Category: History of Law

stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
2

FAN 63 (First Amendment News) CJ Roberts: Mr. First Amendment — The Trend Continues

He has the potential, almost from a running start, to bring a new day and a new era to the Supreme Court.Senator Arlen Specter (Sept. 26, 2005)
Chief Justice John Roberts (photo: Getty Images)

Chief Justice John Roberts (photo: Getty Images)

He is, by all measures, Mr. First Amendment. When it comes to free expression cases, Chief Justice John Roberts is the point man. Moreover, he solidifies that jurisprudential status with each passing year. In the process, we may well be witnessing the evolution of what could turn out to be an unprecedented chapter in the history of free-speech law in America — a welcome chapter to some and an unwelcome one to others. However that might be, one fact is undeniable: John Roberts is busy constructing a First Amendment edifice. Though it is a work still in progress, it is already towering over that of others on the Court.

This Term he has authored all of the free speech cases decided thus far by the Court — Elonis v. United States  (8-1, statutory grounds) and Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (5-4). And then there is truth of the tallies:

Of course, the Chief Justice’s overall record has a few glitches, or what some might deem breaches of faith. For example, strong as his First Amendment credentials are when it comes to sustaining rights, he failed on that score in two important cases: Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (per JR, 5-4, 2010) and Garcetti v. Ceballos (per AK, 5-4, 2006, JR joining majority). And then there was his opinion for the Court in Morse et al. v. Frederick (5-4, 2007). Finally, there was his vote Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (7-2, 2011) wherein he joined Justice Alito’s concurrence and thereby declined to join the First Amendment majority opinion by Justice Scalia. And while cases such as Elonis v. United States (8-1) reveal his tendency to dispose of free speech cases on statutory grounds when possible and in ways consistent with the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, others cases such as  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (AK, 5-4, 2010) run contrary to that position. (More could be said about all of these cases and yet other others, but I will reserve further commentary for another time.)

Roberts & Rehnquist: Stark Contrast 

Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Chief Justice William Rehnquist

What to make of it all? Here is how Paul M. Smith (a noted appellate advocate who successfully argued the Brown case) answers that question: “While it is clear that Chief Justice Roberts has become the most important Justice in First Amendment cases, surpassing even Justice Anthony Kennedy, he has shown a willingness to deny protection to speech he disapproves of. Examples include Holder v. Humanitarian Project, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, and Morse v. Frederick. But, that said, Chief Justice Roberts has certainly come a long way from the viewpoint of his mentor Justice (and later Chief Justice) William Rehnquist, who was far less likely than more recent conservatives to vote to invalidate laws under the First Amendment.”

Paul M. Smith

Paul M. Smith

To illustrate Mr. Smith’s comparative point, consider the fact that during his 33 years on the Court, first as an Associate Justice and then as the Chief Justice, Rehnquist authored 71 freedom-of-expression opinions, 29 of which were majority opinions. The vast majority of those opinions were hostile to the free-speech claims raised. And as Professor Geoffrey Stone has observed: “In his more than 30 years on the Supreme Court, Rehnquist participated in 259 decisions involving these freedoms. In these cases, Rehnquist voted to support the 1st Amendment claim only 20 percent of the time.”

“Strong free expression principles”

While some maintain that John Roberts’s opinions primarily serve corporate deregulatory interests (see below), the fact is that there is a bounty of doctrinal law and powerful language in many of those opinions that lawyers have tapped into in any variety of free speech cases.

Robert Corn-Revere

Robert Corn-Revere

According to Robert Corn-Revere, an experienced First Amendment lawyer: “The Chief Justice has espoused strong free expression principles that have had the effect of protecting even speech some consider to be at the fringe of the First Amendment concern – including  fetish videos and speech by hateful religious zealots. And in McCutcheon he observed that ‘[i]f the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause—it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.’  Those who criticize the application of these principles to campaign laws because they are ‘deregulatory’ simply are engaging in a different sort of result-oriented reasoning. They don’t want the First Amendment to limit those speech regulations they favor.  Chief Justice Roberts’ record may not be perfect (given decisions like MorseGarcetti, and Holder), but it certainly is strong.”

Selected Commentaries:

  1. Sam Baker, “John Roberts: First Amendment Champion*,” National Journal (June 3, 2015)
  2. David H. Gans, “Roberts at 10:The Strongest Free Speech Court in History?”, Constitutional Accountability Center (May, 2015)
  3. Lincoln Caplan, “The Embattled First Amendment,” The American Scholar (Spring 2015)
  4. David H. Gans, “The Roberts Court Thinks Corporations Have More Rights Than You Do,” The New Republic (June 30, 2014)
  5. Ronald Collins, “The Roberts Court and the First Amendment,” SCOTUSblog (July 9, 2013)
  6. Ronald Collins, “Exceptional Freedom-The Roberts Court, First Amendment, and the New Absolutism,” Albany Law Review (2013)
  7. Adam Liptak, “Study Challenges Supreme Court’s Image as Defender of Free Speech,” New York Times (January 7, 2012)
  8. Erwin Chemerisnky, “Not a Free Speech Court,Arizona Law Review (2011)
  9. David L. Hudson, Jr., “Chief Justice Roberts and the First Amendment,” First Amendment Center (April 22, 2011)

New Hampshire High Court: Parking Meter “Robin Hoods” Protected under FA

Don’t follow leaders, watch the parking metersBob Dylan

The case is City of Keene v. Cleaveland, et al (N.H., June 9, 2015). The opinion for the Court was authored by Associate Justice James P. Bassett.

Justice James Bassett

Justice James Bassett

Facts: “The City employs [parking enforcement officers (PEOs] to enforce motor vehicle parking laws and regulations in Keene. The PEOs patrol downtown Keene on foot and in marked vehicles, monitoring parking meters and issuing parking tickets. In December 2012, the respondents began protesting parking enforcement in Keene. On an almost daily basis, the respondents followed closely behind the PEOs, identifying expired parking meters and filling the meter before a PEO could issue a ticket, a process referred to by the respondents as a “save.” When the respondents “save” a vehicle, they leave a card on the vehicle’s windshield that reads: ‘Your meter expired! However, we saved you from the king’s tariff!’ The respondents also: videotaped the PEOs from a close proximity; called the PEOs names such as ‘f*****g thief,’ ‘coward,’ ‘racist,’ and ‘b***h'; criticized the PEOs for issuing tickets; encouraged the PEOs to quit their jobs; and waited for the PEOs during their breaks, including waiting outside restrooms. The respondents testified that they engage in these activities to protest parking enforcement because they believe that parking is not a criminal act, and that parking tickets are a ‘threat against [the] people.'”

Held: “[W]e note that we share the trial court’s skepticism as to whether a tortious interference claim can exist when private citizens engage in protest of the government. However, we need not decide whether a viable tortious interference claim can exist under the circumstances present in this case because we agree with the trial court that holding the respondents liable for tortious interference based upon their alleged activities would infringe upon the respondents’ right to free speech under the First Amendment. . . .”

7256167_G“Because we hold that the First Amendment bars the City from pursuing its claim for tortious interference with contractual relations, we also conclude that the First Amendment bars the City from pursuing its claim that the respondents are liable for conspiring to commit the very same tort. . . .”

“In light of the City’s allegations that the challenged conduct threatens the safety of the PEOs, pedestrians, and the motoring public, and given the testimony of the PEOs at the hearing, we hold that the trial court erred when it failed to consider the particular factual circumstances of the case and whether an injunction should issue based upon the governmental and policy interests asserted by the City. . . . Accordingly, we vacate the trial court’s denial of the City’s request for injunctive relief, and remand for the trial court to address the issue of whether the governmental interests and factual circumstances asserted by the City in its petition are sufficient to warrant properly tailored injunctive relief.”

Counsel for Respondents: Backus, Meyer & Branch, LLP, of Manchester (Jon Meyer on the brief and orally).

Amici: Nixon Peabody LLP of Manchester (Anthony J. Galdieri on the brief), and New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, of Concord (Gilles R. Bissonnette on the brief), for New Hampshire Civil Liberties Union, as amicus curiae.

California Lawmakers: Reproductive Fact Act

This from a WND report by Bob Unruh: “California’s Democrat-controlled legislature previously became the first state to bar counselors from helping minors be healed of unwanted same-sex attractions. Counselors are allowed only to promote homosexuality to minors. Now, California Democrats, with AB 775, want to require crisis pregnancy centers, including those that are run by faith-based organizations, to actively promote abortion. New York already tried it and was slapped down by the courts.” See Evergreen Association v. City of New York (2nd Cir., 2014)

See also Samantha Lachman, “California Assembly Passes Bill Banning Crisis Pregnancy Centers From Misleading Patients,” Huffington Post, May 26, 2015: “The California Assembly passed legislation Tuesday that would require faith-motivated crisis pregnancy centers to provide comprehensive information about reproductive health care options, including abortion.”

“The bill, known as the Reproductive Fact Act, would require pregnancy centers to post notices saying that reproductive health services, including abortion, are available to pregnant women in the state. Pregnancy centers also would have to disclose whether they lack a medical license. The bill passed on a party-line vote, with Republicans objecting on the grounds that it would unconstitutionally compel government speech for the state’s 167 centers.”

Unprotected: Cellphone video of U.S. senator’s bedridden wife in a nursing home

This news report from the Associated Press: “A Mississippi judge on Monday rejected an argument that a blogger had a First Amendment right to shoot a cellphone video of a U.S. senator’s wife while she was bedridden with dementia in a nursing home. The defense attorney for blogger Clayton Kelly made the free-speech argument during pre-trial motions Monday. Clayton Kelly of Pearl is charged with conspiracy, attempted burglary and burglary”.

“‘I think a lot of this is political. I think my constitutional rights should be respected,’ Kelly, whose blog was called Constitutional Clayton, told reporters outside the Madison County Courthouse.. . .”

“Images of Rose Cochran appeared online briefly during the 2014 election, during a tough Republican primary. Investigators say Kelly was one of several people who conspired to produce the video suggesting U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran was having an affair. . . “

See also Kelly pleads guilty to conspiracy in Cochran photo case,” Jackson Clarion Ledger‎, June 8, 2015

Mobile Monument Project 

This from the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression:

The Mobile Monument Project involves transforming a standard issue 20-foot ISO shipping container into an elegant and engaging representation of our precious First Amendment values.

UnknownThe exterior features more than 400 sq ft of “chalkboard” space where visitors can express themselves however they wish. On the inside, a beautiful open gallery space provides a backdrop for rotating exhibits, performances, installations—the sky’s the limit!
In short, the Mobile Monument is an interactive exploration of what it means to enjoy and exercise our right of free expression. And because it’s so portable, the Mobile Monument takes this important message straight to the people. Once completed, the Monument can go almost anywhere:
  • College Campuses
  • State Capitols
  • Public Parks
  • Festivals
  • Community Events
  • Concerts

See video here

DONATIONS NEEDED TO FUND PROJECT: $15,000 goal (go here to contribute)

RelatedEugene Volokh Joins TJC Board of Trustees

David Strauss: “Toil and Trouble in Media-Land”

Professor David Strauss

Professor David Strauss

Over at The New Rambler Professor David Straussreviews Amy Gajda’s The First Amendment Bubble: How Privacy and Paparazzi Threaten a Free Press (2015). Here are a few excerpts:

“The Obama Administration is said to have prosecuted more people for leaking classified information than all previous administrations combined. Journalists have noticed. ‘The Obama Administration is the greatest enemy of press freedom in a generation,’ according to James Risen, the New York Times investigative reporter. Risen’s language is unusually strong, but the general theme is familiar among journalists. In a typical comment, Bob Schieffer, a CBS Washington correspondent, is quoted as saying: ‘Whenever I’m asked what is the most manipulative and secretive administration I’ve covered, I always say it’s the one in office now . . . . This administration exercises more control than George W. Bush’s did, and his before that.’”

“It seems unlikely that this Administration is just more authoritarian or paranoid than the one before it (which was in turn more so than the one before it, and so on), or that this President and Attorney General harbor a perverse desire to antagonize the New York Times and CBS. The much more plausible explanation is that the world has changed, and government officials have responded by becoming less tolerant of practices they might have lived with before. . . .”

What are some of the changes that Strauss thinks explains this? He lists four:

  1. “The first change, inevitably, is the technology.”
  2. The second change is the mass availability of information on the Internet, information that was once difficult to obtain.
  3. The third change is in the nature of “the press.” “Today, of course, a self-anointed Ellsberg does not have to submit himself to the judgment of editors like [those of the New York Times or the Washington Post]. Someone who has government secrets can propagate them, worldwide, more or less immediately, either without any intermediary or with an intermediary who will not feel the same obligation to try to take the government’s interests into account.”
  4. The fourth change is “the economics of the media industry put pressure on everyone to cater to the lowest denominator.”

The main problem in all of this, he adds, is not such much the law. “The problem is whether the media themselves will have the incentives and the capacity to do the job that they must do, and ought to do, in a free society. There is only so much the law can do about that.”

Campus Free-Speech Watch

As the the stories and commentaries below (all recent ones) indicate, the battle for free speech on college campuses is proving, yet again, to be the biggest one of the year. What is also noteworthy is the very high success rate of challenges to campus speech codes . . . and yet many remain on the books.     

  1. College Attempts to Censor Student Columnist: Q&A with Andrew Breland,” TheFireorg, June 8, 2015
  2. Robert Soave, “Campus Censorship is The Feds’ Fault,” The Daily Beast, June 6, 2015
  3. Benjamin Wermund, “Student sues Blinn College, says ‘free speech zone’ violates First Amendment,” Chron, June 6, 2015
  4. Ray Nothstine, “Boise State University to Pay $20,000 to Pro-Life Group After Backtracking on Censorship,” CP US, June 6, 2015
  5. George F. Will, “A summer break from campus muzzling,” Providence Journal, June 5, 2015
  6. BSU changes policy, drops lawsuit with campus group,” Associated Press, June 4, 2015
  7. Greg Piper, “Democratic lawmaker defends anti-Christian campus policies at hearing,” The College Fix, June 2, 2015
  8. Brenda Schory, “Waubonsee paid $132K to settle free-speech lawsuit,” My Suburban Life, June 5, 2015
  9. Donald A. Downs, “Shouting down campus speakers,” Philly.com, June 2, 2015
  10. Another university gets ‘green light’ for First Amendment-friendly campus,” News Now, May 29, 2015

Congressman Louie Gohmert on First Amendment Rights in Universities & Schools (June 2015: re statement made at House Judiciary Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice Hearing)

Group Launches Litigation Campaign to Challenge Campus Speech Codes,” Concurring Opinions, FAN 21.1, Jul2 2, 2014

Seinfeld: “I don’t play colleges. They’re so PC.”

This from a Washington Post news story by Justin Wm. Moyer: “Jerry Seinfeld himself has taken a stand — against political correctness on campus. The 61-year-old comedian told an ESPN interlocutor that he avoids performing at universities because of trigger warnings, speech codes and other First Amendment umbrage.”

“‘I don’t play colleges,’ Seinfeld said on The Herd with Colin Cowherd. ‘. . . I hear a lot of people tell me, ‘Don’t go near colleges. They’re so PC.’”

Flashback: Politically Incorrect: “Racist” jokes – David Spade, Sarah Silverman & Bill Maher

Check out this YouTube video of an old Bill Maher show — really quite good back-and-forth.

* * * * *

Journalists, Jails & the First Amendment

“For the first time we have assembled, in one place, virtually all the journalists who’ve gone to jail in the United States for doing a vital part of their job. . . Tonight we’re going to hear their stories.” — John M. Donnelly (See video here.)

* * * * *

Senator Cruz & Shaun McCutcheon

Senator Cruz & Shaun McCutcheon

Shaun McCutcheon — Round ‘n About

→ Luke Mulins, “Shaun McCutcheon Blew Up Campaign-Finance Law and Became a GOP Hero. Then He Set His Sights on Paris Hilton,” The Washingtonian, June 7, 2015

New & Notable Blog Posts

New & Forthcoming Scholarly Articles

  1. Jessica Bulman-Pozen & David E. Pozen, “Uncivil Obedience,” Columbia Law Review(2105)
  2. Daniel E. Herz-Roiphe, “Stubborn Things: An Empirical Approach to Facts, Opinions, and the First Amendment,” Michigan Law Review: First Impressions (2015)
  3. Eugene Volokh, “Gruesome Speech,” Cornell Law Review (2015)
  4. Mohamed H. Aziz , “Counter Terrorism Measures via Internet Intermediaries: A First Amendment & National Security Dilemma,” Journal of Law and Cyber Warfare (forthcoming 2015)
  5. Jordan M. Singer, “Judges on Demand: The Cognitive Case for Cameras in the Courtroom,” Columbia Law Review: Sidebar (2015)
  6. John Korevec, “‘McDonald Does Dallas': How Obscenity Laws on Hard-Core Pornography Can End the Nation’s Gun Debate,” Southern California Law Review (2015)
  7. Paul J. Larkin Jr., “Revenge Porn, State Law, and Free Speech,” Loyola Los Angeles Law Review (2014)

News, Op-eds, Commentaries & Blog Posts

  1. Tim Cushing, “New Mexico Judge Says First Amendment Is Subservient To The ‘Dignity Of The Court’,” TechDirt, June 8, 2015
  2. George Will, “Campaign-Finance Reformers’ First Amendment Problem,” National Review Online, June 6, 2015
  3. Gene Policinski, “Inside the First Amendment — A reminder to remember — rededicating the Journalists Memorial, The Morning Sun, June 6, 2015
  4. Mike Goodwin, “Supreme court dodges First Amendment issue, but still puts limits on criminalizing speech,” R Street, June 5, 2015
  5. David Keating, “Another View: Demand for nonprofits’ donor lists violates First Amendment,” Sacramento Bee, June 5, 2015
  6. Charlie Butts, “Porn lawyers claim First Amendment right to hire kids,” NewsNow, June 6, 2015
  7. Ruthann Robson, “Supreme Court Dodges First Amendment Issue in Facebook Threats Case,” Constitutional Law Prof Blog, June 1, 2015
Professor Elliott Visconsi.

Professor Elliott Visconsi

Notre Dame Online Video Lecture Series on First Amendment Law

The Notre Dame Office of Digital Learning offers an informative and engaging overview of First Amendment free expression law in a series of video lectures (or “modules” as they are tagged). The lectures are given by Professor Elliott Visconsi.

  1. Why the First Amendment? 
  2. Arguing Free Expression
  3. Rise of Individually Centered First Amendment
  4. Sedition & Incitement 
  5. What is Speech?
  6. Literariness
  7. Digitality

New YouTube Posts

  1. Alton man wins free speech case before NH Supreme Court,” WMUR-TV, June 9, 2015
  2. Hannity, “Pamela Geller, imam debate threats to free speech,” Fox News, June 7, 2015

THE COURT’S 2014-15 FREE EXPRESSION DOCKET

[last updated: 6-09-15]

Cases Decided 

  1. Elonis v. United States (decided: June 1, 2015) (8-1 per Roberts)
  2. Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar (argued: Jan. 20, 2015 / decided: April 29, 2015) (5-4 per Roberts)

Review Granted & Cases Argued

  1. Reed v. Town of Gilbert (argued 1-12-15)
  2. Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans (argued 3-23-15)

Pending Petitions*

  1. Berger v. American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina (license plate case)
  2. Thayer v. City of Worcester (last distributed for Conference of January 9, 2015)
  3. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. (4-27-15: The Court asked the Calif. AG to respond to the petition)
  4. Central Radio Co., Inc. v. City of Norfolk (amicus brief by Eugene Volokh)
  5. Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris (emergency application for injunction pending Cert.)
  6. Walker-McGill v. Stuart

Review Denied*

  1. O’Keefe v. Chisholm
  2. King v. Christie
  3. Apel v. United States 
  4. Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District
  5. The Bronx Household of Faith v. Board of Education of the City of New York 
  6. Arneson v. 281 Care Committee
  7. Kagan v. City of New Orleans
  8. ProtectMarriage.com-Yes on 8 v. Bowen
  9. Clayton v. Niska
  10. Pregnancy Care Center of New York v. City of New York 
  11. City of Indianapolis, Indiana v. Annex Books, Inc.
  12. Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. United States 
  13. Mehanna v. United States
  14. Stop This Insanity Inc Employee Leadership Fund et al  v. Federal Election Commission
  15. Vermont Right to Life Committee, et al v. Sorrell

Though these lists are not comprehensive, I try to track as many cases as possible. If you know of a cert. petition that is not on these lists, kindly inform me and I will post it.   

LAST SCHEDULED FAN POST, #62: “Federal Judge Blasts Liberal Assault on the First Amendment

NEXT SCHEDULED FAN POST, #64: Wednesday, June 17, 2015

0

On Memorial Day — Judge Richard Kopf Remembers Holmes

UnknownOver at Hercules and the Umpire Judge Richard Kopf remembers — and it is fitting that he does — one of our greatest soldiers, a man who sacrificed much and in the face of it all saw many a dear friend fall.

Make of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., what you will. If you are so disposed, paint him a nihilist, or a fatalist,  a self-serving capitalist, or a defender of eugenicists, or any other derogatory ist label you care to pin on him. Still, his star glows.

But of this it cannot be denied: He fought honorably to defend the Union in its time of great need; he rallied forward when others feared to do so; and when it was done (all the bloody battles and lost lives) he remembered the fighting faith of those who struggled, of those Harvard men and others who journeyed into the dark of an eternal night. And he always remembered Memorial Day (see his “The Soldier’s Faith” speech) and tried to teach the young the value of honor in service to our country.

Thanks to Judge Kopf for reminding us to remember Holmes and all who followed him in serving honorably.

To first lieutenant, lieutenant colonel, and captain Holmes on this Memorial Day. Remember!

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

FAN 61 (First Amendment News) Past & Prologue — Ralph Young on the History of Dissent & David Skover on Free Speech in a Robotic Era

In this post I highlight two new works (one on dissent, the other on data, etc.) to emphasize the importance of history, on the one hand, and the challenge of new technologies to inform the way we think about the First Amendment, on the other hand.

Let me start with history: Take dissent out of the cultural and constitutional equation and what remains is faint-hearted freedom. Dissent gives free speech its steel. The First Amendment’s greatest virtue is the protection of those messages we fear and/or loathe — those sent our way by insufferable Anti-Federalists, abolitionists, suffragists, unionists, anarchists, Communists, atheists, civil-rights activists, anti-war pacifists, gay-rights antagonists,  and even nihilists and racists.

Professor Ralph Young

Professor Ralph Young

Enter Temple University Professor Ralph F. Young and his new book, Dissent: The History of an American Idea (New York University Press, 2015). Generally speaking, this 600-page tome, which follows Young’s various volumes titled Dissent in America, does a splendid job of chronicling much of the evolution of dissent in America. His panoramic account spans much in the history of dissent from the plight of the Puritans, to the fate of Native American Indians, to the struggle of abolitionists, to the campaigns of labor activists, to the crusades of feminists, to the sit-ins of civil rights demonstrators, to the marches of war protestors, to the anti-Establishment songs of Bob Dylan, to the Stonewall riots, to the politics of the Tea Party, to the antics of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and more! It is a remarkable achievement.

Bob Dylan & Joan Baez (photo: Daniel Kramer)

Bob Dylan & Joan Baez (photo: Daniel Kramer)

Sadly missing from this otherwise impressive survey of dissent in the United States is any mention of the likes of:

That said, there is still more than a big bundle of worthwhile and eye-opening historical reading to be found between the covers of this engaging volume.

For a philosophical account of what exactly constitutes dissent, see Collins & Skover, On Dissent: Its Meaning in America (Cambridge University Press, 2013).

Forthcoming: Stephen J. Solomon, Revolutionary Dissent (Palgrave Macmillan, January 2016)

Disclosure: Though an ad for Dissent: The History of an American Idea appears on this page, I had no involvement with it and was not otherwise influenced (positively or otherwise) by it.

* * *  * 

Unknown

Venturing on into the future: On May 26th Seattle University Law Professor David Skover will speak at the Third Annual Governance of Emerging Technologies Conference in Scottsdale, Arizona. His remarks will be delivered at the outset of a panel discussion entitled “Robotics & Autonomous Systems.” The panel will be moderated by Wendell Wallach. The other panelists are Kate Darling and Greg Garvey.  

Professor David Skover

Professor David Skover

Professor Skover’s remarks are based on a work-in-progress, tentatively titled “Intentionless Free Speech: Robots & Receivers” (of which I am the co-author) (NB: We chose the term “intentionless” because it conveys a meaning quite different than “unintentional.”) In brief, Skover’s remarks will examine why First Amendment coverage should be assigned to robotic expression, quite apart from whether such expression merits constitutional protection when balanced against a spectrum of potential harms. The paper argues that robotic expression puts into  bold relief the view that much First Amendment speech is protected because of the experience of a user or receiver. The paper builds on, or moves beyond, or takes issue with the works of robotic free speech scholars Jane Bambauer, James Grimmelmann, Timothy Wu, and Eugene Volokh, among others. The paper began as an outgrowth of a series of conversations with Professor Ryan Calo, whose support and encouragement have been invaluable in developing our ideas in this new and largely uncharted area.

“Intentionless Free Speech” is the latest installment of the authors’ ongoing examination of the relationship between law and technology. This venture began with a 1990 article entitled “The First Amendment in an Age of Paratroopers,” and then continued with a 1992 article entitled “Paratexts” (expanded and reconstituted in “Paratexts as Praxis” in 2010), and ultimately developed into a book entitled The Death of Discourse (1996 & 2nd ed., 2005).

Headline: “NYC Censorship Event Gets Censored” — Another Mohammed Controversy  Read More

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

FAN 57 (First Amendment News) Press Group & Others Await Ruling re Release of 1942 Grand Jury Transcripts in Chicago Tribune Case

PETITION FOR ORDER DIRECTING RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPTS OF CERTAIN TESTIMONY FROM AUGUST 1942 GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION OF THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE

UnknownThat is the caption in the petition titled In re Petition of Elliot Carlson, et al, which was filed on November 18, 2014 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The judging presiding over the case is Chief Judge Ruben Castillo. In addition to the lead petitioner, the other parties in the case are: the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, the American Historical Association, the National Security Archive, the Naval Historical Foundation, the Naval Institute Press, the Organization of American Historians, and the Society for Military History.

Stanley Johnston & Jay Loy Maloney

Stanley Johnston & J. Loy Maloney of the Tribune

The controversy traces back to a June 7, 1942 front-page story the Chicago Tribune ran by its war correspondent Stanley Johnston. The piece was titled “Navy Had Word of Jap Plan to Strike at Sea.” Citing “reliable sources in naval intelligence,” the Johnston story reported that the U.S. Navy had detailed information concerning the Japanese military’s plan to attack U.S. forces at Midway several days in advance of that battle.

The government believed that the story was based on a classified Navy dispatch. More importantly, it believed that the story revealed a closely-held secret, namely, that the Navy had cracked the radio code used by the Japanese navy to encrypt communications. Outraged by the apparent “leak,” officials in the FDR Administration pressed for the prosecution of the reporter and his paper. Or as the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune put it in 2014: “The response was ferocious. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s instinct was to have Marines occupy Tribune Tower. Navy Secretary Frank Knox insisted that U.S. Attorney General Francis Biddle prosecute Tribune journalists for hurting national security.”

Screen Shot 2015-04-14 at 12.08.46 PM

The Justice Department convened a grand jury in August of 1942 to investigate whether Johnston and his managing editor, J. Loy Maloney, along with the Tribune had violated the Espionage Act of 1917. On August 19, 1942, the grand jury declined to issue any indictments.

Tribune_The  CitadelJubilant over its victory, the Tribune ran a front-page cartoon the next day — the cartoon depicted the Tribune Tower as a citadel for press freedom.

It is against that backdrop that Elliot Carlson (a naval historian) and his fellow petitioners requested the release of the transcripts of the testimony of all 13 witnesses who testified before the grand jury in connection with the Tribune investigation. The transcripts are apparently stored at a National Archives repository in College Park, MD (enclosures to Serials 1 through 11 for File Number 146-7-23-25).

In his declaration to the court, Carlson maintained that “[r]eleasing the grand jury testimony will fill in important gaps in the existing historical record and will provide valuable perspective on the relationship between the government and the press during national security crises – a subject that has never been more relevant. Historians and writers still disagree would the details of the Tribune scandal . . . but the grand jury testimony could settle the dispute.”

Government Opposes Release of 1942 Transcripts

On December 24, 2014, the government filed its response in opposition to the release of the grand jury transcripts. Its opposition was based on three basic arguments:

  1. “No Statute or Rule Provides for Release of Grand Jury Information for Reasons of Historical Interest”
  2. “Second Circuit Law Recognizing Historical Significance as a Special Circumstance Justifying Disclosure Is Flawed and Contrary to the Weight of  Supreme Court Jurisprudence,” and
  3. “The Supreme Court’s Rulemaking Body Has Rejected an Amendment to Rule 6(e) Based on Historical Interest”

In their reply memorandum, the Petitioners advanced two main arguments:

  1. “Courts have discretion to order disclosure of historical grand jury material in appropriate circumstances pursuant to their inherent authority,” and
  2. “The Coalition has demonstrated that disclosure of the testimony from the 1942 Tribune grand jury investigation is a proper exercise of this Court’s discretion.”

Lawyer for Petitioners: Brendan J. Healey

 Lawyer for the Government: Elizabeth J. Shapiro (U.S. Department of Justice)

A ruling is expected sometime within the next two months.

→ See also Editorial, “Breaking the code on a Chicago mystery from WWII,” Chicago Tribune, November 21, 2014

For some historical background, see:

  1. Lloyd Wendt, Chicago Tribune: The Rise of a Great American Newspaper (1979), pp. 627-636
  2. Michael S. Sweeney & Patrick S. Washburn, “‘Aint Justice Wonderful': The Chicago Tribune’s Battle of Midway Story and the Government’s Attempt at an Espionage Act Indictment in 1942,” Journalism & Communication Monographs December 5, 2013 (updated 2014)
  3. Dina Green, “Communication Intelligence and the Freedom of the Press. The Chicago Tribune’s Battle of Midway Dispatch and the Breaking of the Japanese Naval Code,” Journal of Contemporary History (1981)

ht: Katie Townsend

*  *  *  *

Muzzle Awards ‘Honor’ First Amendment Violators

This from a news report in The Daily Progress: “The administration of a major university, the mayor of Peoria, Illinois, and an Alabama circuit judge are among this year’s recipients of the Jefferson Muzzle awards, given to people or institutions accused of stifling freedom of speech in the United States. Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression . . . gives out the awards each year.”

Those receiving the awards were:

  1. Peoria, Illinois Mayor Jim Ardis
  2. Bergen Community College (NJ)
  3. Mora Co., New Mexico Board of Commissioners
  4. Bedford Co., Pennsylvania District Attorney Bill Higgins
  5. Alabama Circuit Court Judge Claud D. Neilson
  6. The Indiana Department of Corrections
  7. Asnuntuck Community College (CT)
  8. The University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign

NB: Links are to stories re the reasons for bestowing the awards.

Video of Balkin-Redish Exchange Posted  Read More

1

Looking Back — Francis Biddle, Censorship & the “Biddle List”

War threatens all civil rights. Francis Biddle, December 15, 1941

I was reading Sam Walker’s Today in Civil Liberties History (a daily historical calendar — quite good!) when I came upon this entry for today, circa April 14, 1942:

Attorney General Biddle OKs Censoring Father Coughlin’s Social Justice Magazine

“In a letter to Postmaster General Frank Walker on this day, Attorney General Francis Biddle (1886-1968) proposed banning the magazine Social Justice from the mails. Social Justice was the publication of Father Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest in the Detroit area, who in the late 1930s became a public, ultra-conservative critic of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

Unknown“When the U.S. entered World War II, Coughlin became a critic of the war effort, in part because he was anti-Semitic. Coughlin’s criticisms were the reasons for Biddle’s censorship proposal. In the end, the Post Office did bar Social Justice from the mails. It was one of the relatively rare instances of suppression of dissent during World War II . . . .” (See Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 15, 1942 story here.)

Biddle, of course, was the one who had been a secretary to Justice Holmes (1911-1912), assistant to the U.S. Attorney (E-Dist., PA), chairman of the NLRB (1934-35), Third Circuit Judge (1939-1940), U.S. Solicitor General (1940), U.S. Attorney General (1941-45), and later a judge on the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (1945-1946) (Herbert Wechsler served as his main assistant), among other things. Biddle also wrote a biography of Holmes — Mr. Justice Holmes (1942), among other books.

Francis Biddle

Francis Biddle

One more biographical note: he was a half second cousin four times removed of James Madison.

As recounted in a Wikipedia entry, “[d]uring World War II Biddle used the Espionage Act of 1917 to attempt to shut down ‘vermin publications.’ This included Father Coughlin’s publication entitled Social Justice. Biddle has also been ‘credited’ with the creation of what became known later as the ‘Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations.’ In fact, this list was originally known as ‘The Biddle List.'”

“In the Biddle List, eleven front groups originating in the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) were singled out as being ‘subversive’ and under the control of the Soviet Union. Unlike the later, more infamous Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations, which contained both left and right-wing organizations, the Biddle List contained only left-wing organizations as well as civil rights organizations tied to the CPUSA.”

Biddle List (1941): 

Contrast Francis Biddle, Remarks at the Dedication of the Thomas Jefferson Room, Library of Congress, December 15, 1941, on the occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Bill of Rights. Here is an excerpt from those remarks:

War threatens all civil rights; and although we have fought wars before, and ourpersonal freedoms have survived, there have been periods of gross abuse, when hysteria and hate and fear ran high, and when minorities were unlawfully and cruelly abused. Every man who cares about freedom, about a government by law — ­and all freedom is based on fair administration of the law — must fight for it for the other man with whom he disagrees, for the right of the minority, for the chance for the underprivileged with the same passion of insistence as he claims for his own rights. If we care about democracy, we must care about it as a reality for others as well as for ourselves; yes, for aliens, for Germans, for Italians, for Japanese, for those who are vdth us as well as those who are against us: For the Bill of Rights protects not only American citizensbut all hunlan beings who live on our American soil, under our American flag. The rights of Anglo-Saxons, of Jews, of Catholics, of negroes, of Slavs, Indians — all are alike before the law. And this we must remember and sustain — ­ that is if we really love justice, and really hate the bayonet and the whip and the gun, and the whole Gestapo method as a way of handling human beings.

As far as I can tell, there has been no book-length biography of Francis Biddle, which strikes me as odd. Such a biography is long overdue and Biddle is certainly deserving of one.

Books 03
2

Does Scholarship Really Have an Impact? The Article that Revolutionized Privacy Law

Does scholarship really have an impact? For a long time, naysayers have attacked scholarship, especially scholarship about law. U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts once remarked: “Pick up a copy of any law review that you see, and the first article is likely to be, you know, the influence of Immanuel Kant on evidentiary approaches in 18th Century Bulgaria, or something.” He noted that when the academy addresses legal issues at “a particularly abstract, philosophical level . . . they shouldn’t expect that it would be of any particular help or even interest to the members of the practice of the bar or judges.” Judge Harry Edwards also has attacked legal scholarship as largely irrelevant.

Critics are quick to point out that much legal scholarship is not cited much — and many articles are never even cited by anyone other than the authors themselves in subsequent works.

But I think that a lot can be learned from the story of one of the most influential law articles of all. That article was Samuel D. Warren & Louis D. Brandeis, The Right to Privacy, 4 Harvard Law Review 193 (1890).

Brandeis Right to Privacy 02

Warren and Brandeis discussed how journalism was becoming more sensationalistic: “Gossip is no longer the resource of the idle and of the vicious, but has become a trade, which is pursued with industry as well as effrontery.” And they expressed concern about a new technology they called “instantaneous photograph[y.]” — the new smaller and cheaper cameras being marketed by the Eastman Kodak Company that made it possible for candid photos to be taken.

Read More

2

James Madison and the Bill of Rights

97px-James_MadisonAs part of my research for my next book, I’ve been trying to see if Madison ever called what was ratified in 1791 the Bill of Rights or a bill of rights.  Thus far, I have come up empty.

One possible example was in an article that Madison wrote for The National Gazette in December 1791.  In this piece, entitled ‘Public Opinion,” he stated: “[A]s government is influenced by opinion, it must be so, by whatever influences opinion.  This decides the question concerning a Constitutional Declaration of Rights, which requires an influence on government, by becoming a part of the public opinion.”  This article came out four days after the first set of amendments was ratified.  Thus, in context maybe this passage was referring to what was just ratified as a “Declaration of Rights.”  If so, though, this was a pretty oblique way of making the point.

I’ve also gone through Madison’s Report on the Virginia Resolution, which contained a detailed analysis of the Alien and Sedition Acts.  In that Report, Madison refers only to “the amendments” and quotes from the First and Tenth Amendments.  He never calls the amendments a bill of rights or the bill of rights.

There are no references to the Bill of Rights in Madison’s presidential papers. We’ll see what I find when I go through his papers in retirement.

1

FAN 47 (First Amendment News) Anniversary Issue: Returning “Home” — Looking Back on Fox v. Washington (1915)

Anniversary: It was a year ago (February 10, 2014 to be precise) that I posted my first FAN column on Concurring Opinions. Now, 46-plus posts later (there were also a number of non-scheduled posts), I think the endeavor well worth the time to spread the First Amendment word — the serious and silly, the admirable and objectionable, the high and low, the liberal and conservative, and everything in between and beyond. Thanks to Dan Solove (our blog publisher) for inviting me onboard. Dan’s respect for the integrity of the work product and his encouragement to take it to “the next level” have made the adventure all the more challenging and exciting. Thanks also to all those who so kindly directed First Amendment news my way. In the coming year I hope to improve on what works while testing out a few new ways of how to look at our free speech world. — RKLC      

Screen Shot 2015-02-05 at 12.17.49 AM

“The agitator is the mostly roundly abused and at the same time most necessary individual in society.” Jay Fox 

Colony of Home (credit: Justin Wadland, Trying Home (2014))

Colony of Home (credit: Justin Wadland, Trying Home (2014))

Ponder this creed: HOME is where freedom resides. That ideal was as much a personal hope as it was a political ideal for some who long ago traveled through Puget Sound to a cove in the Pacific Northwest. They toiled first to buy nearby land (26 acres) and then to build on it — not just log cabins but a commune of anarchists, radical feminists, artists, and free-thinking women and men dedicated to a way of living very much counter to the conventions of late 19th century America.

It began in 1896 when a group of free-spirt types, known as “Homeites,” set out to establish the utopian colony of Home. Things started out well in this idyllic community as more and more families came and pitched in to make Home their home. As they invested more and more of their lives into that experiment in freedom, their lifestyles drew more and more attention beyond the borders of their beloved Home. And that proved to be a problem — one with realpolitik consequences.

“In 1902, after charges of violation of the Comstock Act resulting from an article advocating free-love published in the local anarchist newspaper Discontent: Mother of Progress, Home’s post office was closed by postal inspectors and moved two miles to the smaller town of Lakebay.” (Source here). But that did not stop their counter-culture ways. True to their libertine life styles, some “Homeites” took to nude sun tanning in the woods of the Key Peninsula, near Tacoma in Washington State.

It was too good to last: In short time, four individuals were arrested for indecent exposure. Incensed by their arrests, on July 11, 1911 Jay Fox (1870-1961), the editor of The Agitator, published an essay entitled “The Nudes and the Prudes.” In it Fox — an independent-minded man devoted to halting “the crimes of capitalism” — urged boycotts of the businesses of those who railed against nude bathing.

Note: “The Agitator” bold text above is a copy of the original banner of Jay Fox’s publication.

According to Washington State historian and librarian Mary M. Carr, “The Agitator made its first appearance on November 18, 1910, although in his editorial Fox proclaimed that it appeared on November 11, the 25th [sic] anniversary of the execution of the Haymarket martyrs. (Actually, he was four days late for the 23d anniversary.) In its subtitle, The Agitator defined itself as an ‘Advocate of the Modem School, Industrial Unionism, and Individual Freedom.’ Fox declared that it would ‘stand for freedom first, last and all the time,’ and would promote the right of every person to express his opinions. He hoped to popularize knowledge so that common toilers, as well as the ‘rich and privileged class’ cou1d be ‘uplifted to philosophy and science.'”

“It is only by agitation that the laws of the land are made better. It is only by agitation that reforms have been broughtabout in the world. Show me a country where there is the most tyranny and I’ll show you the country where there is no free speech. This country was settled on that right, the right of free expression.”Jay Fox (January 11, 1912)

Not surprisingly, Fox’s passionate opposition to the prudish ways of those in power did not sit well with Washington State’s bluenose establishment. Hence, he was prosecuted  under a Washington statute that prohibited printing or circulating publications that encouraged a commission of a crime. Fox was tried and convicted in 1912 and received a two month sentence, which the Washington Supreme Court declined to set aside in State v. Fox, 71 Wash. 185 (1912). Review was then sought in the United States Supreme Court.

The lawyers Read More

0

Grant Gilmore’s Resurrection . . . with a little help from Philip Bobbitt

 Grant was a magician in an age of bureaucrats. — Anthony Kronman (1982)

Grant Gilmore

Grant Gilmore

The Ages of American Law has been reissued with a new foreword and a new final chapter by Columbia Law School Professor Philip Bobbitt. More about that soon, but first a few words about the man recently reincarnated.

Grant Gilmore died on May 24, 1982 — the same date of Benjamin Cardozo’s birth (May 24, 1870). G.G. died in his sleep; he was 72.

Gilmore was a Yale man (AB, 1931, PhD, 1936 & L.L.B, 1942) bred in the Boston suburbs. He began his academic career teaching French at Yale, but he tired of it and so ventured into law. He taught at Yale Law School, University of Chicago Law School, the College of Law (now Moritz College of Law) at Ohio State University, and finally at Vermont Law School. His books included:

Though he was picked by the executors of the Oliver Wendell Holmes papers to do the definite biography of Justice Holmes (very strange!), it never came to pass. And he never published his PhD dissertation — Stephane Mallarme: A Biography and Interpretation (1936). By way of an interesting aside: In 1959 Professor Arthur Corbin privately recommended Gilmore to serve as an advisor for the drafting of The Restatement (2nd) of Contracts (also strange). As fate had it, that, too, never came to pass and Gilmore never became a “restater.”

By the time he died, the complex and cantankerous Gilmore had made his mark on the law, and a notable though peculiar mark it was. For all his fame and infamy, no gravestone marked his memory. His scattered ashes were his final consideration, illusory as that may seem.

Ironically, this bold and blazing scholar left his papers to the Harvard Law School — the same institution that held firmly to the conviction that “inspiration should be distrusted,” or so Gilmore put it in 1963, albeit with a critical cutting edge.

∇ ∇ ∇

Philip Bobbitt

Philip Bobbitt

And now, like the Phoenix of old, he returns to find new life. Or at least that part of him arising from The Ages of American Lawwhich has just been republished in Kindle form. Here, as Professor Bobbitt recounts it, is how it came to pass: “In late 2011, I was approached by an editor at Yale University Press, who was considering a revised edition of Grant Gilmore’s classic, The Ages of American Law. I responded that I would be pleased if the Press would publish, as a Foreword to such an edition, my 1975 essay in the Yale Law Journal introducing one of Gilmore’s lectures, ‘The Age of Anxiety,’ which he reworked to form Chapter 4 of the book. After reading that essay,” adds Bobbitt, “the editor proposed that it be published as a ‘historical document with a preface to provide context’ and that I should also draft a new section bringing it up to date, as apparently some readers wished in the classes in which the book is taught.”

41seNslJYSL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-v3-big,TopRight,0,-55_SX278_SY278_PIkin4,BottomRight,1,22_AA300_SH20_OU01_That is how Bobbitt’s fascinating foreword begins. But there is much more, about Robert Cover, the famed Storrs Lectures (Oct. 1974), and young Philip Bobbitt’s role in it all. (Gilmore thanked Bobbitt in the acknowledgements to Ages. It was, after all, Bobbitt who had drafted the “Editors’ Introduction” to Gilmore’s “The Age of Anxiety” essay published in 1975 in the Yale Law Journal).

Bonus: There is a new 50-age chapter (#6) added to Ages: it is by Bobbitt and is titled “The Age of Consent,” which first appeared last year in the Yale Law Journal.

* * * *

 Book Review of The Ages of American Law, Mark Tushnet, American Journal of Legal History (1977).

→ Ellen A. Peters, “Grant Gilmore and the Illusion of Certainty,” Yale Law Journal (1982)

2010 State of the Union Address
2010 State of the Union Address
17

FAN 44 (First Amendment News) Citizens United: it was 5 years ago today — 13 First Amendment lawyers & scholars offer differing views

“With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections,” [President Obama] said of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, which allowed corporations to donate to political candidates. Justice Samuel Alito then shook his head and whispered, “not true.” — Tessa Berenson, Time (2015)

On this day five years ago the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, handed down its decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (transcripts here and here & audio file — argument and re-argumament —  here).

As you will see, the comments below span a wide rhetorical range. On the one hand, some view Citizens United as “one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court” (Geof Stone), while others argue that the Court in Citizens United “reaffirmed and applied core First Amendment principles” (Joel Gora). See below for the full spectrum of views.   

Speaking of money and speech, the Court now has before it a First Amendment challenge to a panhandling law — Thayer v. City of Worcester (distributed for Conference of Jan. 9, 2015).

Before proceeding to the comments, I thought it might be useful to provide a few hyperlinked historical facts about the case. 

The documentary that prompted the litigation

Hillary: The Movie

The Petitioner

The Lawyer for the Petitioner in the District Court

Three-Judge District Court per curiam opinion here

The Lawyers who argued the case in the Supreme Court 

  1. Theodore B. Olson (argued the cause for the Appellant)
  2. Floyd Abrams (on behalf of Senator Mitch McConnell, as amicus curiae, in support of the Appellant)
  3. Malcolm L. Stewart (Deputy S.G., Department of Justice, argued the cause for the Appellee)
  4. Elena Kagan (Solicitor General, Department of Justice, reargued the cause for the Appellee)
  5. Seth P. Waxman (on behalf of Senators John McCain et al. as amici curiae in support of the Appellee)

Five Years Later — Lawyers & Scholars Offer Comments 

Floyd Abrams: “Academics, it seems fair to say, are overwhelmingly critical of the Citizens United ruling. If they were irate about  Buckley v. Valeo (1976) — formerly their consensus choice as the worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott (1856) — they are apoplectic about Citizens United.  At the core of the both rulings is the now familiar proposition first uttered by the Supreme Court in Buckley  and repeated with approval in Citizens United that “the concept that government may restrict the speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment.” If one accepts that notion, as I do, the ruling in Citizens United follows naturally and a documentary-like movie that castigated Hillary Clinton when she last sought the presidency must be protected by the First Amendment. If one does not, one naturally enough can join the four Citizens United dissenters in concluding that it is constitutional to impose criminal penalties for the airing of that film on television. For me, that was not a difficult choice five years ago and it is not one today.”

See here re brief filed by Mr. Abrams in Citizens United; see also his “Citizens United and Its Critics,” Yale L.J. Online (2010)

Mr. Jan W. Baran

Mr. Jan W. Baran

Jan W. Baran: “The Court was correct to protect political speech by all citizens and groups, including corporations and unions. Current so-called reform efforts, including proposals to amend the Constitution, prove that the First Amendment is all that stands between political freedom and government control of speech. Contrary to President Obama’s dire predictions, corporations are not distorting political debate and foreign money (which is illegal) has not flooded campaigns. It is the Obama re-election committee that became the first campaign to raise and spend $1 billion.  So much for campaign money distorting the system.”

 See here re brief filed by Mr. Baran in Citizens United.

Robert Corn-Revere: “Citizens United is like a political Rorschach Test. But when divorced from its many critics’ policy preferences, it is a pretty straightforward First Amendment case that concludes there are constitutional difficulties with making political speech a federal crime.  And, along the way, the Court reached a number of important (and usually overlooked) constitutional findings. One key conclusion is that “[w]e must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker.” The Court observed that “[t]he Framers may have been unaware of certain types of speakers or forms of communication, but that does not mean that those speakers and media are entitled to less First Amendment protection than those types of speakers and media that provided the means of communicating political ideas when the Bill of Rights was adopted.” This fundamental constitutional principle is increasingly important as we witness seismic changes in the global media environment. And it is just one of several important pillars of the case.”

Number of articles about Citizens United in the 27 months following the decision 

New York Times         1100

Washington Post        327

USA Today                  220

Wall Street Journal    195

 This count includes columns and opinion pieces but not blog posts.

 Source: Douglas Spencer & Abby Wood, Indiana L. J. (2014)

Allen Dickerson: “Citizens United has become a symbol onto which politicians and commentators project their own hopes, agendas, and insecurities. But cutting through the rhetoric, the case asked a simple question: on what principled basis could the government ban a nonprofit’s documentary while permitting corporate newspaper endorsements? The Court, correctly, said ‘none.’ Nevertheless, legislatures and regulators continue to draw distinctions between different types of speech, and different types of speakers, and the result is a level of bureaucratic complexity average Americans cannot hope to navigate. Five years after Citizens United showed us our error, burdened by a national debate that yields more heat than light, we continue to avoid the difficult task of reforming that troubling approach to political engagement.”

Professor Joel Gora

Professor Joel Gora

Joel Gora: “The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision was a landmark of political freedom. By striking down government bans on political speech by labor unions, corporations and non-profit organizations, the Court reaffirmed and applied core First Amendment principles. These include the concepts that protecting political speech against government censorship is at the core of the First Amendment’s mission, that the government cannot be empowered to decide which people or groups can speak about government and politics, what they can say, or how much they can say, and that democracy requires as much information as possible from diverse and antagonistic sources.”

“Embodying these principles, the Citizens United decision has had a number of salutary consequences. It has provided doctrinal support for further easing of campaign finance limits on political speech and association.  Second, the rejection of such limits has turned attention properly to more positive efforts to address our admitted campaign finance system difficulties. Finally, although the predicted tsunami of corporate spending “drowning our democracy” never materialized, the Court’s decision has helped spark an increase in overall political funding which has helped make our elections more competitive and the electorate better informed. All in all, I submit, a good day’s work for political freedom and democracy.”

 See here re brief coauthored by Professor Gora in Citizens United.

Richard Hasen: “After five years, it has become clear that Citizens United is only part of the problem. If the Court reversed it tomorrow (something I am not expecting), we would still have Super PACs funded by very wealthy individuals, loads of undisclosed money coming through 501(c)(4)’s and other organizations, and an increased ability for those with economic power to transform it into political power. It is time to rethink first principles — which is my current book project. Stay tuned.”

→ See Professor Hasen’s Legislation, Statutory Interpretation, and Election Law (ch. 13, 2014) re his comments on Citizens United

Forthcoming Book

Elizabeth Price Foley, Defending Citizens United: How Campaign Finance Laws Restrict Free Speech (Praeger, Oct. 31, 2015)

Alan Morrison: “The fight with the Court over Citizens United should not be over whether corporations have rights to make political expenditures, but whether the Court’s ruling in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) that there can be no limits on independent expenditures and that there are no constitutional or other values that can even be considered in assessing that ruling. Here are some examples.  The pre-Buckley decision in United States v. O’Brien (1968), recognized that the right to political protest could be overcome by the Government’s interest in enforcing its selective service laws. In Burson v. Freeman (1992), the Court upheld a law prohibiting the core political activities of soliciting votes and distributing of campaign materials within 100 feet of a polling place.  And cases like Ward v. Rock Against Racism (1989), would surely support an ordinance that banned sound trucks from blaring at more than 100 decibels at midnight.  Post Citizens United, the Court summarily upheld the law that bans all contributions and independent expenditures solely because the plaintiffs were neither U.S. citizens nor permanent resident aliens.  Bluman v. FEC (2012). (See also here.)”

 See here re brief coauthored by Mr. Morrison in Citizens United.

Professor Tamara Piety

Professor Tamara Piety

Tamara Piety: “Citizens United legitimated the notion that corporations (and capital) are embattled, “disfavored” speakers entitled to the special solicitude of the courts’ counter-majoritarian power, as if they were a discrete and insular minority which lacked access to the political process, rather than a force that is very nearly constituent of it. It relies on an implied (and specious) syllogism: if discrimination against people is bad, and corporations are people, then “discriminating” between corporations and natural persons, or between types of corporations, is likewise bad. This reasoning animates Hobby Lobby (2014) and is echoed in Sorrell v. IMS Health (2011), with “marketing” standing in for “corporation” and “speech” for “people.” This line of argument has destabilized much corporate and regulatory law.  For its proponents, Citizens United has been fabulously successful; but that success has come at some political cost. Citizens United has tarnished the Court’s public image. It seems likely that the decision will be cut back, but how and from which direction is difficult to predict.”

→ See Professor Piety’s Brandishing the First Amendment (2012) re her comments on Citizens United

Ilya Shapiro: “Citizens United is one of the most misunderstood high-profile cases ever and it’s both more and less important than you might think. It’s more important because it revealed the unworkability of our current system of campaign regulation. It’s less important because it doesn’t stand for half of what many people say it does. By removing limits on independent associational speech—spending on political advertising by people unconnected to candidates and parties—it weakened the government’s control of who can speak, how much, and on what subject. That’s a good thing. After all, people don’t lose their rights when they get together, whether it be in unions, non-profit advocacy groups, private clubs, for-profit enterprises, or any other form.”

 See here re brief coauthored by Mr. Shapiro in Citizens United; see also his op-ed “Citizens United Misunderstood, USA Today, Jan. 20, 2015

Professor Geoffrey Stone

Professor Geoffrey Stone

Geoffrey Stone: “Citizens United may well turn out to be one of the worst decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court. As Oliver Wendell Holmes recognized almost a century ago, the American political system depends upon the reasonable functioning of the “marketplace of ideas.” It has always been clear that that “marketplace” is imperfect. But until now, it was generally able to reflect the views of the majority of the American people. With its decision in Citizens United, the Supreme Court has unleashed forces that seriously threaten to corrupt and distort that “marketplace” in ways that stand the First Amendment on its head and endanger the future of American democracy.”

See Professor Stone’s article “Citizens United & Conservative Judicial Activism,” U. Ill. L. Rev. (2012)

Nadine Strossen: “From President Obama,  in his  State of the Union Address the following week, to major media outlets, the vast majority of Citizens United’s critics misstate its holdings. Almost never mentioned are the crucial facts that it protects the rights of non-profit corporations and unions to spend their own money on their own messages; too often asserted is the falsehood that it permits wealthy for-profit corporations (or anyone, for that matter) to make unlimited contributions to candidates’ campaigns.”

See here re Professor Strossen’s comments on Citizens United

Fred Wertheimer: “The ideologically driven Citizens United decision has left the nation’s campaign finance and political system in shambles. It is one of the worst Supreme Court decisions ever made. The Court ignored the country’s history, its own jurisprudence and the need to protect America’s system of representative government against corruption – a need recognized by the Founding Fathers. Citizens United will not stand the test of time. It will end up in the dustbin of history.”

 See here re brief coauthored by Mr. Wertheimer in Citizens United.

Larry Tribe on Citizens United

Forthcoming: The working title is “Dividing Citizens United: The Case v. The Controversy.” The piece will appear in Constitutional Commentary.

Adam Winkler: “Citizens United is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions in a generation. Yet the decision is widely misunderstood by the public. From Occupy Wall Street to the White House, Citizens United has inspired critics who insist that corporations are not people. Yet the Supreme Court did not rely on corporate personhood in Citizens United. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion never refers to corporations as people and nothing in the reasoning of the opinion turns on personhood. Justice Kennedy instead insists corporations are “associations of citizens” whose rights derive from the natural people who make up the firm. This is a problematic formulation that hides the corporation and allows the Court to avoid asking hard questions about what rights corporations as such should have. Justice Kennedy’s approach equates a business corporation with a voluntary membership organization like the NAACP, both equally entitled to assert the rights of its members.”

“Corporations are people under corporate law. That was their original purpose. And corporations must have some constitutional rights, such as the right to property and due process. Yet they shouldn’t have all the same rights as people, such as the right to vote or hold office. Constitutional doctrine would be improved if instead of hiding the corporation, we recognized that corporations are indeed people — and then asked which rights these corporate people ought to have.”

See here re Professor Winkler’s “Three Misconceptions in Citizens United

__________________

Event: Citizens United v. FEC after Five Years Read More