Roundup: Law and Humanities 07.30.15

There’s a lot going on in law and the humanities these days. Here’s a sampling.

First, an opportunity for publication:

Fairleigh Dickinson University Press invites the submission of proposals for books, monographs, or essay collections in the interdisciplinary fields of humanistically-oriented legal scholarship for the series The Fairleigh Dickinson University Press Series in Law, Culture and the Humanities.

Possible topics range from scholarship on legal history; legal theory and jurisprudence; law and critical/cultural studies, law and anthropology, law and literature, law and film, law and society, law and the performing arts, law and communication, law and philosophy, and legal hermeneutics.

Proposals must include: a description of the issue/s you intend to explore and the method/s you will use; a comparison and contrast with existing books on similar or related topics; a table of contents and a precis of what each chapter aims to cover; a description of the book’s target market/s; the author’s/authors’ or editor’s/editors’ curriculum vitae; if it is a collection of essays, a compiled and alphabetized list of short biographies of prospective contributors, and a list of three experts in the field capable of assessing the value of the project.

The series also welcomes submissions of completed monographs and essay collections; kindly make an inquiry prior to sending over the completed book or collection of essays, together with the author’s curriculum vitae and three suggested experts, if you are the author/authors. If you are an editor/editors of a completed collection of essays, please include a compiled and alphabetized list of short biographies of prospective contributors, together with your curriculum vitae and list of possible experts. Essay collections must be of previously unpublished material. Conference sessions, properly edited and often expanded by calls for papers, into essay collections, are also welcome.

Referees may or may not be from the submitted list of suggested experts. The series benefits from the advice of an international board of leading scholars in the field. Proposals may be sent to:

Caroline Joan S. Picart, Ph.D., J.D., Esquire
Tim Bower Rodriguez, P.A.
601 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 310,

Tampa, FL 33602

Email: cjpicart@gmail.com

Read More

Air Traffic Control for Drones

8435473266_16e7ae4191_zRecently a man was arrested and jailed for a night after shooting a drone that hovered over his property. The man felt he was entitled (perhaps under peeping tom statutes?) to privacy from the (presumably camera-equipped) drone. Froomkin & Colangelo have outlined a more expansive theory of self-help:

[I]t is common for new technology to be seen as risky and dangerous, and until proven otherwise drones are no exception. At least initially, violent self-help will seem, and often may be, reasonable even when the privacy threat is not great – or even extant. We therefore suggest measures to reduce uncertainties about robots, ranging from forbidding weaponized robots to requiring lights, and other markings that would announce a robot’s capabilities, and RFID chips and serial numbers that would uniquely identify the robot’s owner.

On the other hand, the Fortune article reports:

In the view of drone lawyer Brendan Schulman and robotics law professor, Ryan Calo, home owners can’t just start shooting when they see a drone over their house. The reason is because the law frowns on self-help when a person can just call the police instead. This means that Meredith may not have been defending his house, but instead engaging in criminal acts and property damage for which he could have to pay.

I am wondering how we might develop a regulatory infrastructure to make either the self-help or police-help responses more tractable. Present resources seem inadequate. I don’t think the police would take me seriously if I reported a drone buzzing my windows in Baltimore—they have bigger problems to deal with. If I were to shoot it, it might fall on someone walking on the sidewalk below. And it appears deeply unwise to try to grab it to inspect its serial number.

Following on work on license plates for drones, I think that we need to create a monitoring infrastructure to promote efficient and strict enforcement of law here. Bloomberg reports that “At least 14 companies, including Google, Amazon, Verizon and Harris, have signed agreements with NASA to help devise the first air-traffic system to coordinate small, low-altitude drones, which the agency calls the Unmanned Aerial System Traffic Management.” I hope all drones are part of such a system, that they must be identifiable as to owner, and that they can be diverted into custody by responsible authorities once a credible report of lawbreaking has occurred.

I know that this sort of regulatory vision is subject to capture. There is already misuse of state-level drone regulation to curtail investigative reporting on abusive agricultural practices. But in a “free-for-all” environment, the most powerful entities may more effectively create technology to capture drones than they deploy lobbyists to capture legislators. I know that is a judgment call, and others will differ. I also have some hope that courts will strike down laws against using drones for reporting of matters of public interest, on First Amendment/free expression grounds.

The larger point is: we may well be at the cusp of a “this changes everything” moment with drones. Illah Reza Nourbakhsh’s book Robot Futures imagines the baleful consequences of modern cities saturated with butterfly-like drones, carrying either ads or products. Grégoire Chamayou’s A Theory of the Drone presents a darker vision, of omniveillance (and, eventually, forms of omnipotence, at least with respect to less technologically advanced persons) enabled by such machines. The present regulatory agenda needs to become more ambitious, since “black boxed” drone ownership and control creates a genuine Ring of Gyges problem.

Image Credit: Outtacontext.


FAN 70 (First Amendment News) 10 Little known or long forgotten facts about the First Amendment

Since the news slows down in the summer, I thought I’d share some little known or long forgotten facts about the First Amendment. They concern everything from the text of the First Amendment / to Holmes and his 1919 opinions / to the first woman who argued a free-speech case in the Supreme Court / to Robert L. Carter’s ideas about freedom of association and his subsequent victory in NAACP v. Alabama / to the opinion Richard Posner wrote in NAACP v. Button / to the author of the famous line in Sullivan / to Ralph Nader and the origins of the modern commercial speech doctrine and more.

* * *  *

  1. Does any Justice (originalists, textualists, and others, living or dead) have any idea of what exactly the word abridge means as used in the First Amendment? To the best of my knowledge, no member of the Court (including Justices Hugo Black, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas) has ever devoted any serious ink to this definitional question. (see here for a discussion of the word).
  2. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes was not the first person to use the phrase clear and present danger in a legal context. As Professor Lucas Powe has observed, in “the summer of 1918, Benjamin W. Shaw, defending (unsuccessfully until appeal) an Espionage Act case, uttered the following during his closing argument to the jury”: Under all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence in this case, how can it be said that he wilfully [sic] said and did the things alleged? How can the words used under the circumstances detailed in the evidence have the tendency to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent?” (John Fontana, 12 American State Trials 897, 932 (John D. Lawson, editor) (F.H. Thomas Book Co., 1920) (emphasis added), quoted in L. A. Powe, “Searching for the False Shout of ‘Fire,’” 19 Constitutional Commentary 345, 352, n. 61 (2002)
  3. Notwithstanding what the Court did in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the holdings in Schenck v. United States (1919), Debs v. United States (1919) and Dennis v. United States (1951) have never been formally overruled.
  4. In his concurrence in Whitney v. California (1927), Justice Louis Brandeis flagged his substantive agreement with the majority’s judgment: “[In this case] there was other testimony which tended to establish the existence of a conspiracy, on the part of members of the International Workers of the World, to commit present serious crimes, and likewise to show that such a conspiracy would be furthered by the activity of the society of which Miss Whitney was a member. Under these circumstances, the judgment of the state court cannot be disturbed.” (emphasis added)
  5. The first woman to argue a free speech case (though not a First Amendment case) in the Supreme Court was Olive Rabe — the case was United States v. Schwimmer (1929). It was nearly 40 years before another woman represented a rights claimant in a free-speech case in the Supreme Court. The woman was Eleanor Holmes Norton, a woman of color; the case was Carroll v. President & Commissioners of Princess Anne (1968). As with Olive Rabe, few if any know or remember that Eleanor Holmes Norton, now a member of Congress, was the first woman to represent a rights claimant in the Supreme Court in a First Amendment free-expression case. (Collins & Hudson: “To the high court: Olive Rabe representing Rosika Schwimmer“).
  6. the young Robert L. Carter

    the young Robert L. Carter

    Robert L. Carter successfully argued NAACP v. Alabama (1958). In the NAACP’s brief and in the course of oral arguments (Jan. 15-16, 1958) Mr. Carter stated: “We contend that the order to require us to disclose the list of our members is a denial of our right — the right of a corporation and the right of its members — to free speech and freedom of association and is protected by the First Amendment.” Years earlier Mr. Carter wrote a post-graduate thesis on the First Amendment while at Columbia Law School, this after having received his J.D. from Howard University. (Collins & Chaltain, We Must not be Afraid to be Free)

    (See box below re Carter’s LLM thesis)

  7. Though Justice Brennan is formally credited with authoring NAACP v. Button (1963), the opinion was actually written by his law clerk Richard Posner. “That was one I did for Brennan,” Posner told Kenneth Durr in a 2011 interview.
  8. The famous prhrase, “debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” originated with Stephen R. Barnett, one of Justice Brennan’s law clerks in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). (Stern & Wermiel, Justice Brennan: Liberal Champion)
  9. For decades before before Citizens United (2010), most of the appellate challenges to campaign finance laws were brought by liberals, liberal groups, or labor unions. (Collins & Skover, When Money Speaks (2014))
  10. The emergence of the modern commercial speech doctrine was made possible by Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen. Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Consumer Council (1976) was successfully argued by Alan Morrison, who was then affiliated with Public Citizen. Earlier, Morrison had submitted an amicus brief to the same effect in Bigelow v. Virginia (1975).

The Three Freedoms

by Robert L. Carter

submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters of Law in the Faculty of the School of Law, Columbia University.

August 1, 1941

TRO Granted in Online Adult/Escort Advertising Case Read More


Spelman College, Bill Cosby, and Mutual Intent in Pledges

Spelman College’s decision to terminate a $20 million program supported by Bill Cosby, embroiled in allegations of drug-related seduction, reminds us that donors and recipients mutually depend on good behavior  and shared intentions, which are imperiled about once a decade for most charitable organizations.

The problem can originate on either side, as where a recipient wishes to disaffiliate because a donor’s behavior or reputation becomes objectionable–as in the Spelman-Cosby case–or where a donor objects that a recipient is not using funds as intended–as in the 1995 case of  Yale University returning $20 million after alumnus Lee M. Bass complained that the school had not used the donation to create classes in Western civilization the donation called for.

Litigation does not often result, but when it does, it can be ugly. Negotiations and structured solutions are usually preferred. Take an example of each: Princeton University’s acrimonious litigation with the Robertson family and Lincoln Center’s friendly accord with the Fisher family over renaming Avery Fisher Hall at Lincoln Center.

22222Princeton U. and the Robertson Family: Pyrrhic Victories for Each

In 1961, Charles and Marie Robertson made a $35 million endowment gift to Princeton for the purpose of educating graduate students for government careers. They embraced the spirit of the times, captured in President John F. Kennedy’s call to “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.” Establishing the Robertson Foundation, Princeton invested the $35 million and used the rising investment income to fund such programs—along with many others outside the Wilson School. Indeed, the Robertsons’ gift—which grew to nearly $1 billion today—become a sizable component of Princeton’s overall endowment—about $15 billion today.

While Princeton administrators loved the large and seemingly flexible funding, the Robertsons’ children, who retained a role in overseeing the use of funds, objected. They insisted that Charles and Marie intended a specific and limited use of the funds, solely for training in government careers at the Wilson School. Unable to resolve the disagreement amicably, the Robertsons sued the University in 2002, seeking to terminate the gift and recover the principal.

In the acrimonious litigation, the Robertson family said the university allocated $250 million of foundation funds to non-foundation pursuits, including a new sociology department facility, international affairs programs, and public policy studies—none of which focused solely on training for careers in public service at the Wilson School. The family contended that the University commingled foundation funds with general university funds with the result of disguising how foundation funds were used.

Princeton countered that the University was a complex institution with multiple interconnected missions that result in overlap between Wilson School government careers and broader programming on public and international affairs. It argued that the narrow literal and historical reading of the donor’s intent should yield to a contextual, flexible and evolving understanding of donor intent in relation to the University’s needs.

After six years of legal wrangling during which the two sides incurred legal fees exceeding $40 million each, they settled. The Robertson Foundation was dissolved, with $50 million going to fund a new “Robertson Foundation for Government” independent of Princeton and under the family’s auspices. The University also agreed to pay the Robertsons’ legal fees.

While both sides claimed victory, informed observers saw mostly mutual defeat, a pair of Pyrrhic victories. After all, while the Robertsons wrested control of a foundation from Princeton rededicated to their perception of their ancestors’ vision, it was far smaller than what the original endowment had become, and the bruising litigation did not entirely promote family unity. While Princeton retained control over most of the funds along with an expanded authority over allocation, the philanthropic community saw a bald assertion of power over donor intent that is likely to make some donors unwilling to trust the school with their beneficence.

11111Lincoln Center and the Fisher Family: Mutual Gains 

In 1973, Avery Fisher, founder of Fisher Electronics Co., donated $10.5 million to support the renovation of New York City’s Philharmonic Hall, the music house built in 1962 on Manhattan’s upper West side.  The pledge agreement provided that the Hall would be renamed Avery Fisher Hall and called for that title to “appear on tickets, brochures, program announcements and the like . . . in perpetuity.” The site has hosted innumerable grand classical musical performances over the decades, and the name is etched in the consciousness of many a New Yorker, and gave Mr. Fisher, who died in 1994, a bid to immortality. Read More


Strange State Constitutional Provisions

I’m reading through state bills of rights as part of my book research, so this may become a regular series.  Let’s start with Article One, Section 2b of the New Jersey Constitution, which states:

“The people reserve unto themselves the power to recall, after at least one year of service, any elected official in this State or representing this State in the United States Congress.”

So with respect to members of Congress, this clause is clearly invalid.  A state cannot recall a member of Congress before their term is up.  A state legislature could petition the relevant House of Congress and ask it to expel the member (that would trigger a special election), but the decision would rest there.

Now I suppose a state could hold a symbolic recall of a Representative or Senator (sort of like a vote of no confidence), but that seems odd.


From Our Friends at University of Alabama Law School: Position Announcements

The University of Alabama School of Law anticipates making at least two tenured or tenure-track appointments to its faculty, to begin in the 2016-2017 academic year. The Faculty Appointments Committee seeks applications from entry-level candidates with excellent academic records and demonstrated potential for exceptional teaching and scholarly achievement. They also welcome applications from lateral candidates who possess outstanding academic credentials, including demonstrated teaching ability and a record of distinguished scholarship. They are particularly interested in the following academic subject areas: business law, commercial law, employment law, family law, and labor law. For interest, contact Professor Julie A. Hill, Chair of the Faculty Appointments Committee for the 2015-2016 academic year (email: facappts@law.ua.edu).

The University of Alabama School of Law also seeks nominations and applications for a University-level Chairholder. The law school welcomes nominations and applications in all fields of law. Interested candidates should apply online at https://facultyjobs.ua.edu/. Nominations should be e-mailed to Dean Mark E. Brandon at chairsearch@law.ua.edu.


The Anti-Novelty Doctrine

I’ve been catching up on what’s new in the law reviews, and I want to recommend Neal Katyal and Thomas Schmidt’s paper in Harvard on “Active Avoidance.”  Much of the article provides a well-deserved critique of the Court’s recent practice of reading statutes in absurd ways to avoid constitutional difficulties.  The paper also points out that in these cases the Court introduces new constitutional arguments in dicta to explain those alleged difficulties, which do not get adequate attention then but then get cited later as authoritative.

Another part of this article that deserves more scrutiny is its attack on the Court’s recent cases suggesting that a law which is novel should be presumed unconstitutional.  I’ve blogged in the past about this idea, which showed up in the Affordable Care Act case (on the individual mandate), the challenge to DOMA, and some other decisions.  I’m not sure how I come down on the “anti-novelty” doctrine, but it is true that this idea clashes with the general presumption of constitutionality.


Contract Law’s Majesty Over Digital Deals

11111On September 25, 2012, Adam Berkson was on a Delta Airlines flight from New York City to Indianapolis. Needing the internet to conduct important business, he flipped open his lap top and followed the log-on instructions on Gogo’s in-flight Wi-Fi service. Between options of $10 for the day or $35 for the month, he clicked the sign-up button for the month, entered his American Express payment information, and was surfing the web within one minute.

A few months later, however, Berkson discovered that Gogo was billing his AmEx card every month—as if he had subscribed—and when he requested a refund, Gogo refused. While AmEx reversed the charges as a customer courtesy, in 2014 Berkson nevertheless banded together with other aggrieved Gogo customers to file a federal class action lawsuit for additional damages. Gogo moved to dismiss the case by citing yet another surprising term on its web site, one providing that all disputes go to arbitration, not litigation.

This case is one of scores of disputes arising from electronic contracts formed on the internet, mostly between consumers and merchants. While billions of dollars change hands amid trillions of Internet transactions, most raising no issue, the novelty, dynamism, and ingenuity surrounding e-commerce and technology produces disagreements about how offers to contract are made, how they may be accepted, and what terms they contain. And while there is ongoing contention about how electronic contracting is or should proceed, the setting vividly shows the remarkable durability and capaciousness of venerable contract doctrine.

Most fundamentally, mutual manifestation of assent is the touchstone of contract formation and an essential element. When there is clearly an offeror and clearly an offeree, then the acceptance of the offer must be unequivocal.  Such principles signify that asset and acceptance on line must stimulate a degree of intentionality that many website formation devices lack.

Next, it is common in contemporary commerce to offer and form contracts without negotiation—standard terms on take-it-or-leave bases which are generally referred to as adhesion contracts. In order for traditional principles of assent and acceptance to work, law must assure that offerees at least have an opportunity to review terms if not negotiate them.

Finally, when assent is largely passive, as with electronic adhesion contracts, it becomes more important to probe whether the offeree had notice of the term at issue. Actual notice certainly suffices but inquiry notice would suffice too—that is the offeree need not know the specifics of the term but be on notice to inquiry about it.

Carnival Cruise

A prominent pre-internet illustration is Carnival Cruise Lines, Inc. v. Shute, whre the U.S. Supreme Court held that the terms of adhesion contracts are “subject to judicial scrutiny for fundamental fairness”. In Carnival Cruise, vacationers bought cruise tickets through a travel agent it later received by mail. A legend on the front read, in bold type and all capital letters: “SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT ON LAST PAGES IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ CONTRACT ON LAST PAGES 1, 2, 3.” Read More


FAN 69 (First Amendment News) Justice Alito discusses four First Amendment cases in Kristol interview — Free-Speech Jurisprudence Comes into Sharper Focus

“[I]f we lose focus on what is at the core of the free-speech protection by concentrating on . . . peripheral issues, I think, there’s a real danger that our free-speech cases will go off in a bad direction.” — Justice Samuel Alito

Recently, Justice Samuel Alito participated in a video-recoreded interview with Bill Kristol. In the “Conversations with Bill Kristol” program the Justice discussed his legal education and the workings of the Supreme Court. He also discussed four First Amendment free-expression cases: United States v. Stevens (2010), Snyder v. Phelps (2011), United States v. Alvarez (2012), and Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

Below are some excerpts I transcribed from the video-recorded interview in which Justice Alito discussed the First Amendment, this in response to questions posed to him by Mr. Kristol. I have added captions to the transcript and have edited it in places as well. (There is also a transcript of the entire interview  (login required) on the “Conversations with Bill Kristol website.)    

Following the exchange between the Justice and Mr. Kristol, I added some preliminary commentaries on what Justice Alito’s remarks may suggest about his larger First Amendment jurisprudence.  

Finally, I ended with some general information about Justice Alito and his free-speech jurisprudence.  

The Stevens Case

Justice Alito on "Conversations with Bill Kristol"

Justice Alito on “Conversations with Bill Kristol”

The Justice’s discussion of Stevens — the videoing of animal cruelty case — was largely descriptive. What concerned Justice Alito about the case the fact that it was “virtually impossible to find out who was [killing the animals that were being filmed]. The physical activity could be made illegal,” he noted. “[N]o one questions that . . . you could have a law against animal cruelty. Can you have a law that prohibits the creation of these videos without which the animal cruelty would not take place?”

Because of overbreadth problems, seven Justices voted to strike down the law on First Amendment grounds while Justice Alito felt otherwise and dissented.

The Phelps Case

Here, too, much of the discussion of Phelps — the military funerals protest case — was descriptive. What concerned the Justice was the fact that in “this particular case the . . .  [protesters] had placards that said horrible things about [the soldier being buried] . . . It was very distressing to the family members, who were in attendance.”

“So they were sued under a very well-established tort that goes back to the nineteenth century — the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. And I thought that this tort constituted a reasonable exception to the First Amendment, but my colleagues disagreed about that.”

Bill Kristol

William Kristol

Mr. Kristol: “. . . What about the obvious sort of simple argument that . . . it is a slippery slope, that you cannot curtail speech? That is kind of the argument that the majority made, in one way or  the other, I would say.”

Justice Alito: “Well I think that some members of the majority — this is not based on inside information, this is what I get from reading the opinion — I think that there are those who would support the majority decision in both those cases for exactly that reason. So if we say, even in these outrageous situations, ‘we will not tolerate any abridgment of freedom of speech,’ then when something comes along that I would regard, and I think our cases would regard as really being at the core of the free-speech protection, these decisions provide a guarantee, or they provide a wall of proaction against a bad decision in those areas. If I really believed that to be the case, I might think it was an appropriate tradeoff. I don’t think that’s the case. I think that judges who are inclined to make a bad decision, an anti-free speech decision in a case involving core political speech, will find a way of getting around these little cases.”

The Alvarez Case

Justice Alito: “So what I think has been going on in those two cases and another one where I was in dissent, this time not by myself, in United States v. Alvarez, which had to do with the constitutionality of a statute passed by Congress called ‘The Stolen Valor Act,’ [which] prohibited a false claim of having received a military medal. . . .”

Mr. Kristol: “Which was happening a lot at the time.”

Justice Alito: “It was happening a lot. People were making up, you know, claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor . . . “

Reflecting on StevensPhelps and Alvarez, Justice Alito stressed that “those cases involve a diversion, I think, of attention from the core, from what is most important about the guarantee of freedom of speech.”

He then developed that point as noted below.

Protecting Core Political Speech

Justice Alito: “I think freedom of speech protects and serves many purposes, but I believe, and I think the Court has said that at the core, whatever other purposes it may serve, it is vitally important for democratic self-government. If people cannot debate public issues, if they cannot debate the relative merits of political candidates, then democracy is basically impossible. So I think that is the core of the protection. These cases involving . . . depictions of animal cruelty, the protest at military funerals, [and] falsely claiming to have won the Congressional Medal of Honor don’t involve anything like that.”

“And if we lose focus on what is at the core of the free-speech protection by concentrating on these peripheral issues, I think, there’s a real danger that our free-speech cases will go off in a bad direction. In the cases that we’ve had that I think involve core free speech. . . the chief example that I would give from my time on the Court is the Citizens United case. . . . [N[ow that [case] came out five to four . . . . Citizens United, I think, is core political speech. It is a video about a candidate for the Presidency of the United States. If that’s not protected by First Amendment free speech, by the First Amendment free speech guarantee, I don’t know what is.”

“So on things that are at the core, the Court has been shakier than it has been on these things that are at the periphery.”

Mr. Kristol: “So the argument that protecting the periphery helps protect the core doesn’t seem to hold in this case.”

Justice Alito: “I don’t think it works.”

Mr. Kristol: “You also make the argument, as I recall, in at least one or two of those three dissents, you make more of a positive argument for the virtues, for the right, for . . . the ability of the community to draw certain boundaries around civility or civilized behavior almost, mostly in the case of the soldiers’ funerals or all of them really, the animal cruelty [and the] lying [case]. Those are all things a community would have a reasonable interest in discouraging, to say the least.”

Justice Alito: “I think that’s true. And I think that’s appropriate in cases that don’t involve political speech. I would not make the same argument in a case . . . involving political speech. I thought all of them were cabined by specific rules, very reasonable rules. So in the animal cruelty case, I thought that was very similar to the rationale . . . against child pornography. Which is that you can’t produce child pornography without abusing a child and by stamping out child pornography, or trying to stamp out child pornography, you are attacking the underlying abuse – same thing [holds true] with these crush videos. You couldn’t stamp them out without preventing the creation and the circulation of the videos. . . . I think that kind of an argument is a dangerous argument when you’re talking about political speech. . . .”

The discussion ended with some brief additional comments about hate speech in Europe.

[ht: Tony Mauro]

Commentary Read More