Tagged: First Amendment

0

FAN 117.2 (First Amendment News) David Cole Named New National Legal Director for ACLU

I am deeply honored to take on the leadership of the ACLU’s national legal program. — David Cole

Tony Mauro over at the National Law Journal just broke the story:

ACLU Names Georgetown Law Prof David Cole as New Legal Director

Here are a few excerpts from Tony’s story:

Prof. David Cole

Prof. David Cole

“The American Civil Liberties Union announced Thursday that Georgetown University Law Center professor David Cole will be the organization’s next national legal director.”

“Cole, a leading liberal scholar and litigator, will replace Steve Shapirowho is leaving after 25 years in the job. Cole will conduct the ACLU’s Supreme Court practice and oversee the work of the organization’s nearly 300 lawyers, according to executive director Anthony Romero.”

“However, Cole’s new role will pose recusal issues for his wife, Judge Nina Pillard of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, who has also been mentioned as a possible future Supreme Court nominee. The recusals may deprive the ACLU of a favorable vote in some instances. . . .”

“In addition to authoring several books and writing commentary for The Nation and The New York Review of Books, Cole has argued four cases before the high court, most recently the First Amendment case Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project in 2010.”

→ I will be writing more on this in my FAN blog for this coming Wednesday.

0

FAN 117.1 (First Amendment News) Martin Garbus Files Defamation Suit on Behalf of Pete Rose

WHEREFORE Plaintiff Peter Rose demands a money judgment against Defendant John Dowd for the amounts described herein and an award of punitive damages, together with costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees, of this action, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. — Martin Garbus (pro hac vice pending)

Martin Garbus, a lawyer who has done his share of First Amendment defense work, now finds himself on the other side of the constitutional divide.  According to an ESPN news story, Mr. Garbus is representing Pete Rose in a federal defamation suit against “John Dowd, who oversaw the investigation that led to Rose’s ban from baseball, for claims Dowd made last summer that Rose had underage girls delivered to him at spring training and that he committed statutory rape.”

Martin Garbus

Martin Garbus

“The complaint,” says the ESPN story, “was filed today in U.S. District Court in Pennsylvania. It cites a radio interview last summer with a station in West Chester, Pennsylvania, in which Dowd said, ‘Michael Bertolini, you know, told us that he not only ran bets but ran young girls down at spring training, ages 12 to 14. Isn’t that lovely? So that’s statutory rape every time you do that.’ . . . “

“The lawsuit also cites an interview with CBS Radio in which Dowd said, ‘He has Bertolini running young women down in Florida for his satisfaction, so you know he’s just not worthy of consideration or to be part of the game. This is not what we want to be in the game of baseball.'”

“Rose denied Dowd’s accusations. Bertolini has said he never made such claims. Former commissioner Fay Vincent, who was deputy commissioner at the time of Rose’s ban, has said that he did not remember such allegations. .  . .”

Rose v. Dowd complaint here. The three claims for relief set out in the complaint are: (1) “Defamation per se“, (2) “Defamation”, and (3) “Tortious Interference with Existing or Prospective Contractual Relationship.”

 Additional News Stories:

  1. Randy Miller, Pete Rose suing John Dowd for statutory rape accusations,” NJ.com, July 6, 2016;
  2. Debra Cassens Weiss, Pete Rose sues former Akin Gump partner for radio show comments, ABA Journal, July 7, 2016;
  3. Brian Baxter, Pete Rose (and Marty Garbus) Sue Ex-Akin Gump Partner, Law.com, July 6, 2016; and
  4. Greg Noble, Pete Rose sues John Dowd over allegations he had sex with underage girls, WCPO9, July 6, 2016.

Biographical Snapshot:  Ever the maverick, Mr. Garbus has represented everyone from:

  • the ribald comedian Lenny Bruce (Garbus was co-coounsel with Ephraim London in People v. Bruce),
  • to a woman in a libel case brought against a Daily News columnist for allegedly claiming she faked a rape).
  • He was on the brief for the Appellant in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) and was counsel for Viking Press in the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in which the court dismissed a libel suit against a novelist (see New York Times, December 16, 1982).

See generally:

  • Nat Hentoff, “First Amendment Lawyer Punished,” Nevada Daily Mail, April 11, 1996 (“Garbus . . . followed his conscience to help someone he believed had been terribly wronged by a columnist and his newspaper. Let this be a lesson to law school students with a conscience.”)
  • John Sullivan, “Columnist Wins a Suit On Articles About Rape,” New York Times, February 7, 1997 (“The woman’s lawyer, Martin Garbus, said that the judge’s conclusions were wrong and that the ruling could provide an opportunity for a successful appeal, though his client had not decided whether to pursue the case.” — The case was dismissed and no appeal was taken.)
  • Martin Garbus & Richard Kurnit, “Defamation in Fiction: Libel Claims Based on Fiction Should be Lightly Dismissed,” Brooklyn Law Review (1985)
stairway-to-heaven-1319562-m-720x340
0

FAN 116 (First Amendment News) Farber on Scalia & the Abortion Protest Cases

Professor Daniel Farber

Professor Daniel Farber

The current issue of the Minnesota Law Review Headnotes consists of a symposium on Justice Antonin Scalia. One of the contributors to that symposium is Professor Daniel Farber, whose contribution is entitled “Playing Favorites?Justice Scalia, Abortion Protests, and Judicial Impartiality.” His essay consists of an analysis of Justice Scalia’s views on four abortion protest cases and the First Amendment.

Here are a few excerpts from his introduction:

“[G]iven Scalia’s accusations of partiality in the abortion protest cases, a 2013 statistical study concluded that Scalia himself was far more likely to uphold the speech rights of conservative speakers than liberal ones, though the study has been subject to some methodological criticisms.”

“Taking a closer look at the abortion protest cases can shed light on these disputes over judicial bias in First Amendment cases. It can also shed light on two important aspects of Scalia’s work: his rhetorical style, which regularly featured scathing attacks on the motives or competence of other Justices; and his insistence that his own decision-making adhered to rigorous, objective methods of analysis.”

1199772_630x354“In reexamining the four abortion protest cases, my goal is not to decide whose views of the doctrinal issues were correct. Rather, it is to assess whether Justice Scalia or the majority stepped outside normal bounds in ways that might indicate bias. At the risk of eliminating suspense about the results of the inquiry, there seems to be more evidence of partiality on the part of Justice Scalia in these cases than on the part of his opponents.”

He concludes his essay by noting:

“In these cases involving abortion protesters, Justice Scalia accused the Court of ignoring well-established law in the interest of suppressing speakers with whom the majority disagreed. That was a serious accusation. It involved not only violation of the general judicial duty of impartiality and fairness toward all litigants, but also of the First Amendment’s own imperative of neutrality toward opposing viewpoints. A close examination of the relevant cases suggests little support for this accusation, although it is never possible to say with confidence that a case was completely unaffected by the biases or ideologies of the judges. . . . “

Headline: “Judge Rules Virginia Can’t Force Delegates to Back Donald Trump”

According to a story in the Wall Street Journal “Virginia can’t require Republican National Convention delegates to back Donald Trump, a federal judge in Richmond said Monday, though he made no ruling on whether the party can itself bind its delegates.”

“U.S. District Judge Robert Payne said the Virginia state law requiring delegates who oppose Mr. Trump to vote for him next week at the party’s convention creates ‘a severe burden’ on First Amendment rights.”

“But Judge Payne explicitly avoided weighing in on whether Republican National Committee rules requiring convention delegates to follow the results of their states as dictated by state and national party rules. Judge Payne said he “lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate” the broader unbinding question. . . .”

Bopp Petitions Court in Judicial Elections Free Speech Case  Read More

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

FAN 115 (First Amendment News) Profile: Jameel Jaffer to Head New Knight First Amendment Institute

Jameel Jaffer

Jameel Jaffer

“Columbia University President Lee C. Bollinger announced his appointment of Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director at the ACLU, as founding director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Last [May], Columbia and the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation announced the creation of the new institute which will workthrough litigation, research and public advocacyto preserve and expand the freedoms of expression and the press in the digital age.”

Columbia News also reported that “since he joined the staff of the ACLU in 2002, Jaffer has litigated some of the most significant post-9/11 cases relating to national security and civil liberties, among them: constitutional challenges to gag orders imposed under the USA Patriot Act, surveillance conducted by the National Security Agency, the viewpoint-based denial of visas to foreign scholars, and the sealing of judicial opinions issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. He has argued cases at all levels of the federal court system, including in the U.S. Supreme Court, and has testified before Congress about a variety of topics relating to national security and civil liberties. Jaffer is also one of the nation’s leading Freedom of Information Act attorneys, having litigated landmark cases that resulted in the publication of crucial documents about the U.S. government’s counter-terrorism policies.”

Select Litigation 

  • Jaffer represented the Respondents in Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013) (briefs here & here)
  • In 2004, “he successfully litigated a Freedom of Information challenge that forced the administration of former president George W. Bush to release the ‘torture memos,’ which authorized the use of brutal interrogation and torture techniques against detainees during the War on Terror.”
  • ACLU v. Holder (4th Cir., 2010) (Appellants’ brief) (“The False Claims Act requires the sealing of fundamental court documents alleging matters of vital public importance, sometimes for many years. The statute penalizes relators for discussing facts that are true and of public interest. Approximately one thousand cases remain under seal, and serious allegations that the federal government has been defrauded of billions of dollars continue to be hidden from the public eye. Thus has a venerable statute enacted to expose fraud against the government been employed as a means of suppressing public debate about critical national issues, in plain contravention of the First Amendment.”)
  • ACLU v. NSA, 467 F.3d 590 (2006)

Select Publications, Congressional Testimony & Interviews

 Jameel Jaffer was born in Kingston, Ontario. He is a graduate of Williams College and received his law degree from Harvard Law School (he was an editor on the Harvard Law Review). Jaffer clerked for Judge Amalya L. Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and for Beverley McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada.

ACLU Contests Constitutionality of Computer Fraud & Abuse Act

This chill arises because the CFAA makes it a crime to visit or access a website in a manner that violates that website’s terms of service, while robust audit testing and investigations to uncover online discrimination require violating common website terms of service. — ACLU Complaint 

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the constitutionality of an anti-hacking law. The group argues that the law (the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act) inhibits academics and others from gathering data to study whether online algorithms might be discriminatory. The ACLU claims the law v violates First Amendment freedoms.

aclu_logo

The ACLU complaint “challenges the constitutionality of a provision of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a federal statute that prohibits and chills academics, researchers, and journalists from testing for discrimination on the internet. This chill arises because the CFAA makes it a crime to visit or access a website in a manner that violates that website’s terms of service, while robust audit testing and investigations to uncover online discrimination require violating common website terms of service. Without online audit testing, policymakers and the American public will have no way to ensure that the civil rights laws continue to protect individuals from discrimination in the twenty-first century. . .”

“The Plaintiffs’ research and testing activities, which include posing as online users of different races and recording the information they receive, constitute speech and expressive activity that is protected by the First Amendment, and that is prohibited by the Challenged Provision. The overbroad and indeterminate nature of the Challenged Provision prohibits and chills a range of speech and expressive activity protected by the First Amendment, because it prevents Plaintiffs and other individuals from conducting robust research on issues of public concern when websites choose to proscribe such activity.”

→ ACLU Attorneys for Plaintiffs: Esha Bhandari, Rachel Goodman, Arthur B. Spitzer & Scott Michelman

 David McCabe, ACLU sues feds over anti-hacking law, The Hill, June 29, 2016

7th Circuit Holds City Ban on Bus Ads Inapplicable to Women’s Health Care Ad Read More

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

FAN 110 (First Amendment News) Steve Shapiro to Step Down as ACLU’s Legal Director

Civil liberties without Steve Shapiro is like the Rolling Stones without Jagger. — Kathleen Sullivan

Steve Shapiro

          Steven Shapiro

He is a giant in his world, the world of civil liberties. For some two decades he has been the man at the helm of defending freedom on various fronts ranging from free speech to NSA surveillance and more, much more. His journey began 40 years ago as a staff counsel to the New York Civil Liberties Union.

He is Steven R. Shapiro.

Sometime this fall Shapiro will step down as the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He has long been the one ultimately responsible for the ACLU’s entire legal program. Equally significant, Shapiro has been most closely involved with the ACLU’s Supreme Court docket. Ever since 1987, he helped to shape, edit, and occasionally write every ACLU brief to the Supreme Court.

  • Law Clerk (1975-1976 ) Judge J. Edward Lumbard, Court of Appeals, Second Circuit
  • J.D. (1975), Harvard Law School, magna cum laude.
  • B.A. (1972), Columbia College

Since 1995 Shapiro has served as an adjunct professor at Columbia Law School, where he has taught “Civil Liberties & the Response to Terrorism,” and “Free Speech and the Internet.”

 Shapiro is a member of the Board of Directors of Human Rights First and the Policy Committee of Human Rights Watch, as well as the Advisory Committees of the U.S. Program and Asia Program of Human Rights Watch.

Steven Shapiro, “The Roberts Court and the Future of Civil Liberties,” Houston Law Center, April 20, 2012

Natalie Singer, “Freedom Fighter, A conversation with Steven R. Shapiro ’75

SCOTUSblog on Camera: Steven R. Shapiro (complete six-part series here)

The Measure of the Man: What Others Say

I invited a few of those who know Steve Shapiro and are familiar with his work to offer a few comments. Before proceeding to their full comments, I selected a set of words drawn from them that capture the measure of the man: Here are those seven words:

“thoughtful” 

“principled”

 “unflappable”

 “effective” 

“remarkable” 

“honest”

“extraordinary”

Nadine Strossen: “Steve Shapiro has been a supremely thoughtful, lucid, persuasive advocate of First Amendment rights and other civil liberties, both orally and in writing. Whether he is serving as Counsel of Record on a Supreme Court brief or giving a sound-bite for the national media, he always presents even the most complex, controversial positions clearly, colorfully, and compellingly.”

EVAN E. PARKER/ THE TIMES Steven Shapiro, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, speaks Thursday at Valparaiso University's School of Law about the legal aspects of the United States Patriot Act.

   [credit: Evan E. Parker/ The Times]

Robert Corn-Revere: “Through his long career in defending civil liberties, and First Amendment rights in particular, Steve Shapiro demonstrated that protecting individual rights often requires championing the right to express ideas you abhor, but that doing so is necessary to protect basic freedoms. For those of us who had the privilege of working with him, his principled advocacy will be greatly missed.”

Burt Neuborne: “Steve Shapiro set the standard for all once and future ACLU Legal Directors. I know because I didn’t reach his standard. Steve has a precise and uncannily quick analytic mind that breaks complex fact patterns down into controllable issues, together with a keen strategic sense that accurately separates a good academic argument from an argument having a chance in the real world. Couple Steve’s extraordinary legal ability with his careful approach to administration, unflappable good humor, patience, and deeply principled commitment to the ACLU, and you have the key to his enormous success. He leaves office with the respect and affection of hundreds of lawyers whose work he aided, and with the knowledge that he performed one of the nation’s most important legal tasks with brilliance and humanity.”

Erwin Chemerinsky: “Steve Shapiro has done a truly spectacular job as Legal Director of the ACLU. The ACLU legal staff has grown tremendously and likewise benefitted greatly under his leadership and has made a huge difference in so many areas of law. He has been especially effective in directing the ACLU’s presence in the Supreme Court.”

Kathleen Sullivan: “Over his remarkable tenure Steve’s energy, intellect, and suppleness enabled the ACLU to navigate profound changes in the landscape of security, privacy, and freedom. It has always been a joy to work with him.”

Paul M. Smith: “It has been my privilege and pleasure to work with Steve Shapiro on a large number of projects over the years. For a quarter century, he has been on the job at the ACLU displaying a breadth of knowledge and a depth of wisdom that has been extraordinary.”

Arthur Spitzer: “At a recent ACLU Nationwide Staff Conference where Steve Shapiro’s forthcoming retirement was announced, the event planners handed out cardboard fans that said, ‘We’re all fans of Steve.’ The humor may not have been brilliantly original, but I think no one disagreed with the sentiment. Steve is a terrific lawyer, often seeing the deep problems in a case before anyone else and then seeing the way around them. But I think his even greater value to the ACLU has been his ability to be an honest broker among all the competing viewpoints within the ACLU. As far as I’ve been able to perceive (although from afar, at the local affiliate in DC), everyone feels that Steve understands and appreciates his or her concerns, weighs them fairly, and takes them into account, even if not ultimately agreeing. That will be a hard act to follow.”

UnknownOne Measure of His Work: Free Expression Cases

Below is a list of all the free speech cases (not all First Amendment cases) in the Supreme Court where the ACLU filed or signed onto a brief in the last ten terms. The direct cases are marked by an asterisk; all the others are amicus briefs.

2014 Term:

2013 Term:

2012 Term:

2011 Term:

2010 Term:

2009 Term:

2008 Term:

2006 Term:

2005 Term:

____________

Court Denies Review in Sign Case Read More

2

FAN (First Amendment News, Special Series #2) FBI to Continue Working with Hackers to Fight Terrorism . . . & Crime?

images

The F.B.I. defended its hiring of a third party to break into an iPhone used by a gunman in last year’s San Bernardino, Calif., mass shooting, telling some skeptical lawmakers on Tuesday that it needed to join with partners in the rarefied world of for-profit hackers as technology companies increasingly resist their demands for consumer information. — New York Times, April 19, 2016

__________________

This is the second FAN installment concerning the ongoing controversy over national security and cell-phone privacy. As with the first installment, the legal focus here is on First Amendment issues. It is against that backdrop that the Newseum Institute in Washington, D.C. will host a public event on June 15, 2016.

I am pleased to be working with Gene Policinski (the chief operating officer of the Newseum Institute) and Nan Mooney (a D.C. lawyer and former law clerk to Chief Judge James Baker of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces) in organizing the event.

Information concerning that upcoming event is set out below, but first a few news items.

Recent News Items

“FBI Director James Comey said the U.S. paid more than he will make in salary over the rest of his term to secure a hacking tool to break into a mobile phone used by a dead terrorist in the San Bernardino . . . . The law enforcement agency paid ‘more than I will make in the remainder of this job, which is 7 years and 4 months,’ Comey said . . . at the Aspen Security Forum in London. . . . Comey’s pay this year is $185,100, according to federal salary tables, indicating the tool cost the agency more than $1.3 million. FBI directors are appointed to 10-year terms.”

“[Ms. Amy Hess, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s executive assistant director for science and technology,] did not answer directly when asked about whether there were ethical issues in using third-party hackers but said the bureau needed to review its operation ‘to make sure that we identify the risks and benefits.’ The F.B.I. has been unwilling to say whom it paid to demonstrate a way around the iPhone’s internal defenses, or how much, and it has not shown Apple the technique.”

“Bruce Sewell, Apple’s general counsel, told a House commerce oversight subcommittee that the company already works with law enforcement regularly and would help develop the FBI’s capability to decrypt technology itself, but won’t open ‘back doors’ to its iPhones due to the security risk that would pose to all users. . . . What the FBI wants, Hess said, is ‘that when we present an order, signed by an independent federal judge, that (tech companies) comply with that order and provide us with the information in readable form.’ How they do that is up to them, she said.”

“The leaders of the Senate Intelligence Committee have introduced a bill that would mandate those receiving a court order in an encryption case to provide “intelligible information or data” or the “technical means to get it” — in other words, a key to unlock secured data.  “I call it a ‘follow the rule of law bill,’ because that’s what it does: It says nobody’s exempt from a court order issued by a judge on the bench,’ said Committee Chairman Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican. The top Democrat on the committee, California’s Dianne Feinstein, is a co-sponsor.”

Senate Bill Introduced

Here are a few excerpts from the proposed Senate Bill:

(1) GENERAL. Notwithstanding any other provision of law and except as provided in paragraph 7 (2), a covered entity that receives a court order from a government for information or data shall —

(A) provide such information or data to such government in an intelligible format; or

(B) provide such technical assistance as is necessary to obtain such information or data in an intelligible format or to achieve the purpose of the court order.

(2) SCOPE OF REQUIREMENT. A covered entity that receives a court order referred to in par graph (1)(A) shall be responsible only for providing data in an intelligible format if such data has been made unintelligible by a feature, product, or service owned, controlled, created, or provided, by the covered entity or by a third party on behalf of the covered entity.

(3) COMPENSATION FOR TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. . . .

(b) DESIGN LIMITATIONS. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any government officer to require or prohibit any specific design or operating system to be adopted by any covered entity.

(4) DEFINITIONS . . . .

Non-Terrorist Crimes & Demands for Cell-Phone Access

Upcoming: Newseum Institute Moot Court Event Read More

0

How an Anarchist Changed Oliver Wendell Holmes’s Future

FullSizeRender

Seattle, WA: Last evening I joined David Skover to see (yet again) Stephen Sondheim‘s dark musical, Assassins. Afterwards, I turned to David and said: “Well, not all of those assassinations proved for the worst. Holmes, after all, owed a debt to the anarchist who murdered President McKinley.” So here is a page from that story, the true one that is.  

* * * *

Leon Czolgosz

Leon Czolgosz

September 6, 1901 is one of the most important dates in American constitutional history, though few think of it as such. On that day Leon Czolgosz attempted to assassinate President William McKinley at the Pan-American Exposition in Buffalo, New York. Though the President would live several more days, the two shots the anarchist fired ultimately killed McKinley (he died on September 14th) and thereby put in motion a string of events that led to Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. becoming the fifty-eighth Justice on the Supreme Court.

But for the death of the President, the seat to be vacated by Justice Horace Gray would not have gone to then Chief Justice Holmes of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. No — President McKinley had other plans. Here’s what those plans were:

As the summer of 1901 wound down, it became apparent to McKinley and others that Justice Gray was ill and was likely to retire soon. So the President turned to his friend John Davis Long, then Secretary of the Navy, for advice. Though Long had nominated Holmes to the Massachusetts bench when he was governor, he did not recommend him for the U.S. Supreme Court. Instead, Long urged the president to select Alfred Hemenway, his law partner.  And Hemenway was prepared to accept the position if and when offered.

As it turned out, however, Horace’s delay in retiring combined with McKinley’s assassination changed everything. Thereafter, Henry Cabot Lodge, a U.S. senator from Massachusetts and one of Theodore Roosevelt’s close friends, recommend Holmes for Gray’s seat when the ailing Justice stepped down in July 1902. Roosevelt acted on Lodge’s suggestion and nominated Holmes. By December the Senate confirmed him, unanimously.

As ironic as it was, Oliver Wendell Holmes owed his justiceship to a crazed anarchist.

0

FAN 102.1 (First Amendment News) Laurence Tribe Petitions Court in Defamation Case

The case is Scholz v. DelpThe issue raised in it is whether the First Amendment creates a categorical presumption that statements about a person’s motive in committing suicide are matters of “opinion” rather than “fact” and thus cannot be the basis of a defamation action. The state court judgment below was in favor the First Amendment claim.

Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe filed a cert. petition on behalf of Petitioner Donald Thomas Scholz. Professor Tribe begins his brief my stating:

“This case presents the fundamental question of whether the First Amendment creates a categorical presumption exempting from defamation actions statements about a person’s motive in committing suicide, on the basis that such statements are generally matters of ‘opinion’ rather than ‘fact.’ The Massachusetts SJC held that the First Amendment does create such a presumption and that, as a result, Petitioner Scholz – the producer, primary songwriter, and lead musician in the rock band ‘Boston’ – cannot proceed with his defamation actions against the Boston Herald, two of its reporters, and its principal source, for falsely accusing Mr. Scholz of causing the suicide of the band’s lead singer, Brad Delp.”

Professor Laurence Tribe

Professor Laurence Tribe

“The SJC deepened a significant conflict among many state and federal courts as to whether statements about the cause of a particular suicide, and about motive more generally, are categorically exempt from claims of defamation. It also departed from this Court’s core holding in Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990), that there is no need to create a special First Amendment privilege for statements that can be labeled opinion. This Court emphasized that creating such a privilege would tilt the balance too far against the important interest in protecting personal reputation against unjustified invasion. And it explained that existing First Amendment limits on defamation actions suffice to protect freedom of expression.”

The the three arguments advanced by Professor Tribe in his cert. petition are:

  1. “This Court Should Grant Review to Resolve a Deep and Abiding Conflict among Courts as to Whether Statements about Motive Generally, and about Motive for Suicide Specifically, are Categorically Exempt From Defamation Claims”
  2. “This Court Should Grant Review Because the SJC’s Ruling Conflicts with Malkovich by Creating a First Amendment Exemption from DefamationActions Not PreviouslyRecognized by this Court,” and
  3. “This Court Should Grant Review Because of the Importance of the Question Presented.”

Professor Tribe closes his brief by stating:

“These sensational stories also can cause severe harm to those falsely accused of causing the suicide. In instances, like the one in this case, where a friend or family member is blamed for a suicide, the reputational and emotional toll exacted from the person wrongly accused can be particularly significant. “Suicide exacts a heavy toll on those left behind as well. Loved ones, friends, classmates, neighbors, teachers, faith leaders, and colleagues all feel the effect of these deaths.” This heavy toll is dramatically compounded when friends or loved ones are falsely blamed for contributing to the suicide. But the SJC’s decision below shields from suit those who propound such false stories no matter how reckless they are in doing so. And, to compound the harm further, the SJC, far from resting its judgment on Massachusetts law, wrongly blames the First Amendment for that travesty of justice.”

 Response due April 4, 2016

The Court’s 2015-2016 First Amendment Docket

Cases Decided

** Shapiro v. McManus (9-0 per Scalia, J., Dec. 8, 2015: decided on non-First Amendment grounds) (the central issue in the case relates to whether a three-judge court is or is not required when a pleading fails to state a claim, this in the context of a First Amendment challenge to the 2011 reapportionment of congressional districts) (from Petitioners’ merits brief: “Because petitioners’ First Amendment claim is not obviously frivolous, this Court should vacate the judgments of the lower courts and remand the case with instructions to refer this entire action to a district court of three judges.”) (See Rick Hasen’s commentary here)

Review Granted

  1. Heffernan v. City of Paterson (cert. petition,  amicus brief) (see blog post here)
  2. Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. (all briefs here) (Lyle Denniston commentary)

Oral Arguments Schedule 

  1. January 11, 2016:  Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, et al. (transcript here)
  2. January 19, 2016:  Heffernan v. City of Paterson (see Howard Wasserman SCOTUSblog commentary here)(transcript here)

Review Denied

  1. Electronic Arts, Inc. v. Davis
  2. American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority 
  3. Bell v. Itawamba County School Board (see also Adam Liptak story re amicus brief)
  4. Town of Mocksville v. Hunter
  5. Miller v. Federal Election Commission
  6. Sun-Times Media, LLC v. Dahlstrom
  7. Rubin v. Padilla
  8. Hines v. Alldredge
  9. Yamada v. Snipes
  10. Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris
  11. Building Industry Association of Washington v. Utter (amicus brief)

Pending Petitions*

  1. Scholz v. Delp
  2. Justice v. Hosemann 
  3. Cressman v. Thompson
  4. POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC (Cato amicus brief) (D.C. Circuit opinion)

First Amendment Related Case

  • Stackhouse v. Colorado (issue: Whether a criminal defendant’s inadvertent failure to object to courtroom closure is an “intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right” that affirmatively waives his Sixth Amendment right to a public trial, or is instead a forfeiture, which does not wholly foreclose appellate review?)  (see Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press amicus brief raising First Amendment related claims)

Freedom of Information Case

→ The Court’s next Conference is on March 25, 2016.

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.

0

FAN 101.1 (First Amendment News) Merrick Garland, law clerk to Justice Brennan when Hutchinson v. Proxmire (1979) was decided

Today, President Obama nominated D.C. Circuit Chief Judge Merrick Garland to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.

Chief Judge Merrick Garland

Chief Judge Merrick Garland

Judge Garland served as a law clerk to Second Circuit Judge Henry Friendly and thereafter as a clerk for Justice William J. Brennan. Garland’s clerkship at the Court was during the 1978-1979 Term.

During that Term the Court decided Hutchinson v. Proxmire (argued April 17, decided June 26, 1979). The vote was 8-1 with Chief Justice Warren Burger writing for the majority and Justice Brennan writing in dissent.

Facts in the Case: “In early 1975, Senator William Proxmire implemented what he called the “Golden Fleece Award of the Month.” The award was given out to governmental agencies which sponsored programs and research that Proxmire found to be a waste of tax dollars. One Golden Fleece went to federal agencies sponsoring the research of Ronald Hutchinson, a behavioral scientist. Proxmire detailed the “nonsense” of Hutchinson’s research on the floor of the Senate, in conferences with his staff, and in a newsletter sent to over 100,000 of his constituents. Hutchinson sued for libel, arguing that Proxmire’s statements defamed his character and caused him to endure financial loss.”

Issues: “The petition for certiorari raises three questions. One involves the scope of the Speech or Debate Clause; another involves First Amendment claims; a third concerns the appropriateness of summary judgment, embracing both a constitutional issue and a state-law issue.”

First Amendment Ruling: Petitioner is not a “public figure” so as to make the “actual malice” standard of proof of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan applicable. Neither the fact that local newspapers reported the federal grants to petitioner for his research nor the fact that he had access to the news media as shown by reports of his response to the announcement of the Golden Fleece Award, demonstrates that he was a public figure prior to the controversy engendered by that award. His access, such as it was, came after the alleged libel and was limited to responding to the announcement of the award. Those charged with alleged defamation cannot, by their own conduct, create their own defense by making the claimant a public figure. Nor is the concern about public expenditures sufficient to make petitioner a public figure, petitioner at no time having assumed any role of public prominence in the broad question of such concern.

Justice Brennan’s Dissent: “I disagree with the Court’s conclusion that Senator Proxmire’s newsletters and press releases fall outside the protection of the speech-or-debate immunity. In my view, public criticism by legislators of unnecessary governmental expenditures, whatever its form, is a legislative act shielded by the Speech or Debate Clause. I would affirm the judgment below for the reasons expressed in my dissent in Gravel v. United States (1972).”

Counsel in the Supreme Court:

  • Michael E. Cavanaugh argued the cause and filed a briefs for Petitioner.
  • Alan Raywid argued the cause and filed a brief for Respondents.

Amicus Briefs:

  • Bruce J. Montgomery and John D. Lane filed a brief for the American Psychological Association et al. as amici curiae urging reversal.
  • Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by Richard M. Schmidt, Jr., for the American Society of Newspaper Editors et al.
  • Chester H. Smith for Warren G. Magnuson et al. Stanley M. Brand filed a brief for Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr., Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, et al.
0

FAN 99.6 (First Amendment News) Floyd Abrams on Campus Censorship (Then & Now) & Related Topics

On March 1, 2016, Floyd Abrams gave the Levitt Lecture at the University of Iowa School of Law. Below are a few excerpts from his remarks:

Floyd Abrams

Floyd Abrams

Years Ago: In London with Justice Scalia & Nadine Strossen (then President of the ACLU): “We started talking about some First Amendment cases, particularly Hill v. Colorado, a ruling affirming the constitutionality of significant limitations on speech in areas near facilities in which abortions were performed. All three of us agreed on how terrible the majority opinion of Justice Stevens was and how enlightened Justice Scalia’s dissent was. (In those days, although not more recently, the ACLU, which Nadine then headed, took a strong First Amendment stand against such laws.) Justice Scalia, one could tell, enjoyed the conversation, and at one point leaned back, drink in hand, cigar in mouth, and said ‘you know, I’m not really bad about the First Amendment.’”

Campus Censorship in the 1950s: Reading [about] examples [of censorship on college campuses today], I couldn’t help but compare them to the time when I entered Cornell University more — as you will undoubted be surprised to hear — than a few years ago. At that time, upon entrance into the university, all students were required to sign some sort of document agreeing that we could be suspended for saying just about anything on just about any topic of which the university disapproved. In fact, we were required to carry at all times some sort of identification card saying just that. And as I recall it, there really was very little controversial speech at all on campus — a real loss, I can say in retrospect — but very much the ethos of life in America on and off campus in the long ago 1950s.”

Unknown

Free Speech on College Campuses Today: “Just about a year ago, I gave a speech in Philadelphia at Temple University in which I maintained that the single greatest threat to freedom of speech in the country was on college campuses. I pointed out, as I would today, that while our problems did not approach those in many other countries around the world, that they were serious, troubling, even disturbing. Nothing that has occurred in the last year has led me to change that view. Part of the problem stems from the behavior—misbehavior might be the better word–of college and university administrations. The indispensable organization called FIRE, which tracks the behavior of colleges and universities with respect to free speech on campus, has just published its list of the 10 worst colleges for free speech in 2016. I held my breath as I read it, wondering if your great university would make the list in time for me to comment on it in this talk.”

The New Censors: “[T]oday there are new censors who seek to place new limits on what may be said on campus. And I’m sorry to say they’re students. . . . Most campus activism in public universities is protected by First Amendment and is indispensable if society is to change for the better. But too often in recent days, students have overstepped the bounds of activism into demanding a sort of de facto censorship. And too often, those desires of those students are accommodated by all-too-compliant university administrators that are willing to bend to their demands rather than risk the turmoil or worse that could result in their not doing so.”

Mr. Trump & the First Amendment: “[I]t’s worth remembering that some of [Mr. Trump’s] rhetoric would not only be controversial in other democratic nations, as it certainly is here, but illegal. In Belgium, a member of Parliament was convicted of a crime for saying, ‘Stop the Islamification of Belgium’ and making similar statements. In England, a man was convicted for carrying a poster that said, ‘Islam out of Britain-Protect the British People.’ Whatever you think of more than one not dissimilar statement of Mr. Trump in this campaign – and, in case you’re interested, I think they are appalling – the First Amendment protects them.” (See also Abrams & Collins: “Confronting Trump — An American Debate Censorship Cannot Stop,” Concurring Opinions, Dec. 18, 2015).