Search

The article examines the majority and dissent's reasoning in the case Ramirez v. Collier, wherein John Ramirez petitioned Texas prison authorities to allow his pastor to enter the execution chamber to pray aloud and lay hands on him during the execution but the request was denied so he sued under the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. Topics include Ramirez's rights, Supreme Court decisions preceding Ramirez, and psychology at work in the case.

The article discusses the history of advocacy in the U.S. Supreme Court. Also cited are the exclusive properties of the justices like their bench memoranda, interchambers memoranda, voting records, and draft opinions, the opinions of the justices in cases like Cantor v. Detroit Edison Co. and June Medical Services v. Russo, and the application of the First Amendment Religion Clauses to claims of illegal employment discrimination.

In 2018, the US Supreme Court analyzed a California state requirement that clinics serving pregnant women must provide government notices—1 for licensed clinics about the availability of state health services including abortion and 1 for unlicensed clinics, notifying potential clients that the clinics are not licensed medical facilities and have no licensed medical professionals on-site. The Supreme Court found that both notices violated the First Amendment rights of the clinics. The Supreme Court's opinion elicits new uncertainties about the government's ability to require the disclosure of factual information in the context of reproductive health services and more broadly in the commercial context. However, the Supreme Court's silence on 1 of the state's purposes for the unlicensed clinic notice, which was to address deceptive speech by the clinics, highlights a potential avenue for future regulation. Policymakers can require the disclosure of factual information in the commercial context specifically to prevent consumer deception consistent with the First Amendment. Public health researchers can generate evidence to support such disclosure requirements intended to protect health and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the relationship of the case Brandenburg v. Ohio to Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten. Topics include the process by which Brandenburg was created and its meaning as seen from the perspective of its author, the claim that Brandenburg incorporated Judge Learned Hand's view of the First Amendment, and his description of ruling in Masses as a great opinion.

The article presents a speech by University of California Berkeley law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, delivered at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law in Denver Colorado, on February 28, 2017. Topics include judgments of the U.S. Supreme Court on cases of freedom of speech and freedom of the press as covered by the U.S. Constitution's 1st Amendment, U.S. President Donald Trump's attitudes on freedom of the press, and leaks that are coming out of the current administration.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 1985 commercial speech case Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, and it mentions the evolution of America's commercial speech doctrine, litigation involving the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the efforts to minimize confusion regarding American courts' analyses of compelled commercial disclosures. Solitude for commercial speakers and the rights of U.S. consumers are assessed

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (Court's) ruling in the 2015 case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona which deals with the First Amendment to America's Constitution, and it mentions an anticlassifactory test of content discrimination. U.S. equal protection and freedom of speech laws are addressed, along with the Court's two competing approaches to the identification of content-based laws and the differences between content-based and content-neutral speech regulations.

The article discusses what the author refers to as the special value of public employee speech in America as of 2016, and it mentions the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2014 case Lane v. Franks which deals with court's determination that a public employee deserves protection under the First Amendment to the nation's Constitution when testifying about financial fraud in a youth program that he directed. Freedom of speech and the legal aspects of public employment in the U.S. are assessed.

The article discusses the concept of doctrinal overlap in relation to legal cases which can often be analyzed using a multiple legal doctrines, and it mentions the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans Inc. which deals with Texas constitutional law, government speech, and a specialty license plate design featuring the Confederate States of America's flag. Lawsuits involving the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution are assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's ruling in the 2014 case American Meat Institute v. U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) which deals with America's commercial speech laws, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the court's test for compelled disclosures. Efforts to prevent consumer deception are mentioned in relation to misleading advertisements and graphic warning labels on cigarette packages. Meat labeling laws are examined.

This Article provides an early assessment--both quantitative and qualitative--of the Roberts Court's securities-law decisions. While the Roberts Court has continued to take an average of one to two securities-law cases per year, such cases represent an increased share of the Supreme Court's docket, compared to prior Courts, because its overall docket has shrunk. The Roberts Court has maintained the same overall split in "expansive" or "restrictive" outcomes as the post-Powell Rehnquist Court, but has reduced polarization: more than half were unanimous and only three included five-vote majorities. An attitudinal model does no better than a coin flip in predicting outcomes. This Article shows a newly heightened role for procedure and a resistance to bright-line rules, with procedural decisions more restrictive and rejections of bright-line rules more expansive, factors that predict outcomes for cases argued in the October 2014 term, and the types of cases likely to attract the attention of the Court in the future. The turn to procedure matches the background and interests of the Chief Justice, a former appellate litigator, leading a broader "procedural revolution" on the Court that stretches beyond the limited reach of securities law. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's (USSC's) ruling in the 2014 case Harris v. Quinn which deals with a prohibition against the assessment of a fair-share fee against in-home caregivers under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. American freedom of speech rights and the legal aspects of compelled subsidization are mentioned. The 1977 USSC case Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which deals with public-sector union dues and collective bargaining units, is also examined.