tantalizing metaphor or an alluring string of words.

This brings me to my point: For all the kudos that have been and continue to be bestowed on him, the naked fact is that Justice Brennan did not author the words that further enhanced his First Amendment reputation. Let me repeat: he did not write the words that made him yet more famous in free speech circles. One of his law clerks did.

His name? Stephen R. Barnett (1935-2009). Before venturing further, let me say this: I know, this is not news. Seth Stern and Stephen Wermiel flagged this historical point on page 224 of their comprehensive biography of Justice Brennan. Though Tony Lewis did not mention this particular fact in his Make No Law: The Sullivan Case and the First Amendment (1991), he did, nonetheless, mention young Barnett and his recollections of the internal history of the case.

While it is certainly true that Stern and Wermiel shed light on the Barnett authorship, the fact is that Professor Barnett’s great contribution to First Amendment history is otherwise ignored in virtually all academic literature, including casebooks.

→» So, here is the news part, if I may take the liberty: Let’s stop the charade — if judges insist on having their law clerks write their opinions, then credit for those opinions or for notable passages within them must be allowed, if only after a designated period of time not to exceed twenty years after the termination of the clerkship. Though I might be open to reconsidering the matter, for now I am inclined to say that confidentiality agreements should be deemed contrary to public policy if they deny that possibility. I say this as a former law clerk who continues to respect fair norms of confidentiality. (Of course, in my case it was easy since Justice Hans Linde, not his law clerks, wrote all of his opinions.)

Justice Brennan was a great jurist even if he did not write the famous passage from Sullivan or even if he did not author NAACP v. Button (his clerk Richard Posner did). That said, let’s raise a glass to Steve Barnett and let’s credit him whenever we quote that “robust” language from Sullivan.  

» One more thing, by way of a related point — You know these words: “whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” The author? Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, of course, writing in Schenck v. United States (March 3, 1919).

But hold on. As Professor Lucas Powe has observed, in “the summer of 1918, Benjamin W. Shaw, defending (unsuccessfully until appeal) an Espionage Act case, uttered the following during his closing argument to the jury”:

‘Under all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence in this case, how can it be said that he wilfully [sic] said and did the things alleged? How can the words used under the circumstances detailed in the evidence have the tendency to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent?” 

John Fontana, “12 American State Trials 897, 932 (John D. Lawson, editor) (F.H. Thomas Book Co., 1920) (emphasis added), quoted in L. A. Powe, “Searching for the False Shout of ‘Fire,’” 19 Constitutional Commentary 345, 352, n. 61 (2002), discussed in Ronald Collins, The Fundamental Holmes  (2010), p. 234.

California Voters asked to weigh in on Citizens United Read More

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

FAN 23 (First Amendment News) — Paul Smith & Erin Murphy Debate Campaign Finance Law

Paul Smith & Erin Murphy

Paul Smith & Erin Murphy

It was quite an evening as Paul Smith and Erin Murphy went back-and-forth in a lively exchange discussing the McCutcheon case, campaign financing law, and the First Amendment. Professor David Skover moderated as the two one-time case foes — Erin represented Shaun McCutcheon & Paul filed an amicus brief on the other side — debated the pros and cons of government regulation. In his own casual, confident, and witty way, Paul pushed his views while Erin took it all in stride, always calm, cautious, and pointed. The exchange took place at the Washington, D.C. offices of Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz (there was a live videocast feed to the firm’s New York office). This was the latest First Amendment salon. The discussion ranged from the technical to the philosophical as the two advocates and the discussants teased out various arguments. In the end, Smith and Murphy came together with big smiles and a firm handshake (the pair worked on the same side in the recently decided Aero case.)

Among others, the discussants included: Lee LevineBenjamin GinsbergLaura Handman, James Swanson, Joel Gora, Adam Liptak, David Savage, Jess Bravin, Stephen WermielKatherine Bolger, and Jeff Bowman (former AA to FEC Chairman Scott Thomas).

John Seigenthaler (1927-2014) — the Man Who Loved Light 

“His commitment to the First Amendment was unflagging.” Ken Paulson

“A champion of the First Amendment, giant of journalism,  and a wonderful human being.”              – Judy Woodruff 

We lost John Seigenthaler last week — he was 86. I was privileged to have worked with John while I was at the Newseum’s First Amendment Center, first in Arlington, Va. and then in Washington, D.C. John founded the Center in 1991.

In a recent USA Today column, Ken Paulson (John’s friend and longtime colleague) observed:

John Seigenthaler

John Seigenthaler

“John was . . . the first editorial page editor of the then-new USA TODAY in 1982, developing the most balanced opinion pages in the country. For every USA TODAY editorial there would be a countervailing view. John embraced light instead of heat.”

“He was fueled by his passion for the First Amendment, the sense that every voice has value. He liked to tell the story of a liberal woman who found conservative radio deeply offensive. He told her ‘whenever I want to hush Rush, I turn the knob.’ With a pained expression she responded, ‘Then I get G. Gordon Liddy.’ John would roar with each retelling.”

“In 1991 John retired from his newspaper role to found the First Amendment Center. It was a role he was born to. Long an advocate for the underdog, John was a passionate champion for the five freedoms that few Americans knew much about and inevitably took for granted.”

Gene Policinski, a friend who worked with John since 1981, offered this life assessment of his colleague: “John’s passion for the First Amendment was driven by a belief in equality and in the ‘marketplace of ideas.’ He had a lifelong commitment to the idea that this nation would not just endure but would prosper if its citizens could freely discuss, debate, and decide public issues without the burden of the heavy hand of government.” (see here, too)

→ For more about John and his remarkable life, see:

High Court Agrees to Hear Sign Ordinance Case  Read More

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

FAN 22 (First Amendment News) — New Documentary on Mr. First Amendment — Nat Hentoff

imagesPerhaps no person alive better embodies the spirit of the First Amend — robust, rebellious, free-flyin’ and straight-talking — than Nat Hentoff. Fuse the life spirit of Lenny Bruce together with that of the early Bob Dylan and add a dollop of Miles Davis’ jazz and Allen Ginsberg’s poetry and you’ll get a sense of Hentoff’s persona. There is also a Tom Paine quality about him — feisty in his defense of freedom, no matter how unpopular it makes him. Some liberals love him, some conservatives admire him, and some libertarians applaud him — but very few come along for the full Hentoff monty. And that’s the way he likes it! If you have an open mind and a tolerant side, you gotta love the guy . . . if only at a First Amendment distance.

If any of this strikes a chord in your free-speech consciousness, then check out the new documentary on Nat — The Pleasures of Being out of Step, directed by David L. Lewis. Here is a description of the documentary:

Pleasures profiles legendary jazz writer and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff, whose career tracks the greatest cultural and political movements of the last 65 years. The film is about an idea as well as a man – the idea of free expression as the defining characteristic of the individual. . . . Pleasures wraps the themes of liberty and identity around a historical narrative that stretches from the Great Depression to the Patriot Act. Brought to life by actor Andre Braugher, the narration doesn’t tell the story – it is the story, consisting entirely of writings by Hentoff and some of his subjects. With a potent mix of interviews, archival footage, photographs and music, the film employs a complex non-linear structure to engage the audience in a life of independent ideas and the creation of an enduring voice.

At the core of the film are three extraordinarily intimate interviews with Hentoff, shot by award-winning cinematographer Tom Hurwitz. The film also includes interviews with Floyd Abrams, Amiri Baraka, Stanley Crouch, Dan Morgenstern, Aryeh Neier, Karen Durbin, Margot Hentoff and John Gennari, among others. It features music by Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Bob Dylan and Charles Mingus, and never-before seen photographs of these artists and other cultural figures at the height of their powers.

 Here is the trailer.

→ Here is the bookThe Pleasures of Being Out of Step: Nat Hentoff’s Life in Journalism, Jazz and the First Amendment.

 Screenings have been in New York and are now happening on the West Coast.

Nat Hentoff on Bill Buckley's Firing Line

Nat Hentoff on Bill Buckley’s Firing Line

Hentoff Books

Some of Nat Hentoff’s books on free speech and related topics include the following:

→ As if that were not enough (and I left out all the jazz books), I gather that the 89-year-old Hentoff is working on a new book.

Video clips

See and hear the man himself on this Brian Lamb, C-SPAN (YouTube) interview with Nat (go here).

→ And go here, too, for Richard Heffner’s Open Mind interview with Nat.  (See also here for a Cato Interview)

→ One more — this is precious: The young Nat debating the young Bill Buckley on Firing Line.

Shaun McCutcheon Launches Litigation Group

The petitioner in the landmark McCutcheon v. FEC (2014) case has decided he wants to do more to further the cause of the First Amendment as he understands it. To that end, Shaun McCutcheon has launched a foundation — the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation.

→ Its purpose? “The Foundation is dedicated to defending, protecting, and advancing political speech.” Read More

0

FAN 21.1 (First Amendment News) — Group Launches Litigation Campaign to Challenge Campus Speech Codes

L to Rt: Paul Gerlich & Erin Furleigh (Iowa St. U.), Robert Corn-Revere (DWT), Greg Lukianoff (FIRE) & Isaac Smith (Ohio U.)

L to Rt: Paul Gerlich & Erin Furleigh (Iowa St. U.), Robert Corn-Revere (DWT), Greg Lukianoff (FIRE) & Isaac Smith (Ohio U.)

July 1, 2014, National Press Club, Washington, D.C. Today, two powerhouses — one a free speech activist, the other a noted First Amendment lawyer — joined forces to challenge campus free speech codes that run afoul of the First Amendment. Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) and Robert Corn-Revere, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine (DWT), announced that the group and the law firm would work together in a litigation campaign to change the free speech culture on many campuses across the nation.

“Unconstitutional campus speech codes have been a national scandal for decades. But today, 25 years after the first of the modern generation of speech codes was defeated in court, 58% of public campuses still hold onto shockingly illiberal codes,” said Lukianoff. “For 15 years, FIRE has fought for free speech on campus using public awareness as our main weapon, but more is needed. Today, we announce the launch of the Stand Up for Speech Litigation Project, an expansive new campaign to eliminate speech codes nationwide.”

“We at Davis Wright Tremaine,” said Corn-Revere, “are honored to be asked to participate on the important work of helping to safeguard First Amendment and due process rights of America’s college campuses as part of FIRE’s Stand Up for Speech Litigation Project. It is a privilege to represent the courageous young women and men, and the faculty members, who have opted not to follow the path of least resistance, but instead have chosen to challenge the exercise of arbitrary and illegal authority. These are acts of civic virtue . . . .”

→ The DWT litigation team will include input from two seasoned First Amendment lawyers — Ronnie London and Lisa Zycherman.

Text of T-shirt banned at Ohio University.

Text of T-shirt banned at Ohio University.

The litigation campaign was launched to challenge speech codes at public institutions on behalf of students, student groups, and faculty members. Four lawsuits were filed today in federal district courts:

  1. Ohio University — Smith v. McDavis et al 
  2. Iowa State University — Gerlich & Fuleigh v. Leath et al
  3. Chicago State University — Berry & Bionaz v. Chicago State University Board of Trustees
  4. Citrus College — Sinapi-Riddle v. Citrus Community College et al

Three of the student plaintiffs in the lawsuits — Paul Gerlich and Erin Furleigh (Iowa State Univ.) and Isaach Smith (Ohio Univ.) — took part in the press conference. Mr. Smith and his group, Students Defending Students, were told by Ohio University officials that they could not wear certain T-shirts (see photo above) because such actions would violate a school policy that prohibits any “act that degrades, demeans, or disgraces” another student, in this case women. “I’m tired of having my university work so hard to stop people from speaking,” said Mr. Smith.

Ronald London (DWT)

Ronald London (DWT)

Over at Iowa State University the fight centered around another objectionable T-shrt, this time one that purportedly violated a school owned trademark (see here).  “I feel bad and I don’t think I should feel bad about it,” Ms. Furleigh complained about censorship against her and her group, the NORML chapter at ISU. “Our university administration has prevented us from even putting the word marijuana on our designs,” Furleigh added.

Lisa Zycherman, DWT lawyer

Lisa Zycherman (DWT)

The challenges concern:

  1. restrictions on the design of T-shirts for campus organizations at Ohio University and Iowa University,
  2. engaging in expressive political activities outside a “free speech zone” while seeking signatures for an anti-NSA petition at Citrus College, and
  3. retaliation against professors for statements on a blog, purportedly in violation of Chicago State University’s broad cyberbullying policy.

→ Starting with Doe v. University of Michigan in 1989, there has been a virtually unbroken string of victories in court challenges to various college campus speech codes.

Meanwhile, Mr. Corn-Revere and his DWT team await a decision in another campus speech case he argued in the 11th Circuit on June 13th of this year — Barnes v. Zaccari. 

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m
0

FAN 21 (First Amendment News) — Looking Back on the 2013-2014 Term & on The Roberts Court’s Overall Free Speech Record

What a term it has been for the Roberts Court and free speech – Election campaign laws, union dues, government employee speech, abortion clinic buffer zones, and a presidential protest case. Also set out below are some related First Amendment events that occurred this Court Term along with a list of new books on free speech. Further down are some facts and figures concerning the Roberts Court’s overall record on free speech.

Disorder in the Court: Recall, too, that back in May there was a disruption inside the Court: “I arise on behalf of the vast majority of the people of the United States who believe that money is not speech,” the protester said, “corporations are not people and that our democracy should not be for sale to the highest bidder.” Before he was arrested, Noah Newkirk of Los Angeles also got in a few more words of protest: “overturn Citizens United” and “the people demand democracy.” Even more incredible, it was captured on video and released on the Web.

35 Cases: This Term the Roberts Court decided five First Amendment free expression cases along with three related free speech cases. The Justices also denied review in a campaign finance case while granting review in “true threats” case. All in all, the Roberts Court has now decided 35 free speech cases on First Amendment grounds.

→ “In Group Bias”: And then there was the empirical study by Professors Lee EpsteinChristopher M. Parker, & Jeffrey A. Sega entitled “Do Justices Defend the Speech They Hate? In-Group Bias, Opportunism, and the First Amendment.”

Amending the 1st?: While much of this was going on, Justice John Paul Stevens released a book urging, among other things, that the First Amendment be amended. In the same vein, a Senate subcommittee first heard and then voted in favor of an amendment to the First Amendment.

→ New Books: Here are some of the new books that were published during this Court Term:

  1. Lee Levine & Stephen Wermiel, The Progeny: Justice William J. Brennan’s Fight to Preserve the Legacy of New York Times v. Sullivan
  2. Ronald Collins & David Skover, When Money Speaks: The McCutcheon Decision, Campaign Finance Laws, and the First Amendment
  3. Shaun McCutcheon, Outsider Inside the Supreme Court: A Decisive First Amendment Battle
  4. Robert Post, Citizens Divided: Campaign Finance Reform and the Constitution
  5. Robert E. Mutch, Buying the Vote: A History of Campaign Finance Reform (2014)
  6. Richard Fossey & Todd A. DeMitchell, Student Dress Codes and the First Amendment: Legal Challenges and Policy Issues (2014)
  7. Laurence Tribe & Joshua Matz, Uncertain Justice: The Roberts Court & The Constitution (2014)

→ Law Review: A Harvard Law Review Symposium on free speech was published recently.

→ Flashback: Cass Sunstein on the 50th Anniversary of NYT v. Sullivan

“[A]mid the justified celebration, we should pay close attention to the dark side of New York Times vs. Sullivan. While it has granted indispensable breathing space for speakers, it has also created a continuing problem for public civility and for democratic self-government. . . . False accusations are hardly new. But New York Times vs. Sullivan can claim at least some responsibility for adding to a climate of distrust and political polarization in the U.S.” [Source: here]

→ The Play’s the Thing: Arguendo, a play about Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. was performed earlier this year. 

Remember: This year we also lost a noted First Amendment figure with the passing of Professor George Anastaplo.

Supreme_Court_US_20102013-14 Term: First Amendment Cases

  1. [JR: 5-4]          McCutcheon v. FEC
  2. [RBG: 9-0]      Woods v Moss
  3. [SS: 9-0]         Lane v. Franks (commentary)
  4. [JR: 9-0]         McCullen v. Coakley
  5. [SA: 5-4]         Harris v. Quinn (symposium)

→ Here is the lineup of Justices writing majority opinions this term in First Amendment free expression cases:

  • Chief Justice Roberts             McCutcheon v. FEC   (vote: 5-4) &
  •                                                McCullen v. Coakley   (vote: 9-0)
  • Justice Ginsburg                    Wood v. Moss              (vote: 9-0)
  • Justice Sotomayor                 Lane v. Franks            (vote: 9-0)
  • Justice Alito                           Harris v. Quinn            (vote: 5-4)

Read More

0

FAN 20.5 (First Amendment News) — Move to Amend First Amendment Continues

imagesAccording to a June 26, 2014 Bloomberg BNA news story by Nancy Ognanovich & Kenneth P. Doyle:

“Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) priority list for Senate action in July includes plans to schedule votes on a constitutional amendment to protect the authority of Congress to regulate campaign finance, as well as a separate campaign finance disclosure measure—known as the DISCLOSE Act—that failed in previous years, aides said. . . .”

Vote in Subcommittee: “The proposed campaign finance amendment to the Constitution was approved by the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights June 18th on a 5-4, party-line vote. The measure was set to be considered June 26th by the full Judiciary Committee, but was held over.”

Substituted language: “The subcommittee adopted a substitute to Sen. Tom Udall’s (D-N.M.) proposed amendment (S. J. Res. 19) offered by panel Chairman Richard Durbin (D-Ill.). The measure would allow Congress and the states to set ‘reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money by candidates and others,’ and would further permit Congress and the states to prohibit campaign spending by ‘corporations or other artificial entities.'”

See also this op-ed by Josh Blackman: “Democrats are Trying to Rewrite the First Amendment,” American Spectator, June 25, 2014

→ For earlier coverage of this proposed constitutional amendment, see:

1

FAN 20.4 (First Amendment News) — 9 Comments on McCullen, the Abortion Buffer Zone Case

I thought it might be interesting to share excerpts from some of the commentary on McCullen v. Coakley. Here are 9 views on the case:

#1 — The American Civil Liberties Union

“This is a hard case and the majority opinion reflects the difficulty and importance of balancing two constitutional rights: the right of women to enter and leave abortion clinics free from the harassment, intimidation, and violence they have too often suffered in the past; and the right of peaceful protestors to express their opposition to abortion on the public streets outside abortion clinics.

We agree that a fixed buffer zone imposes serious First Amendment costs, but we also think the Court underestimated the proven difficulty of protecting the constitutional rights of women seeking abortions by enforcing other laws – especially regarding harassment – outside abortion clinics.

Today’s opinion makes it more important than ever that the police enforce the laws that do exist in order to ensure that women and staff can safely enter and leave abortion clinics.” Steven R. Shapiro (press release, June 26, 2014) (ACLU amicus brief here)

#2 — Judge Richard Posner

“Lecturing strangers on a sidewalk is not a means by which information and opinion are disseminated in our society,” he wrote in Slate. “Strangers don’t meet on the sidewalk to discuss ‘the issues of the day.’ (Has Chief Justice John Roberts, the author of the opinion, ever done such a thing?). The assertion that abortion protesters ‘wish to converse’ with women outside an abortion clinic is naive. They wish to prevent the women from entering the clinic, whether by showing them gruesome photos of aborted fetuses or calling down the wrath of God on them. This is harassment of people who are in a very uncomfortable position; the last thing a woman about to have an abortion needs is to be screamed at by the godly.”

#3 — Laurence Tribe

“The great virtue of our First Amendment is that it protects speech we hate just as vigorously as it protects speech we support. On Thursday, all nine justices united to reaffirm our nation’s commitment to allowing diverse views in our public spaces — although their unanimous result belied their divided reasoning.

Cases like McCullen force us to balance competing constitutional values: free speech against the safety and autonomy of women. Here the balance tips unquestionably toward speech. A woman’s right to choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy under Roe v. Wade guarantees her protection from the state. This protection does not include a right to be shielded by the state from fellow citizens hoping to peacefully convince her that she’s making the wrong choice.

In his quest to bring all his colleagues on board, Chief Justice Roberts wrote an opinion that implausibly described the Massachusetts statute as neutral as between anti-abortion speech and abortion rights speech — a neutrality that four conservative justices rightly dismissed as illusory, revealing a court sharply divided beneath its veneer of unanimity.

. . . [N]either empathy for their anguish, nor the need to protect the safety of women seeking such services, nor the clear need to guard against the rising tide of state laws designed to restrict access to abortions, can justify far-reaching measures that restrict peaceful conversation in public spaces.” (New York Times, June 26, 2014)

#4 – Walter Dellinger

“This case is really about the unwilling listener who is forced to submit to lectures she does not want to hear at a time of stress. (It would be easy enough to a protester standing a mere 12 yards away to hold up a sign saying, “Talk to me about your choice.”) Like many of the court’s decisions, this one draws a line across society on social and economic grounds. The wealthy elite—like Supreme Court justices—rarely if ever have to make their way through crowds that surround them and berate them or even plead with them in softer voices. Those who work at the Supreme Court (or at law firms like mine) most often drive (or are driven) into underground garages at work or at doctors’ offices. It is students, secretaries, school teachers, and other ordinary people who have to get off the bus or the subway and push their way through hostile crowds of those who may get in their faces and do everything they can to impede their entrance into a clinic. The gauntlet of the final entrance is but the final step that follows from the relentless creation of hurdles that are effectively depriving the most vulnerable women of the right that was promised to them in Roe v. Wade.

The creation of a relatively small space free of protesters in front of a clinic hardly shuts off debate. In defense of the notion that the space is relatively small, I post here one of the maps in the brief for Planned Parenthood of Massachusetts and Planned Parenthood Federation of America (a brief on which I was co-counsel.)” (Slate, June 27, 2014)

#5 – Amy Howe

“Although we often think of Justice Anthony Kennedy as the pivotal vote on the Court in high-profile cases, yesterday it was Chief Justice John Roberts who played that role, writing an opinion that had the support of the four more liberal Justices — Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.” (SCOTUSblog, June 27, 2014)

#6 – Kevin Russell

“In today’s decision, the Court holds unconstitutional the Massachusetts law establishing a thirty-five-foot fixed buffer zone around abortion clinics in the state.  But did it, in the process, overrule Hill?  Certainly, the majority opinion by the Chief Justice does not do so expressly (in contrast with Justice Scalia’s dissent, joined by Justices Kennedy and Thomas, which overtly calls for Hill to be overruled).  Indeed, it is notable that outside of a brief mention in describing the background of the case (noting that Massachusetts had originally enacted a narrower buffer-zone provision modeled on the statute upheld in Hill), the majority opinion makes no mention of Hill at all.

The question is whether the reasons the majority gives today would effectively render buffer zones like Colorado’s unconstitutional, despite the result in Hill.  There’s a good argument that they would.

To be sure, there is one big difference between the laws in the two cases: Hill involved an eight-foot floating buffer zone around individuals within a hundred feet of abortion clinics, while this case involved a thirty-five-foot fixed buffer zone.  One might think that the sheer size difference could be determinative – one can still talk (albeit loudly) to someone eight feet away, and offer her literature; the decision today noted that this is much harder from the distance of thirty-five feet.” (SCOTUSblog, June 26, 2014)

#7 – Dahlia Lithwick

“While the decision is not monumentally awful in ways some progressives most feared, and certainly affords the state substantial latitude in its future attempts to protect women seeking abortions from harassment, more than anything it seems to reflect a continued pattern of “free speech for me but not for thee” or, at least, ‘free speech for people who think like me, that pervades recent First Amendment decisions at the court. More importantly, I don’t know where to locate this ruling in the burgeoning doctrine of “the right to be let alone” that Justices Alito and Thomas and Breyer have espoused, nor do I know how to reconcile it with the court’s persistent second-rate treatment of any speech that threatens to harass the justices themselves. . . .

In a gorgeously un-self-aware way, the same Supreme Court that severely limits speech and protest in a buffer zone all around its own building, extolls the unique and wonderful properties of the American boulevard in today’s opinion . . . .

But it is exhausting to keep hearing from the pro-life movement that women seeking abortions are magical pixie princesses, who must be—thank you Justice Kennedy—babied and soothed and gently counseled for the brief moments in which they contemplate abortion. As though these “difficult conversations” are really only for their own benefit. Unlike mourners, or voters, or Supreme Court justices, they simply need to be told what to do. That’s why this case is harder than a simple “yay, speech wins” reaction can capture: Privileging “gentle counseling” for some isn’t quite the same as promoting free speech for all.”  (Slate, June 26, 2014)

#8 – Hadley Arkes

“The outcome in McCullen v. Coakley may not be as bad as Justice Scalia thinks it sounds. For my own part, I think that Justice Scalia is inescapably right in seeing the statute in Massachusetts as part of a scheme to close down, in the public forum, speech that is critical of abortion. But that critique may distract us from seeing what has been accomplished in this case. John Roberts, in his opinion for the majority, has picked up on some of the critical points that Scalia himself made during the oral argument in McCullen v. Coakley — most notably, that it was quite wrong to describe the speech of Eleanor McCullen as a “protest.” For Roberts it was as critical here, as it has been for Scalia, to put the accent on the fact that Eleanor McCullen works by quietly offering information to women entering an abortion clinic.” (National Review, June 26, 2014)

#9 – Geoffrey Stone

“Critics of the decision regard [the plurality's] approach as fundamentally naïve and unrealistic about what actually happens when anti-abortion protesters gather near the entrances to these facilities. These critics maintain that the image of the grandmotherly woman calmly approaching a young woman heading into the clinic in order to have an abortion and asking her if they might chat a bit about whether this is really a good idea is wholly fanciful and blinks the reality of what actually happens at these moments. . . .

In their view, a clean, simple rule, like the one enacted by Massachusetts, is a perfectly reasonable way to deal with the world as it is, rather than the world as Chief Justice Roberts imagines it to be. In the view of the critics, the more ‘narrowly-tailored’ restrictions that Roberts would approve are not really responsive to the complex, highly emotional, and often intimidating and even dangerous situations that actually arise in these settings.

The critics maintain that requiring people to stand 35 feet away from the entrance, while still allowing them to speak from there, is a sound and reasonable compromise between the free speech rights of those who oppose abortion and the rights of those who wish to exercise their constitutional right to reproductive freedom free of intimidation by others.

Although reasonable persons can differ about how best to reconcile these competing interests, I am inclined to agree with the critics of the decision that it unnecessarily and inappropriately set aside a reasonable and sensible compromise that better adjusted the competing interests than the more ‘narrowly-tailored’ alternatives that Chief Justice Roberts held would pass constitutional muster.

. . . . [I]t is worth noting that this case must have been especially difficult for the Court’s four ‘liberals,’ all of whom are strong protectors of both the freedom of speech and the right of a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. For them, Justice Roberts’ moderate, middle-ground probably gave them a resolution that, although perhaps not ideal, they could live with.” (Huffington Post, June 27, 2014)