FAN 100 (First Amendment News) FIRE Spreads — Group to Launch Online First Amendment Library

UnknownThis post marks the 100th weekly issue of First Amendment News, which began on February 10, 2014. First and foremost, I want to thank our publisher, Dan Solove, who makes all this possible. Dan: it’s been a great ride, so thanks for all your encouragement. Next, I want to thank my FAN readers — liberals, conservatives, libertarians, and the politically & non-politically correct — for your input and continued support.

I try to be a fair broker in what I present and how I do so. Why? Because I  believe that diversity of views is a good thing, even if it includes diverse views about the meaning of the First Amendment itself. After all, to march in lockstep is to give up on the great free-speech experiment that is America’s unique gift to civilization. One more thing: If you agree, and if you also believe in this free-speech principle, it certainly helps to have an open mind.– RKLC


UnknownToday, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) announces a new project—the creation of an online First Amendment library, which will be free to all users. The first phase of the library is scheduled to launch this fall. I am honored to serve as the library’s editor-in-chief. The online library will include, among many other features:

  • A hyperlinked list of all First Amendment opinions handed down by the Supreme Court, with the text of cases hosted on FIRE’s own site,
  • An ever-growing list of historical and related secondary materials, and
  • Users will be able to browse cases by numerous and varied topical categories (e.g. commercial speech) and sub-categories (e.g, lawyer advertising), as well as Court era (e.g., Warren Court, Burger Court, Rehnquist Court & Roberts Court).
The online library will also include many links (organized topically) to federal campus free-speech cases, along with links to new and ongoing litigation.

In some respects, this Project pivots from one I created many years ago for the Newseum’s First Amendment Center, thanks to the energetic support of Paul McMasters and Ken Paulson. Unfortunately, times and people changed and with that the online library came down several years ago. Gladly, FIRE elected to create a new, improved, and expanded version of a First Amendment online library.

Our collective hope is that this First Amendment library will become a valuable, reliable, and resourceful asset to judges, lawyers, professors, and students along with anyone else interested in our First Amendment freedoms.

Greg Lukianoff, FIRE’s President & CEO, issued the following statement concerning the forthcoming library:

We at FIRE are very excited to work with Professor Collins in creating a new, free online First Amendment Library. Where we can take it and what we can do with it is almost limitless, but my grand hope is that it makes the great wisdom contained in First Amendment jurisprudence as accessible to high school students as it is to practicing lawyers. And most of all, we would like to thank the Stanton Foundation for the generous grant that made this new project possible.

 Internship Opening: FIRE will soon be looking for a legal intern to help curate and expand the site’s content. The internship will be open to rising second- and third-year law students, recent law school graduates, and specialists in First Amendment law. Other responsibilities will include helping compile First Amendment cases and other resources to create a model First Amendment course book. Go to FIRE website for more information.

More FIRE: Volokh Video 

(Credit: FIRE -- By Aaron Reese & Chris Maltby)

(Credit: FIRE — By Aaron Reese & Chris Maltby)

Check out this excellent 7:28 video clip of Professor Eugene Volokh speaking on free speech (excerpt below)

“Even you know you’re in the right, and you know you’re opponents are wrong, maybe not just wrong — maybe they genuinely are biogeted — sometimes the experience of talking to them, of debating this with them, will help you better understand you’re own position. . . .”

“Healthy debate at universities requires three things: First, it requires legal protection for speech. If the university can, for example, discipline students for expressing offensive views, that’s very dangerous to free-speech protections. Second, it requires a level of social tolerance. Let’s say, for example, that the university won’t discipline students for expressing certain views, but, say, if you oppose abortion rights, or if you oppose race-based affirmative action, or if you oppose same-sex marriage, and everyone calls you a racist, or sexist, or a bigot, and you start worrying that if even professor stay they’ll treat you fairly — maybe they’re not going to give you letters of recommendation or something like that — that’s also bad for public debate.  A third thing that healthy debate at universities requires is some amount of politeness. [If] people are constantly insulting each other, that’s bad for public debate, too.”

Yet More FIRE: Debate re “Hashtag Activism”

FIRE Debates Are Back! ‘Hashtag Activism’ to Take Center Stage at the University of Pennsylvania.

FIRE is has just announced that the third installment of the FIRE Debates series will take place at the University of Pennsylvania on Wednesday, March 23, at 7:00 p.m. Eastern in the Harrison Auditorium at the Penn Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

Debaters will argue the effectiveness of “hashtag activism.”

Go here for more information.

Court Denies Cert in Public Forum Case — Thomas & Alito Dissent 

On Monday the Supreme Court denied cert. in American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Massachusetts Bay Transportation AuthorityJustice Clarence Thomas (joined by Justice Samuel Alito) wrote a dissenting opinion:

The two issues in the case were:

  1. Whether the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) created a public forum by accepting for display on its property a wide array of controversial political and public-issue ads, including ads that address the same controversial subject matter as petitioners’ pro-Israel ad, and thus violated the First Amendment by rejecting petitioners’ ad based on its content; and
  2. Regardless of the nature of the forum, whether the MBTA’s rejection of petitioners’ advertisement based on an advertising guideline that prohibits ads considered by MBTA officials to be “demeaning and disparaging” was a viewpoint-based restriction of speech in violation of the First Amendment.
Justice Clarence Thomas (Credit: Dennis Brack (Newscom)

Justice Clarence Thomas (Credit: Dennis Brack (Newscom))

In his dissent, Justice Thomas noted that “[d]istinguishing between designated and limited public forums has proved difficult. We have said that whether the government created a designated public forum de- pends on its intent—as evidenced by its ‘policy and practice’ and “the nature of the [government] property and its compatibility with expressive activity.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc. . . . But what this guidance means has bedeviled federal courts. . .”

“In the large portions of this country encompassed by the Second, Sixth, Seventh, and D. C. Circuits,” he added, the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s “ad would likely have met a different fate. In those Circuits, accepting a wide array of political and issue-related ads demonstrates that the government intended to create a designated (rather than limited) public forum because “political advertisements . . . [are] the hallmark of a public forum. . . . In the First and Ninth Circuits, however, transit authorities have far more leeway to restrict speech. . . .”

“I see no sound reason to shy away from this First Amendment case. It raises an important constitutional question on which there is an acknowledged and well- developed division among the Courts of Appeals. One of this Court’s most basic functions is to resolve this kind of question. I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.”

See also Eugene Volokh, “Justices Thomas and Alito urge court to decide First Amendment rules applicable to bus advertising,” The Volokh Conspiracy, March 7, 2016

Eight First Amendment Scholars File Brief re Standing in Privacy Case

Margot Kaminski

Margot Kaminski

“Amici focus  this  brief  on  the  injury-in-fact  element  of standing in First  Amendment challenges  to  privacy  violations. Amici’s employment and titles are listed below for identification purposes only.” Thus begins an amicus brief filed by eight First Amendment legal scholars in the case of Wikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency (4th Cir., 2016). As the district court put it: “plaintiffs, nine organizations that communicate over the Internet, allege that the NSA’s interception, collection, review, and storing of plaintiffs’ Internet communications violates plaintiffs’ rights under the First and Fourth Amendments and exceeds the NSA’s authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (“FISA”). Typical of these challenges to the NSA’s surveillance programs is defendants’ threshold jurisdictional contention that plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert their claims.”  The court ruled that the plaintiffs did indeed lack standing.

The scholars’ counsel is led by Professor Margot E. Kaminski; the other professors are: Marc J. Blitz, A. Michael Froomkin, David Goldberger, James Grimmelmann, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Neil M. Richards, and Katherine Jo Strandburg. The other counsel are: Chelsea J. Crawford and Joshua Treem.

In their brief, Professor Kaminski and her colleagues argue:

  1. “Surveillance Can Cause First Amendment Injury-in-Fact”
  2. “‘Chilling Effects’ are a Recognized Form of First-Amendment Injury”
  3. “Threshold  Standing  Requirements  are  More  Liberally  Interpreted in the First Amendment Context”
  4. “Laird and Amnesty Do Not Overturn Permissive First Amendment Standing Doctrine”

Amicus Brief Calls on SCOTUS to Define “Quid Pro Quo” Corruption 

The case is McDonnell v. United StatesThe issues in it are: (1) Whether “official action” under the controlling fraud statutes is limited to exercising actual governmental power, threatening to exercise such power, or pressuring others to exercise such power, and (2) whether the jury must be so instructed; or, if not so limited, whether the Hobbs Act and honest-services fraud statute are unconstitutional.

On it face it is not a First Amendment case and the Fourth Circuit did not treat it as such when it decided the matter.

Enter James Bopp, Jr. (the noted campaign finance litigator) and the James Madison Center for Free Speech and the amicus brief they filed in the case. In a press release, they stated that they filed an amicus brief in McDonnell in order to urge the Court “to establish a constitutional definition of quid pro quo corruption to ensure campaign discourse remains free and unfettered.”

James Bopp, Jr.

James Bopp, Jr.

This case, they add, “addresses whether two separate federal statutes–the Hobbs Act and the honest-services fraud statute–were violated when former Virginia Governor McDonnell’s wife received lawful gifts and loans in alleged exchange for arranging meetings, making inquiries, and granting access to events. Both statutes, which address bribery and fraud, turn on whether quid pro quo corruption occurred.”

“This same criterion of quid pro quo corruption is the only standard that the United States Supreme Court has upheld to justify campaign finance regulations: laws that are designed to prevent quid pro quo corruption can be upheld.”

“Past Supreme Court precedent has found quid pro quo corruption when there is

  1. an explicit arrangement
  2. for the direct exchange of something of value for
  3. a public official’s improper promise or commitment that is 
  4. contrary to the obligations of his or her office
  5. in an effort to control an official, sovereign act.”

“This five-part definition keeps government investigations properly focused on actual abuses of government power, while protecting public officials who appropriately respond to voters that supported their candidacies and constituents that urge them to act in consistent with the official’s campaign promises or the constituents’ interests.”

Upcoming @ the Newseum: “Free Speech on Campus” Conference

imagesOn April 2, 2016 (9:00 am – 6:00 pm) the Newseum Institute and the Knight Foundation will sponsor a one-day “Free Speech on Campus” conference at the Newseum to discuss the challenges to free expression on college campuses related to conversations about race, ethnicity, class, gender and sexual identity. College students who are interested in free expression issues on campus had until February 28th to apply. Applicants were notified on March 4th if they had been accepted.

The goal of the conference is to gather a representative group of students to explore these issues — a meeting consistent with the First Amendment’s provision for a “marketplace of ideas” within our society. The conference will be the first step in a joint initiative between the Newseum Institute and the Knight Foundation that will explore contemporary free speech and free expression issues on college campuses. Later this year, the Newseum will host a “Free Expression Fair” in Washington, D.C., where students will demonstrate projects that promote free expression on campus. One goal of these programs is to develop a nonpartisan “Guide to Free Speech on Campus” later this year.

Upcoming: Conference on Money & the First Amendment

Jeffrey Rosen

Jeffrey Rosen

When: April 14-16, 2016 (link, here)

Where: The LeRoy Keller Centerfor the Study of the First Amendment, University of Colorado, School of Law

Keynote: Jeffrey Rosen, President & Chief Executive Officer of the National Constitution Center


  1. Tabatha Abu El-Haj, Associate Professor of Law, Drexel University Kline School of Law
  2. Corey L. Brettschneider, Professor of Political Science, Brown University
  3. Adam Bonica, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Stanford University
  4. Conor M. Dowling, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Mississippi
  5. Michael Franz, Associate Professor of Government, Bowdoin College
  6. Richard L. Hasen, Chancellor’s Professor of Law and Political Science, University of California at Irvine School of Law
  7. Michael S. Kang, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
  8. Ryan Pevnick, Associate Professor of Politics, New York University
  9. Douglas M. Spencer, Associate Professor of Law and Public Policy, University of Connecticut School of Law
  10. Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Associate Professor of Law, Stetson University College of Law

Take Note: Forthcoming Book on Zenger Trial

51reZwqP9uL._SX327_BO1,204,203,200_Richard Kluger, Indelible Ink: The Trials of John Peter Zenger and the Birth of America’s Free Press (W. W. Norton & Company, Sept. 13, 2016). Here is an abstract:

“The untold story of the battle to legalize free expression in America by the Pulitzer Prize–winning author of Ashes to Ashes.

“In 1733, struggling printer John Peter Zenger scandalized colonial New York by launching a small newspaper, the New-York Weekly Journal, which assailed the new British governor as corrupt and arrogant—a direct challenge to the prevailing law against ‘seditious libel’ that criminalized any criticism of the royal government. Fronting for a group of powerful antiroyalist politicians, Zenger was thrown in jail for nine months before his landmark oneday trial on August 4, 1735, in a packed courtroom, where he was brilliantly defended by Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton.

In Indelible Ink, Richard Kluger re-creates in rich detail this dramatic clash of powerful antagonists that marked the beginning of press freedom in America and its role in vanquishing colonial tyranny. Here is an enduring lesson that redounds to this day on the vital importance of free public expression as the underpinning of democracy.

New & Notable: Bambauer & Bambauer — Forthcoming Article 

Professors Jane & Derek Bambauer have a new article that is forthcoming in the California Law Review. The article is titled “Information Libertarianism.” Here is the abstract:

Derek Bambauer

Derek Bambauer

“Recent First Amendment precedent is widely attacked as unprincipled: a deregulatory judicial agenda disguised as free speech protection. The scholarly consensus is mistaken. Descriptively, free speech protections scrutinize only information regulation, usefully pushing government to employ more direct regulations with fewer collateral consequences. Even an expansive First Amendment is compatible with the regulatory state, rather than being inherently libertarian. Normatively, courts should be skeptical when the state tries to design socially-beneficial censorship.”

“Recent First Amendment precedent is widely attacked as unprincipled: a deregulatory judicial agenda disguised as free speech protection. The scholarly consensus is mistaken. Descriptively, free speech protections scrutinize only information regulation, usefully pushing government to employ more direct regulations with fewer collateral consequences. Even an expansive First Amendment is compatible with the regulatory state, rather than being inherently libertarian. Normatively, courts should be skeptical when the state tries to design socially-beneficial censorship.”

Prof. Jane Bambauer

Jane Bambauer

“This Article advances a structural theory that complements classic First Amendment rationales, arguing that information libertarianism has virtues that transcend political ideology. Regulating information is peculiarly difficult to do well. Cognitive biases cause regulators to systematically overstate risks of speech and to discount its benefits. Speech is strong in its capacity to change behavior, yet politically weak. It is a popular scapegoat for larger societal problems and an attractive tool for rent-seeking interest groups. Collective action, public choice, and government entrenchment problems arise frequently. First Amendment safeguards provide a vital counterpressure. Information libertarianism encourages government to regulate conduct directly because when the state censors communication, the results are often counterproductive. A robust First Amendment deserves support regardless of ideology.”

More New & Notable: Forthcoming Article on Employer Speech

Helen Norton, “Truth and Lies in the Workplace: Employer Speech and the First Amendment,” Minnesota Law Review (forthcoming 2016). Here is an abstract:

Helen Norton

“Employers’ lies, misrepresentations, and nondisclosures about workers’ legal rights and other working conditions can skew and sometimes even coerce workers’ important life decisions as well as frustrate key workplace protections. Federal, state, and local governments have long sought to address these substantial harms by prohibiting employers from misrepresenting workers’ rights or other working conditions as well as by requiring employers to disclose truthful information about these matters.”

“These governmental efforts, however, are now increasingly vulnerable to constitutional attack in light of the recent antiregulatory turn in First Amendment law, in which corporate and other commercial entities seek — with growing success — to insulate their speech from regulation in various settings. This Article examines this trend’s significant but underexplored implications for the workplace, exploring how First Amendment law now may be changing in ways that undercut the government’s efforts to inform and empower workers by casting doubt on its ability to require truth or prohibit lies in certain contexts. It then considers the circumstances under which we should instead understand the First Amendment to permit the government to require employers to tell the truth about workers’ legal rights and other working conditions.”

“To this end, this Article draws from First Amendment theory and doctrine in other settings in which listeners have less information or power than speakers, and thus where governmental efforts to inform and empower listeners by prohibiting lies and requiring truthful disclosures can improve the communicative discourse. The Article then explains how employer speech similarly occurs within a communicative relationship riddled by information and power asymmetries: employers not only control workers’ economic livelihood but they also know more than workers about the terms and conditions of employment, about industry and economic projections, and — as repeat players with greater resources — about available legal protections.”

“The Article thus urges a First Amendment theory of employer speech that addresses these dynamics by treating workers’ interests as listeners as paramount. Because these interests are frustrated by employers’ lies and nondisclosures, it concludes that the First Amendment should be understood to permit government to require employers to disclose objectively verifiable information about workers’ rights and other working conditions as well as to prohibit employer lies or misrepresentations about these matters that threaten to coerce or manipulate workers’ choices.”

Other Forthcoming Scholarly Articles 

  1. Shubha Ghosh, “Fuck the Draft ®: Notes on the First Amendment and Trademark Law,” SSRN (Feb. 28, 2016)
  2. Daniel L. Chen & Susan Yeh, “How Do Rights Revolutions Occur? Free Speech and the First Amendment,” SSRN (March 1, 2016)
  3. Alexei Gloukhov, “Free Speech in Plato’s Gorgias,” SSRN (Feb. 11, 2016)

Trumping the First Amendment

Donald Trump

                   Donald Trump

  1. M.D. Kittle, “Louis CK: President Donald Trump would ‘decimate the First Amendment,'”, March 7, 2016
  2. Frank Denton, “Why Donald Trump can’t muzzle the press,” Florida Times Union, March 5, 2016
  3. John Diaz, “Trump takes on First Amendment,” S.F. Chronicle, March 4, 2016
  4. Shawn McIntosh, “Freedom of press belongs to all,” Atlanta Journal Constitution, March 4, 2016
  5. Editorial, “Idle threat: Trump should focus on policy, not libel law,” Pittsburgh Post Gazette, March 4, 2016
  6. Bill Cotterell, “Trump’s tirade against press — ludicrous,” News Press, March 4, 2016
  7. Editorial, “In Our Opinion: Threatening media means threatening America,” The Daily Star, March 4, 2016
  8. Editorial, “Trump’s assault on freedom of speech,” Tyler Morning Telegraph, March 3, 2016
  9. Donald Trump: An Affront to Our First Amendment,” Bradbury Sentinel, March 1, 2016 (video clips)
  10. Marc Randazza, “Is the First Amendment safe from Donald Trump?,” CNN, Feb. 28, 2016
  11. Christian Farias, “Donald Trump Wants To Sue The First Amendment. He’ll Lose,” Huffington Post, Feb. 26, 2016

Software Codes, Free Speech, & National Security: The Apple Controversy


 Apple’s Motion Opposing the iPhone Order (see here)

  1. Andrew Crocker, “What We Talk About When We Talk About Apple and Compelled Speech,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 8, 2016
  2. Peter Scheer, “Apple Is Right: The Order Requiring It to Create Code to Defeat iPhone Security Is ‘Coerced Speech’ Forbidden by the First Amendment,” Huffington Post, March 7, 2016
  3. Allison Frankel, “Apple, Justice and the First Amendment,” Reuters, March 4, 2016
  4. Ron Fein & Danny Gifford, “Apple, the FBI, and the Real Meaning of the First Amendment,” The Daily Caller, March 4, 2016
  5. Cory Doctorow, “Why the First Amendment means that the FBI can’t force Apple to write and sign code,” Boing Boing, March 4, 2016
  6. Sen. Feinstein & Rep. Aguilar, “Apple Is Threatening Our National Security,” Time, March 3, 2016
  7. Andrew Crocker & Jamie Williams, “Deep Dive: Why Forcing Apple to Write and Sign Code Violates the First Amendment,” Electronic Frontier Foundation, March 3, 2016 (EFF amicus brief)
  8. Neil Richards, “Apple’s “Code = Speech” Mistake,” MIT Technology Review, March 1, 2016
  9. Laura Sydell, “Apple’s First Amendment Argument,” NPR, Feb. 28, 2016
  10. Here Is Microsoft Founder Bill Gates’ Take on the Apple/FBI Privacy Dispute,” Motley Fool, Feb. 27, 2016
  11. Hayley Tsukayama, “We asked a First Amendment lawyer if Apple’s ‘code is speech’ argument holds water. Here’s what he said,” Washington Post, Feb. 26, 2016
  12. Abigail Tracy, “Here’s Why Apple Says Hacking iPhones Violates Free Speech,” Forbes, Feb. 26, 2016
  13. Steve Lohr, “Analyzing Apple’s Argument That First Amendment Applies to Its Code,” New York Times, Feb. 25, 2016

Notable Blog Posts

  1. Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, “Intelligence Squared debate: Free speech is threatened on campus,” The Volokh Conspiracy, March 4, 2016
  2. Ruthann Robson, “Federal Judge Finds No Constitutional Violation in Denying Permit to “Wandering Dago” Food Truck,” Constitutional Law Prof Blog (March 2, 2016)
  3. Steven Schwinn, “Tenth Circuit Strikes Disclosure Requirements as to Small Scale Issue Organization,” Constitutional Law Prof Blog (March 2, 2016)

News, Op-eds, Blogs, Etc. 

  1. U.S. FDA to allow Amarin to promote fish oil pill for off-label use,” Reuters, March 8, 2016
  2. Amarin Corp plc (AMRN) Reaches Settlement Terms in First Amendment Litigation,” StreetInsider, March 8, 2016
  3. Geoff Pender, “Miss. lawmakers trampling First Amendment,Clarion Ledger, March 5, 2016
  4. Allison Frankel, “Apple, Justice and the First Amendment,” Reuters, March 4, 2016
  5. Ron Fein & Danny Gifford, “Apple, the FBI, and the Real Meaning of the First Amendment,” The Daily Caller, March 4, 2016
  6. Cory Doctorow, “Why the First Amendment means that the FBI can’t force Apple to write and sign code,” Boing Boing, March 4, 2016
  7. Damon Root, “Justice Scalia’s Influence and the First Amendment,” The Federalist, Feb. 29, 2016
  8. Jason Stanley, “The Free-Speech Fallacy,” Chronicle of Higher Education, Feb. 26, 2016

This Day in First Amendment History

 1942: Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

1964: New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

Source: Today in Civil Liberties History

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

Pending Petitions*

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

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 18, 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.

LAST SCHEDULED FAN #99: “Welcome to the Marketplace of Ideologies — Where Ideas go to Die

NEXT SCHEDULED FAN #101: Wednesday, March 16, 2016

You may also like...