FAN 94 (First Amendment News) Brooklyn Law School to Host Symposium: “Free Speech Under Fire — The Future of the First Amendment”

It may well be the First Amendment conference of the year. On Friday, February 26th, the Brooklyn Law School will host an all-day symposium titled “Free Speech Under Fire: The Future of the First Amendment.” Twenty noted First Amendment persona — lawyers, professors, activists and others — are slated to participate in the upcoming program.

Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 9.03.03 AM

Description: For free speech, it may be the best of times, yet the worst of times. The Roberts Supreme Court may be the most speech-protective Court in a generation, extending free speech protection on a number of fronts and rebuffing claims by government and its allies to limit such protections. Yet these free speech rulings have drawn fire from critics, on and off the Court, who contend that the decisions are inconsistent with the democratic and egalitarian purposes of the First Amendment. Meanwhile, at home and abroad, censorship and suppression of speech seems more the rule than the exception. The Symposium will bring together many of the nation’s leading First Amendment advocates and scholars to address these pressing issues as they play out in the areas of hate speech, money and speech, corporate and commercial speech, and surveillance and speech.


  1. Floyd Abrams, Partner, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP
  2. Jonathan H. Adler, Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law
  3. Sahar F. Aziz, Associate Professor of Law, Texas A&M University School of Law
  4. Miriam H. Baer, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
  5. Robert Corn-Revere, Partner, Davis Wright Tremaine, LLP
  6. Joel M. Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
  7. Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, UC Irvine School of Law
  8. Susan N. Herman, Centennial Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; President, ACLU
  9. Jamil N. Jaffer, Adjunct Professor and Director, Homeland and National Security Law Program, George Mason University School of Law
  10. Beryl Jones-Woodin, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
  11. Greg Lukianoff, President and CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)
  12. Hon. Andrew P. Napolitano, Distinguished Visiting Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School; Senior Judicial Analyst, Fox News
  13. Burt Neuborne, Norman Dorsen Professor of Civil Liberties, NYU School of Law
  14. Tamara R. Piety, Phyllis Hurley Frey Professor of Law, University of Tulsa College of Law
  15. K. Sabeel Rahman, Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
  16. Stephen R. Shapiro, National Legal Director, ACLU
  17. Bradley A. Smith, Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault Designated Professor of Law, Capital University Law School
  18. Nadine Strossen, John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law, New York Law School
  19. Nelson W. Tebbe, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School
  20. Jeremy Waldron, University Professor, NYU School of Law

→ RSVP by Wednesday, February 24:

Sponsored by the Journal of Law and Policy 

More from Brooklyn Law — Upcoming Conference on Buckley v. Valeo 

James L. Buckley (1923-)

James L. Buckley (1923-)

On Tuesday, January 26th, the Brooklyn Law School will host an event titled “A Landmark Decision Turns 40: A Conversation on Buckley v. Valeo.” The event will take place at the Subtonic Center (10th floor), 250 Joralemon Street, Brooklyn and is scheduled for 12:30-1:45.

Description: January 30 marks the 40th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the Court’s first major ruling on the clash between campaign finance regulations and First Amendment rights. For the last 40 years, the Court’s decision has provided the constitutional framework for the law governing the financing of our politics and the doctrinal platform for the more recent Citizens United case. Both rulings have been harshly criticized as well as staunchly defended over the years.

Introductory Remarks 

  • Nicholas W. Allard, President, Joseph Crea Dean, and Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School


  1. James L. Buckley (age 92), former conservative U.S. Senator from New York and later a U.S. Circuit Court Judge, who was the lead plaintiff
  2. Ira Glasser, the long-time Executive Director of the liberal American Civil Liberties Union, who played a key role in organizing the lawsuit’s “strange bedfellows” coalition
  3. Professor Joel M. Gora, one of the attorneys who argued the case in the Supreme Court

Co-sponsored by the Brooklyn Law School Federalist Society & the Brooklyn Law School ACLU

What Does it Take to Assert a First Amendment Right? — Heffernan v. City of Paterson

The extra-meta question for the Court is whether the First Amendment protects public employees from retaliation for conduct that merely looks like support of a disfavored political candidate, even though he is actually mainly just supporting his sick mom. — Dahlia Lithwick

Officer Jeffrey Heffernan (Courtesy of Jeffrey Heffernan)

Officer Jeffrey Heffernan (Courtesy of Jeffrey Heffernan)

Yesterday the Court heard oral arguments in Heffernan v. City of Paterson (transcript here). The issue in the case was whether the First Amendment bars the government from demoting a public employee based on a supervisor’s perception that the employee supports a political candidate.

Counsel: Mark Frost for the Petitioner, and Thomas Goldstein for the Respondent. Ginger D. Anders, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, as amicus curiae, supporting Petitioner.

→ Adèle Auxier Keim, counsel for the Becket Fund, explains the First Amendment issues in Heffernan (Federalist Society video clip here)

→ Commentary: Select excerpts from the oral arguments in Heffernan are set out below. As you read the passages below, pay special attention to the Chief Justice’s comments. In the regard, consider this: Do those comments suggest that he might be moving towards some kind of state law first kind of argument? That is, do those comments suggest that he may be moving towards a view that a federal constitutional law claim (here, a First Amendment claim) will not be entertained if there are reasonable grounds to believe (and here there seemed be) that state law may provide an adequate remedy? (See generally State v. Lowry, 667 P.2d 996, 999 (Or. 1983)). 

Excerpts from Oral Arguments

[When is Freedom Speech or Association Abridged?]

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “[W]ould it be fair to the proposition before the Court to say that you’re to be free from government inquiry into an oversight of your views? Would that be a fair statement?”

MR. FROST: “That would be a fair statement, Justice Kennedy. . . .”

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “[T]he First Amendment talks about abridging freedom of speech, and I thought the case came to us on the proposition that [the Petitioner] wasn’t engaging in speech at all. That he was not engaging in association, he was not engaging in trying to convey a message, he was just picking up a sign for his mother. And if that’s the basis on which the case comes to us, I’m not sure how he can say his freedom of speech has been abridged.”

MR. FROST: “In this case, Mr. Chief Justice, the case comes to us with respect to association. With respect to speech, speech is governed by a different doctrine than association. There is no need to do a Pickering analysis in this case.”

JUSTICE SCALIA: “He wasn’t associating with anybody any more ­­ any more than he was speaking. He was doing neither one. . . . He was associate — ­­ associating with his mother, I suppose, in picking up the sign for her. But he was not expressing any political view. He was not associating with a political party. What case of ours vindicates the right that –­­ that Justice Kennedy described to you and whichyou readily agreed with? What case of ours vindicates that ­­proposition?”

MR. FROST:  “Elrod would stand for that –“

JUSTICE SCALIA: “Elrod says you have a First Amendment right to favor a political party or not favor a political party, and you cannot be fired for doing so.That’s not what happened here. . . . He was not expressing any First Amendment view whatever. I mean, he was fired for the wrong reason, but there’s no constitutional right not to be fired for the wrong reason. If he was fired because his ­­government employer thought he had committed a felony and he hadn’t, he might he might have a cause of action under some statute. But there’s no constitutional right not to be fired for the wrong reason, and that’s what happened here. . . .”

[Government Mistakes & First Amendment Freedoms]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “. . .  . Let’s say the employer comes in to Smith and says, ‘you know, Smith, I saw you getting a political sign, and you’re ­­ and you’re fired.’ And Smith says, ‘it wasn’t me. I was off, you know, in a different town then. In other words, it’s a pure mistake of fact. Your answers, it seems to me, you try to get advantage of the fact that there ­­ you could perhaps have argued this was expressive activity. Say, oh, he was at a meeting, a political event. He was getting a sign. But your theory, I thought, didn’t depend on that at all. . . . It was simply a mistake of fact. And then now, can the person who wasn’t even there, can he bring a First Amendment challenge to his dismissal?. . .”

[The Significance of State-Law Remedies]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Is there a remedy for your client, apart from this action under the First Amendment?  Does he have civil service protections of any kind or, ­­ I don’t know, ­­ collective bargaining? . . . My point is that maybe this shouldn’t be a constitutional violation if there are adequate remedies to address what may or may not be a First Amendment issue. . . .”

MR. FROST:  “Mr. Chief Justice, there are ­­there were no other remedies. . . .”

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, Mr. Grabowski’s brief says New Jersey law provides a statutory right of action for an attempt to violate an individual’s civil rights. Is he wrong? . . . . The question is not whether the New Jersey law somehow abrogates FirstAmendment rights. The question is whether he has an independent remedy under State law. That’s the question, I think, that’s being asked. . . .”

MR. FROST:  ­­”[T]here could havebeen a violation of any type of New Jersey statute. It wasn’t alleged in this case.  It was never brought up by Respondents in this case during ­­ during any of the arguments in any of the briefs. And ­­ and therefore, with respect to this matter, it’s our position that he has every right to maintain this litigation with respect to violation of his First Amendment right. . . .”

JUSTICE GINSBURG: “Would you say that he was demoted because he gave the appearance of exercising his First Amendment rights?”

MR. FROST: “Yes. Because they perceived it that he was exercising his rights, and the fact that he actually was not engaged in any political activity should make no difference with respect to the motivation outcome of what took place with Mr. Heffernan. . . .”

[Right to be Free of Government oversight of One’s Beliefs?]

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “So are you saying there’ a right to be secure from government oversight of you beliefs?”

MS. ANDERS: “Well, I think the Court recognized in O’Hare that that is a particular concern in the affiliation context. . . .”

JUSTICE SCALIA: “I mean, that’s a good idea, maybe. And maybe ­­ maybe it should be in some civil service act, but where do you find it in the FirstAmendment?”

MS. ANDERS: “Well, I think the right ­­ theright in question is the right not to be subject to atest of political affiliation . . .”

JUSTICE KENNEDY: “Is ­­ is that because you’re concerned with a chill, or is there some other right that is ­­ is somehow affected that’s a FirstAmendment right of the individual? You turn around and you say the government cannot act for an unconstitutional purpose, but we usually ask how is the defendant hurt? What is his right?  That’s still a little unclear to me.”

MS. ANDERS:  “We think the defendant has been hurt in the constitutional sense because the way that the court has defined the right in question is theright not to be subject to a test of political affiliation when it’s not a reasonable job requirement. . . .”

[Arbitrariness & Government Mistakes]

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “I don’t know why the right isn’t the right to be free from employment action based on a mistake. That’s his objection here. You made a mistake; you thought I was, you know, being politically active. I wasn’t. . . . I mean, isn’t ­­ is there such a right under New Jersey law, you can’t be fired for an arbitrary reason, or you can’t be fired for a mistaken reason?”

MS. ANDERS: “I think with, at least with respect to some job actions, there ­­ there would be such a right under New Jersey law, and that’s ­­ I’m not sure whether it would apply here . . .”

MR. GOLDSTEIN: “The doctrinal fight in the briefing is over whether the plaintiff in a case like this has to assert a constitutional right. And I think the questions so far have indicated an understanding that the plaintiff would have to. And the real question, then, is, is there actually a constitutional right here, one that we might define in other terms, including the one that Justice Kennedy identified as the right not to have your political views inquired in. And this is actually discussed in the Court’s opinion in O’Hare in describing Elrod and Branti. And so I want to start there because we have to recognize that this right has never been recognized in any other political association case whatsoever. And here’s no logical reason why it would occur specifically in the public employment context . . . .”

[Availability of Adequate State-Law Remedy]

MR. GOLDSTEIN: “My point, Justice Kennedy, is that he may have a State law right; he does have a collective bargaining agreement right, but he doesn’t have a First Amendment right, because he’s not engaging in First Amendment ­protected activity. . . .”

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “What is ­­ what is the other law here? What ­­ what relief does he have?”

MR. GOLDSTEIN: “He has two forms of relief. The first is the collective bargaining agreement. I will tell you that it is not in the record, but it is judicially noticeable. It is a public document. It’s available on the government Web sites of the State of New Jersey, and it is exactly what you would expect. In fact, it’s a little bit broader. It says that if you are ­­ you have an employment action that is inequitable, it is ­­ you ­­ it is grievable.”

“The second thing is the attempt provision,which was discussed, and Justice Alito is right, that there are broader civil rights under New Jersey law. And this just makes sense.”

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: “Well, do you agree that the Petitioner is entitled to relief under that provision of the collective bargaining agreement?”

MR. GOLDSTEIN: “If ­­­­ his allegations of the facts are correct, yes. . . .”

[Punishing Someone for not Sharing the Government’s Views]

JUSTICE KAGAN: “If somebody had come in to me before today’s argument and just said, ‘Does the First Amendment prevent the government from punishing a person because that person does not share the government’s views?’ I would have said, why, yes, of course the First Amendment protects that. That’s the whole point of the First Amendment.”

“And now you’re telling me, no, the First Amendment does not prevent the government from punishing a person because that person doesn’t share the government’s views, unless that person is actively opposed to the government’s views. . . .”

MR. GOLDSTEIN: “[I]t may be that I havenot persuaded you in this case. (Laughter) I will say, Justice Kagan, what you ask is, can the government do it? The government cannot because there are lots of other protections.  And remember, if the person is politically neutral, it is the case that­­ the right of political association is the right of political association. If you aren’t engaging it, you aren’t actively pursuing the right in any way, or even if you aren’t active about it.”
* * * *
 Salvador Rizzo, writing for the, noted: “As of mid-2013, the City of Paterson had spent $474,000 defending from Heffernan’s lawsuit. City officials have said they hired Goldstein & Russell, a Maryland firm, at a rate of $1,150 an hour to argue at the Supreme Court. If the city wins the case, Thomas Goldstein, the publisher of the popular SCOTUSblog, and his firm would receive $300,000.”

→ Dahlia Lithwick, “Does the First Amendment Protect What Looks Like Political Speech?,” Slate, Jan. 19, 2016

Radio Television Digital News Foundation’s First Amendment Awards

This from Mark Joyella writing in TVNewser: “The Radio Television Digital News Foundation has named ABC’s Pierre Thomas host of the 2016 First Amendment Awards, which will honor journalists including Jason Rezaian. ‘Pierre Thomas delighted the audience when he accepted our Association’s John F. Hogan Distinguished Service Award last fall,’ said Amy Tardif, RTDNF chair. ‘We will be thrilled to have him back at the podium to serve as our master of ceremonies this spring, as we honor our award recipients and support the Foundation’s work for the First Amendment.’ Rezaian, the Washington Post reporter released from an Iranian prison this week after 17 months, will receive the First Amendment Award.”

South Carolina Bill Introduced to License Journalists

Yesterday a South Carolina legislator tweaked anti-gun news outlets by proposing a bill that would require journalists operating in that state to register and be approved by the government. The scheme is, of course, blatantly unconstitutional, which is the point. Michael Pitts . . . told the Charleston Post & Courier his South Carolina Responsible Journalism Registry Law, which is modeled after the state law requiring a permit to carry a concealed weapon, is aimed at stimulating discussion about the constitutionality of gun controls widely supported by members of the press. —, Jan. 20, 2016

State Rep. Mike Pitts (credit: John Bazemore/AP)

State Rep. Mike Pitts (credit: John Bazemore/AP)

Over at The Volokh Conspiracy, Professor Eugene Volokh discusses that bill (H-4702) introduced in South Carolina. The measure, introduced by state Representative Mike Pitts, provides that the “Secretary of State’s Office shall create a registry for the registration of persons who qualify as a journalist pursuant to this chapter.” According to the proposed law, a “person seeking to register shall provide all information required by the office including, but not limited to, a criminal record background check, an affidavit from the media outlet attesting to the applicant’s journalistic competence, and an application fee in an amount determined by the office.” Such registration would be valid for two years but must be renewed within thirty days of expiration.

A license can be denied to a journalist if: “(1) within the three years before submitting an application for registration, the person has been determined by a court of law to have committed:

(a) libel, slander, or invasion of privacy; or

(b) a felony if the underlying offense was committed to collect, write, or distribute news or other current information for a media outlet; or

(2) as a journalist, the person has demonstrated a reckless disregard of the basic codes and canons of professional journalism associations, including a disregard of truth, accuracy, objectivity, impartiality, fairness, and public accountability, as applicable to the acquisition of newsworthy information and its subsequent dissemination to the public.”

Regardless of Representative Pitts’ reasons for introducing the measure, Professor Volokh notes that it “would clearly violate the First Amendment.”

(ht: Prof. Eric Freedman)

See also: Callum Borchers, “A South Carolina lawmaker wants to create registry for journalists. Um, no,” Washington Post, Jan. 19, 2016

Gannett House Project: A First Amendment Experience

Screen Shot 2016-01-19 at 8.55.50 PMThis from WCSH6 TV: AUGUSTA, Maine: “It’s a project that will take a few years and an estimated $1.5-million, but the Gannett family plans to restore an old family home into an interactive museum focused on the First Amendment.”

“Gannett House most recently was owned by the state. It was a five year process for the family to buy it back for $378-thousand, and the city had to change zoning laws to allow the museum.” (video clip here)

“William Gannett and his son Guy founded a publishing company, owning papers like the Waterville Sentinel and Portland Press Herald, before expanding to broadcast media.”

“This museum will touch on Maine’s publishing history, but the overall goal, says Genie Gannett, is to inspire future generations and help them protect the freedoms covered under the First Amendment.”

FIRE Report on State of Free Speech on Nation’s Campuses 

This from the Executive Summary of a newly released FIRE Report:

UnknownFIRE surveyed 440 schools for this report and found that 49.3 percent maintain severely restrictive, “red light” speech codes— policies that clearly and substantially prohibit protected speech. This is the eighth year in a row that the percentage of schools maintaining such policies has declined, and the rst time in FIRE’s history that the gure is below 50 percent. In addition, an unprecedented number of schools have eliminated all of their speech codes to earn FIRE’s highest, “green light” rating: As of September 2015, 22 schools received a green light rating from FIRE. This number is up from 18 schools as of last year’s report.

Of the 440 schools reviewed by FIRE, 217—or 49.3 percent— received a red light rating. 194 schools received a yellow light rating (44.1%), and 22 received a green light rating (5%). FIRE did not rate 7 schools (1.6%).

To date, FIRE has led 10 lawsuits, three of which remain ongoing. The seven suits completed thus far have each settled successfully, restoring the free speech rights of almost 200,000 students and securing over $350,000 in damages and attorney’s fees.

51S9Wnkix7L._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_Forthcoming Book & Work-in-Progress

 Work-in-Progress: Ann Southworth, “The Support Structure for Campaign Finance Litigation in the Roberts Court: A Research Agenda,” University of Colorado Law Review (2015)

“My current book project differs from much of the existing scholarship on the Roberts Court’s campaign finance decisions because it investigates processes that precede adjudication and focuses on how actors other than judges have helped to create conditions conducive to constitutional change. The research traces what might be viewed as the supply-side of adjudication, or what another scholar, Charles Epp, has called the ‘support structure’ for legal mobilization. This support structure includes the organizations that have teed up campaign finance cases for adjudication, the lawyers who have represented the parties and amici, the scholars and interest groups that have cultivated and advanced the ideas adopted in the Court’s decisions, and the financial patrons and advocacy networks that have supported that process.”

New & Forthcoming Scholarly Articles

  1. Ryan T. Weiss, “Removing the “Silencer”: Coverage and Protection of Physician Speech Under the First Amendment, Duke Law Journal (2016)
  2. Adam Kolber, “Two Views of First Amendment Thought Privacy,” University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law (forthcoming 2016)
  3. David Barnhizer, “‘Fire Away’: I Have No Right to Not Be Insulted,” SSRN (Jan. 15, 2016)
  4. Joan Krause, “Off-Label Drug Promotion and the Ephemeral Line between Marketing and Education,” Journal of Law and the Biosciences (2015)
  5. Margaret Zhang, “Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus and the (Bleak) Future of Statutes that Ban False Statements in Political Campaigns,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review Online (2015)

News, Op-eds & Blog Posts

Elizabeth Staurt, “Revenge Porn Ban Pushed by Arizona Legislators,” Phoenix New Times, Jan. 19, 2016

  1. Jim Sleeper, “Why Bashing ‘Politically Correct’ Campuses is Hurting Conservatism,” Alternet, Jan. 15, 2016
  2. Frank Pavone, “Planned Parenthood Tries To Abort The First Amendment,” The Daily Caller, Jan. 19, 2016
  3. Gene Policinski, “1st Amendment: Debate over ‘blue collar’ free speech and union dues,” Hays Post, Jan. 18, 2016
  4. George Leef, Free Riders, “The First Amendment, And The ‘Friedrichs‘ Case,” Forbes, Jan. 15, 2016
  5. Kevin Carey, “Academic Freedom Has Limits. Where They Are Isn’t Always Clear,Chronicle of Higher Education, Jan. 15, 2016
  6. Frank Harris, III, “Time We Learned The First Amendment,” Hartford Courant, Jan. 14, 2016
  7. James M. Beck, “Latest First Amendment Off-Label Notes – Has DoJ Finally Come Around?,” Lexology, Jan. 13, 2016
  8. Editorial, “A First Amendment Do-Over,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 10, 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. Paterson, N.J. (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. Paterson, N.J. (see Howard Wasserman SCOTUSblog commentary here)(transcript here)

Review Denied

  1. Miller v. Federal Election Commission
  2. Sun-Times Media, LLC v. Dahlstrom
  3. Rubin v. Padilla
  4. Hines v. Alldredge
  5. Yamada v. Snipes
  6. Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris
  7. Building Industry Association of Washington v. Utter (amicus brief)

Pending Petitions*

  1. Town of Mocksville v. Hunter
  2. Cressman v. Thompson
  3. POM Wonderful, LLC v. FTC (Cato amicus brief) (D.C. Circuit opinion)
  4. Bell v. Itawamba County School Board (see also Adam Liptak story re amicus brief)
  5. Electronic Arts, Inc. v. Davis
  6. American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (relisted)

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 scheduled for Friday, January 22, 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.

NEXT SCHEDULED FAN #95: Wednesday, January 27, 2016

LAST FAN: # 93.1: “Ira Glasser on Free Speech & “Trendy Liberals

LAST SCHEDULED FAN #93: “What’s Wrong with the First Amendment?” — Steve Shiffrin Book Coming This Summer

You may also like...