FAN 153 (First Amendment News) POLICYed & Richard Epstein Bring Free-Speech Lessons to Digital Media

If you watch music videos or wild-animal adventures on YouTube, you may come upon a public-service announcement by, yes, Professor Richard Epstein. Well, sort of — he’s the brain power behind an animated and podcast series on free speech.

The series is titled Intellections: Activate Your Thinking and contains videos on a range of topics from rent control to health-care insurance to free speech and beyond. Intellections is part of POLICYed, which is funded by the Hoover Institution located on the campus of Stanford University.

Below are three animated videos for which Professor Epstein helped prepare the content:

  1. Should Speech that Offends be Prohibited? (transcript here)
  2. Who Can Restrict Free Speech? (transcript here)
  3. The Limits of Free Speech? (transcript here)

Related Podcasts

  1. The Libertarian: “Yale, Safe Spaces, And Free Speech” (Troy Senik interviewing Richard Epstein)
  2. Mob Censorship on Campus (Troy Senik interviewing Richard Epstein)
  3. The Libertarian: Free Speech on College Campuses (Troy Senik interviewing Richard Epstein)

Fourth Circuit: Wikimedia Has Standing to Challenge NSA Surveillance Program

The case is Wikimedia Foundation, et al v. National Security Agency, et al (4th Cir., May 23, 2017).

Judge Albert Diaz

Plaintiffs Claims: “Plaintiffs—educational, legal, human rights, and media organizations—filed their first amended complaint wherein they ask for, among other things, a declaration that Upstream surveillance violates the First and Fourth Amendments, an order permanently enjoining the NSA from conducting Upstream surveillance, and an order directing the NSA ‘to purge all records of Plaintiffs’ communications in their possession obtained pursuant to Upstream surveillance.'”

Summary from the court: “The Wikimedia Foundation and eight other organizations appeal the dismissal of their complaint challenging Upstream surveillance, an electronic surveillance program operated by the National Security Agency (the “NSA”). The district court, relying on the discussion of speculative injury from Clapper v. Amnesty International USA (2013), held that the allegations in the complaint were too speculative to establish Article III standing. We conclude that Clapper’s analysis of speculative injury does not control this case, since the central allegations here are not speculative. Accordingly, as for Wikimedia, we vacate and remand because it makes allegations sufficient to survive a facial challenge to standing. As for the other Plaintiffs, we affirm because the complaint does not contain enough well-pleaded facts entitled to the presumption of truth to establish their standing.”

Judge Albert Diaz wrote the majority opinion, in which Judge Motz joined and in which Senior Judge Davis joined in part. Judge Davis wrote a separate opinion dissenting in part.

Majority Opinion: Article III Standing: “[T]he Wikimedia Allegation is that the NSA is intercepting, copying, and reviewing at least some of Wikimedia’s communications in the course of Upstream surveillance, ‘even if the NSA conducts Upstream surveillance on only a single [I]nternet backbone link.’ We conclude that this allegation satisfies the three elements of Article III standing.”

“. . . because Wikimedia has self-censored its speech and sometimes forgone electronic communications in response to Upstream surveillance, it also has standing to sue for a violation of the First Amendment.”

Judge Andre Davis

Judge Andre Davis, concurring in part and dissenting in part: “I agree with the holding that Wikimedia has standing to challenge the NSA’s surveillance of its internet communications. However, because I would find that the non-Wikimedia Plaintiffs also have standing, I respectfully dissent in part.”

→ Counsel for AppellantsPatrick Christopher Toomey, ACLU Foundation, New York

→ Counsel for AppelleesCatherine H. Dorsey, United States Department of Justice

Amicus briefWikimedia Foundation v. National Security Agency (4th Cir., 2016) (Chelsea J. Crawford, Joshua Treem, Margot E. Kaminski, Marc J. Blitz, A. Michael Froomkin, David Goldberger, James Grimmelmann, Lyrissa Barnett Lidsky, Neil M. Richards, & Katherine Jo Strandburg)

Court Summarily Affirms “Soft Money” Case: Hasen’s Commentary 

Re: Republican Party of Louisiana, et al. v. FEC

This from Professor Rick Hasen over at the Election Law Blog: “This is a surprise to me. Because this case came up on appeal from a three judge court, I thought it was pretty likely the Court would take the case. A decision to affirm means the lower court got it right on the bottom line, even if the reasoning was incorrect.”

Prof. Richard Hasen (credit: Daily Gazette, Swarthmore)

“If my count is correct, this is Jim Bopp’s fourth attempt to get the Court to hear a soft money case to overturn one of the two main pillars of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (the Court overturned the other in Citizens United.) In one of those earlier attempts, Justices Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas dissented from the Court’s refusal to hear the case.  And the Chief Justice has said that he feels an obligation to take appeals that come up through three judge courts. And we know that Justice Gorsuch expressed skepticism of campaign finance laws when he was a Tenth Circuit judge.”

“So what explains the Court refusing to take a case which could have been used to further deregulate campaign financing, by extending the narrow views of corruption and strong reading of the First Amendment that the Supreme Court put forward in Citizens United and McCutcheon? And why did it take only one Court conference to reach this conclusion, when the Court has been taking so long with many other cases (in part as J. Gorsuch got up to speed on the Court’s cases)?”

“This suggests to me that the Court has really no appetite to get back into this area right now—perhaps they want to save their capital in ruling on other high profile cases coming down the line. Perhaps there was something about Bopp’s petition that made the Court believe the issue of overturning the Supreme Court’s decision in McConnell v. FEC (upholding the soft money ban) not properly presented to it.”

“This also tells us something about Justice Gorsuch. He was not shy at all — not only about being willing to wade into this very controversial area, but about announcing publicly his vote to hear the case (something he did not need to do). It could well be that he will be as conservative as Justice Thomas is in these cases. (Justice Thomas believes all campaign finance laws—including disclosure—should be subject to strict scrutiny and are likely unconstitutional.) I expect that unlike most Justices J. Gorsuch may not begin his first few terms cautiously, and then work his way up to his full Supreme Court voice.”

“And that does this mean for campaign finance law? In one sense, this is a victory for campaign finance reformers, because the soft money ban lives for another day. This also means that the Court does not use this case as an opportunity to call other campaign contribution limits into question–so that’s a good thing from reformers’ point of view.”

“On the other hand, we now have a situation where political parties (especially state and local political parties, the subject of Bopp’s petition) are limited in what they can do, while Super PACs and non-disclosing 501c4s can operate without limit, and in the case of c4s, without adequate disclosure. This further weakens the political parties, which many political scientists and election law scholars leads to further polarization and political dysfunction.”

“Perhaps there would be room for some bipartisan reform in this area, if Mitch McConnell were not so difficult here. How about a trade?  Loosen the limits on party fundraising, and in exchange provide for greater campaign finance disclosure by all major players in elections, whether or not they choose to register as a c4.  I doubt McConnell would go for the trade but it would be a good deal all around.”

CJR Headline: “Joe Lieberman Atop FBI Would be a First Amendment Disaster”

Trevor Timm

Over at the Columbia Journalism Review, Trevor Timm writes:

“Former Senator Joe Lieberman is reportedly President Trump’s leading choice to replace the recently-fired James Comey as FBI director. If you’re a person who values free speech and press freedom rights, it’s hard to imagine a worse pick for FBI director than Lieberman.”

“It was only a week ago we learned that Trump allegedly urged Comey in a private meeting to prosecute reporters for publishing classified information. So one of the most vital issues for any confirmation hearing will be whether the next FBI director will respect journalists’ right to report on the government. You don’t have to look far to understand how dangerous an FBI Director Lieberman would be to the journalism profession.”

Joe Lieberman (credit: Politico)

“In 2010, when WikiLeaks, in conjunction with The New York Times, The Guardian, and other papers, started publishing secret State Department cables, then-Senator Lieberman was Congress’s leading advocate for prosecuting the publishers of the cables—First Amendment be damned. At the time, he loudly called for the prosecution of WikiLeaks, saying, “I don’t understand why that hasn’t happened yet. … I think it’s the most serious violation of the Espionage Act in our history, and the consequences globally that have occurred.”

“As for The New York Times, he said they also should be investigated and suggested they should be prosecuted. ‘To me,’ he said, ‘New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship. And whether they’ve committed a crime, I think that bears very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department,” adding it’s “a serious legal question that has to be answered.'”

“While Lieberman didn’t get his wish, he did use his power as a member of Congress to pressure Amazon to stop hosting WikiLeaks on its servers. After Amazon complied, Lieberman went on television and called for other US companies to do the same. Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal followed suit, financially censoring WikiLeaks despite no court proceeding or official government action of any kind against WikiLeaks.”

“Still not fully satisfied, Lieberman wrote leak legislation that would have criminalized publishing certain information regarding human sources of intelligence of US agencies. As Wired made clear at the time, ‘Leaking such information in the first place is already a crime, so the measure is aimed squarely at publishers.’ . . . .”

Headline: “Blumenthal to U.S. Attorney General: protect the press’ First Amendment rights”

Over at News Times, Rob Ryser writes: “U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal on Monday asked U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to protect the free press, calling the exercise of its First Amendments rights a hallmark of democracy.”

Senator Blumenthal (credit: CT Mirror)

“‘I write with great concern regarding a recent report in the New York Times alleging that President Trump suggested to former F.B.I. Director James Comey that he should consider jailing journalists for publishing classified information,’ Blumenthal wrote to Sessions in a letter on Monday. ‘This account is among several recent reports of statements attacking and undermining the media.'”

“Blumenthal, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, wrote he was concerned about ‘a barrage of baseless attempts by the President and members of his administration to discredit the media and to deter accurate press coverage of the administration’s actions and policies.'”

“‘At this extraordinary moment in our history, the press is simply serving – as it has done since our nation’s founding – to uncover and report vital information, expose wrongdoing, and hold officials accountable.” Blumenthal wrote. “Fear of autocratic censorship led to the First Amendment, which broad, general threats of criminal prosecution violate in spirit if not in law.'”

“Blumenthal asked Sessions to uphold current Department of Justice guidelines, which bar legal action against reporters except under special circumstances that are important to an investigation.”

Video: Allen v. City of Arcata (9th Cir.)

Plaintiff Gregory P. Allen has sued the City of Arcata and two of its public officials (together “Arcata”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly violating his First Amendment rights. The gist of the complaint is that Arcata put up impediments to the observance of “420” day, the celebration of “cannabis culture” observed by some on April 20th, in the city’s Redwood Park.

  • District Court opinion here
  • video of 9th Circuit arguments here (May 16, 2017)

Delaware ACLU Sues Town Over Sign Ordinance

Penny Nickerson (credit: Delawareonline)

This from Mindy Bogue writing on the Delaware ACLU website: The American Civil Liberties Union of Delaware has filed suit against the Town of Milton on behalf of a homeowner who was forced to remove several signs reflecting her views on issues of national importance from her front yard. The suit claims that the Milton Town Code violates the free speech provision of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 5 of the Delaware Constitution.

Following the 2016 presidential election, Penny Nickerson, a school teacher who owns a home in Milton, posted four signs on her property with messages such as “Love Trumps Hate” and “Women’s Rights = Human Rights.” In mid-February, she was advised by Milton’s code enforcement officer that the signs were in violation of the town code because they were considered to be political.

Ms. Nickerson complied with the code enforcement officer’s request and agreed to temporarily remove the signs. She also asked for a meeting with Town of Milton representatives to explain why the code and its enforcement violated her constitutional right to free speech. The meeting was denied. Nickerson received two letters from the town attorney stating that her signs were not protected by the First Amendment and that she could receive a violation and be fined if she were to repost the signs. So, she turned to the ACLU for assistance.

ACLU lawyer Richard Morse

“Milton cannot restrict the message on a sign because someone made an arbitrary decision that the message is “political,” said Kathleen MacRae, ACLU of Delaware executive director. “The right to speak freely is most important in controversial and turbulent times. Ms. Nickerson has as much right to put a sign on her lawn saying “Love Trumps Hate” as she does to put up a sign that says “House for Sale.”

The Town of Milton code permits many types of messages to be displayed on private property year-round, including church and non-profit messages, professional announcements and advertisements, and real estate and contractor signs. Signs considered by the town to be political are only allowed to be displayed 90 days before and 14 days after a contested election or referendum.

→ Counsel for Plaintiff: Richard H. Morse

Professor Eugene Volokh

So to Speak Podcast: Eugene Volokh & the New Frontiers in First Amendment Law

Where are the new frontiers in First Amendment law? Where do scholars and the courts see the potential for expanding First Amendment protections in the future? What technological developments pose challenges to existing First Amendment protections?

The first part of the interview is biographical and includes a few comments by Professor Volokh on his former boss, Judge Alex Kozinski.

The interview then continues with a discussion of Packingham v. North Carolina in which Volokh filed an amicus brief at the cert. stage. 

The issue in Packingham is whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

Go here to hear Nico Perrino interviewing Professor Volokh on Packingham and other First Amendment matters. It’s well worth the time!

First Amendment Attorney to Receive First Meskis Free-Speech Award

Over at the American Booksellers Association’s website, Chris Finan writes:

“The American Booksellers Association has created a new award to honor those who have provided extraordinary service in defense of the First Amendment rights of booksellers and their customers. The Joyce Meskis Free Speech Award, which is named for the owner of Denver’s Tattered Cover Book Store, will be presented to Michael A. Bamberger, the general counsel of Media Coalition, on May 31 during the Celebration of Bookselling and Author Awards Lunch at BookExpo.”

Michael Bamberger

“Bamberger has represented more than 40 bookstores in two dozen lawsuits challenging censorship laws since 1977, when he joined Media Coalition, which defends the First Amendment rights of businesses that produce and distribute books, magazines, movies, videos, recordings, and video games. He is senior counsel in the New York office of the law firm Dentons.”

“One of his most significant cases was a 1985 challenge to an Indianapolis ordinance that would have forced bookstores to pay damages to victims of sexual assaults who were allegedly harmed by the sale of books or magazines with sexual content. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which upheld lower court rulings that the law was unconstitutional.”

“In the 1980s and 1990s, Bamberger successfully challenged dozens of state statutes that banned the display in bookstores and on bookstore websites of constitutionally protected material that is “harmful to minors.”

“In his most recent case, he represented five Arizona booksellers who sued over a state law that purportedly banned the sale of “revenge porn,” which would have made it illegal to sell any book with a nude image unless the person depicted had granted permission, including books with historical images. The law was struck down as unconstitutional, and the state decided not to appeal.”

“In addition to filing lawsuits, Bamberger has written friend-of-the-court briefs in significant First Amendment cases affecting booksellers, including many that reached the Supreme Court.”

“Meskis said she is delighted that Bamberger is receiving an award. ‘Michael Bamberger has been a true and steady protector of the First Amendment, a stalwart colleague and wise counselor to booksellers across the nation in his many years of service to the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, ABA, and its member stores,’ she said.

“ABA CEO Oren Teicher said it was easy to name the new free speech award. ‘It is entirely appropriate that the award should be named after Joyce, who has spent her entire career fighting for free speech,’ he said.

“ABA recently posted a video of Meskis discussing some of her battles on behalf of free speech and the First Amendment, including her victory in suppressing a search warrant seeking information about the books purchased by a Tattered Cover customer.”

Accepting Applications for Eugene S. Pulliam First Amendment Award

Eugene Pullman (1914-1999)

The Sigma Delta Chi Foundation has announced the Eugene S. Pulliam First Amendment Award to honor a person or persons who have fought to protect and preserve one or more of the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Annually at the Society of Professional Journalists National Convention, the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation will honor an individual, group of individuals or organization with a $10,000 cash award and an engraved crystal. The honoree(s) also will receive transportation (airfare and two-night hotel stay) to the national convention. (Additional travel costs are the responsibility of the award recipient).

Deadline: June 22, 2017

Eligibility Criteria

  • Nominations are open to any person, persons or organization in the U.S. or its territories who have worked to protect the basic rights provided by the First Amendment.
  • Honorees do not have to be journalists. In fact, the Foundation encourages recognition of those outside the journalism profession for their First Amendment efforts and initiatives, such as, but not limited to, public officials, members of the legal profession, scholars, educators, librarians, students and ordinary citizens.

Nominations

  • Nominations for the annual award may be made by anyone, inside or outside of the journalism profession.
  • Nominations should include:
    • Completed entry form
    • Three signed letters of nomination or one letter endorsed by three individuals or organizations.
    • Nomination letter should detail the specific efforts taken on behalf of the protection of First Amendment rights; obstacles and difficulties encountered; and impact made as a result of those efforts how they have contributed to the protection of the First Amendment.
    • Supporting materials may consist of published or broadcast materials, documentation of service or lifetime achievement or any appropriate materials.
    • Entries become the property of the Sigma Delta Chi Foundation. They may be republished for general distribution or used to publicize the award.
    • There is no entry fee.

Eugene Smith Pulliam (September 7, 1914 – January 20, 1999) was the publisher of the Indianapolis Star and the Indianapolis News from 1975 until his death.

How to Apply

  • Nominations should be submitted as PDF documents. If applicant have Word documents to submit, save them as PDFs before uploading them using the nomination form given in the website.
  • Please include the following:
    • Entry Form
    • Nomination Letter(s)
    • Supporting Materials

Eligible Country: United States

For more information, please visit Eugene S. Pulliam First Amendment Award.

New & Forthcoming Books

  1. David L. Hudson Jr., Freedom of Speech: Documents Decoded (ABC-CLIO, May 5, 2017)
  2.  Gavan Titley & Des Freedman, et al, editors, After Charlie Hebdo: Terror, Racism and Free Speech (Zed Books, November 15, 2017)

New & Forthcoming Scholarly Articles 

“The ever-expanding Free Speech Clause has made possible claims that would have been unthinkable until recently. This symposium Essay examines the compelled speech claims of two hypothetical county clerks who believe that marriage should be limited to unions between one man and one woman, and who argue that forcing them to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples compels them speak in favor of same-sex marriage in violation of the Free Speech Clause.”

Prof. Caroline Mala Corbin

“When a government employee such as a county clerk speaks, she may not be speaking as just a private individual. She may also be speaking as the government. This governmental component affects each side of the speech versus equality analysis. First, the Free Speech Clause interests in speech are weaker (sometimes to the point of extinguishment) when the speech is not purely private. Second, to the extent the government employee’s conduct is the government’s, then it amounts to state action, and the Equal Protection Clause is triggered.”

“Part I addresses the free speech claims of a county clerk who is terminated after she informs a same-sex couple that by reason of her beliefs, she cannot grant them a marriage license. The outcome here is straightforward: she loses. Because her refusal will be treated as the government’s own, her individual free speech interests are at their lowest while the government’s equal protection interests are at their highest. Part II addresses the free speech claims of a clerk who has found a coworker willing to cover for her, but her supervisor declines to accommodate her and instead fires her for refusing to do her job. The analysis here is more complicated, as it raises questions about expressive conduct, official duties, and expressive harms.”

Additional Articles by Other Authors 

  1. Matthew G. Sipe, The Sherman Act and Avoiding Void-for-Vagueness, SSRN (May 16, 2017)
  2. Eric M. Ruben, Justifying Perceptions in First and Second Amendment Doctrine, Law and Contemporary Problems (2017)
  3. Allison J. Luzwick, Human Trafficking and Pornography: Using the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to Prosecute Trafficking for the Production of Internet Pornography, Northwestern University Law Review Online (2017)
  4. Michael Kagan, The Public Defender’s Pin: Untangling Free Speech Regulation in the Courtroom, Northwestern University Law Review Online (2017)

New & Notable Volokh Posts

  1. Eugene Volokh, When you can legally have sex with a 17-year-old, can you be prosecuted for possessing lewd nude photos of her?, The Volokh Conspiracy, May 22, 2017
  2. Eugene Volokh, Technically critiquing traffic-light policy without an engineering license => $500 fine (and prospect of more)The Volokh Conspiracy, May 22, 2017
  3. Eugene Volokh, Naked TSA Checkpoint Guy loses First Amendment challenge to $500 Fine,  The Volokh Conspiracy, May 19, 2017

Book Review & Excerpts from Floyd Abrams’ Latest Book 

Excerpts 

MediaShift Podcast #233: Facebook Falls Short on Fake News, Boosts Local News; Floyd Abrams on ‘Soul of the First Amendment,’ MediaShift, May 19, 2017

News, Editorials, Op-eds & Blog Posts

  1. Editorial, Attacking the First Amendment with mask bill is wrong and a waste of legislators’ time, Seattle Times, May 23, 2017
  2. ACLU sues South Carolina jail, saying its inmate visitation policy violates the First Amendment, The Post & Courier, May 23, 2017 (Associated Press)
  3. Phaedra Haywood, Taos citizens protected by First Amendment in recall push, high court rules, Santa Fe New Mexican, May 23, 2017
  4. Ian Millhiser, Neil Gorsuch can’t wait to get his hands on America’s campaign finance laws, Think Progress, May 22, 2017
  5. Harry Blain, Left needs to re-embrace First Amendment, ZNet, May 16, 2017

YouTube

  1. FCC Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, The Media Institute (May 11, 2017)
  2. Justice Stephen Breyer: Guarding Liberty and Free Speech (see also here &  here)
  3. Debate on The First Ammendment and Free Speech in Louisiana (re free speech on college campuses)

Today in First Amendment History

The Court’s 2016-2017 First Amendment Free Expression Docket

Opinions Rendered 

  1. Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (opinion here)

Cert. Granted

  1.  Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman (transcript here)
  2. Lee v. Tam (transcript here)
  3. Packingham v. North Carolina (transcript here)

Pending Appeals & Petitions & Related Cases*

  1. Garcia v. Bloomberg
  2. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission  (SCOTUSblog commentary) (“For the ninth conference in a row, the justices did not act on the petition for review in Masterpiece, a Colorado baker’s challenge to the state’s public accommodations law.”)

Summary Disposition

  1. Republican Party of Louisiana, et al. v. FEC (affirmed) (Justices Thomas & Gorsuch would note probable jurisdiction and set the case fororal argument)
  2. Independence Institute v. FEC (affirmed)

Cert. Denied

  1. Mulligan v. Nichols
  2. Alabama Democratic Conference v. Marshall
  3. Augsburg Confession
  4. Keefe v. Adams
  5. Scott v. Georgia
  6. Bondi v. Dana’s Railroad Supply
  7. Bennie v. Munn
  8. Flytenow v. Federal Aviation Administration
  9. Armstrong v. Thompson
  10. Wolfson v. Concannon
  11. Dart v. Backpage.com
  12. NCAA v. O’Bannon
  13. Mech v. School Board of Palm Beach County
  14. Williams v. Coalition for Secular Government 
  15. Pro-Football v. Blackhorse 

First Amendment Religious Expression Case: Cert. Denied

Melhorn v. Baltimore Washington Conference of United Methodist Church (Whether the ministerial exception of the First Amendment absolutely bars breach of contract and tortious conduct lawsuits in situations of illegal conduct or harm to third parties.)

Free Speech Related Cases: Review denied 

  • Doe v. Backpage.com LLC (Whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which provides that no internet service provider “shall be treated as the publisher or speaker” of internet content that was “provided by another,” precludes a civil lawsuit against a website owner and operator based on its own criminal conduct any time online content created by a third party was part of the chain of causation leading to the plaintiff’s injuries.)

First Amendment Religious Expression Case: Review Denied 

  • Pfeil v. St. Matthews Evangelical Lutheran Church of the Unaltered (Whether the First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides absolute immunity for defamatory statements made in a religious setting, even if the person defamed is not a member of the religious organization and even if the truth or falsity of the defamatory statement can be adjudicated without considering or interpreting religious doctrine — applicability of the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine)

Speech & Debate Clause: Pending

  • Menendez v. United States (Whether a court may consider a legislator’s motive for performing an act when deciding whether the act is protected by the speech or debate clause).

Freedom of Information Act Petition: Pending  

 The Court’s next Conference is on May 25, 2017.

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, #154: May 31 2017

Last Scheduled FAN, # 152: Gilbert Roe — Free Speech Lawyer is Subject of Forthcoming Book 

You may also like...