FAN 194.11 (First Amendment News) Michael Seidman responds to his critics

Professor Louis Michael Seidman

Their comments have made me think hard about my position, and – at least for me — thinking takes time. — Michael Seidman 

The online dialogue reaches its apex with Professor Michael Seidman’s much awaited rejoinder to the five responses to his essay “Can Free Speech be Progressive?, forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review.

FAN has had the privilege of partnering with Stephen Solomon and Tatiana Serafin over at First Amendment Watch and I hope to do more of the same in the coming months.

Special thanks to Mike Seidman for being such a good sport in agreeing to participate in this online examination of his essay. And, fianlly, thanks to my four colleagues, listed below, for their contributions to this symposium..

Previous Responses 

_____________________

Six News Items

Forthcoming

On Thursday, July 5th, FAN will post Wendy Kaminer’s latest reply to David Cole re the ACLU free speech controversy.

_____________________

2017-2018 Term: First Amendment Free Expression Cases

Five Cases Decided with Opinions* 

  1. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
  2. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida
  3. Minnesota Voters Alliance
  4. Janus v. American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees
  5. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra

*   Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (First Amendment Free Exercise holding)

*   Benisek v. Lamone (Because the balance of equities and the public interest tilt against the preliminary injunction motion of plaintiffs claiming that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.)

Harris v. Cooper (affirmed, without any written comment)

Vacated & Remanded 

  1.  A Woman’s Friend Pregnancy Resource Clinic v. Becerra (vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra)
  2. Livingwell Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Becerra (vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra)

Cert. Granted & Cases Argued 

  1. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (argument: Dec. 5, 2017)
  2. Janus v. American Federation of State, Municipal and County Employees(argument: Feb. 26, 2018)
  3. Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, Florida (argument: Feb. 27, 2018)
  4. Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (argument: Feb. 28, 2018)
  5. National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra (argument: March 20, 2018)
  6. Benisek v. Lamone (argument: March 27, 2018)

Pending: Cert. Petitions 

  1. Nieves v. Bartlett
  2. Flanigan’s Enterprises, Inc. v. City of Sandy Springs
  3. Nationwide Biweekly Administration, Inc., et al v. Perez
  4. CTIA v. City of Berkeley 
  5. Berninger v. Federal Communications Commission

Review Denied

  1. Contest Promotions, LLC., v. City & County of San Francisco
  2. Holmes v. Federal Election Commission
  3. Walker v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ. et al.
  4. Shepard v. Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission 
  5. Morris v. Texas(dismissed for want of jurisdiction)
  6. Connecticut v. Baccala
  7. Tobinick v. Novella
  8. Muccio v. Minnesota
  9. Elonis v. United States
  10. Final Exit Network, Inc. v. Minnesota

Free-Speech Related Case: Decided 

  • Carpenter v. United States (Whether the warrantless seizure and search of historical cell phone records revealing the location and movements of a cellphone user over the course of 127 days are permitted by the Fourth Amendment. — Fourth Amendment claim sustained).

Free-Speech Related Cases: Cert. Denied

  • Blagojevich v. United States (When the Government prosecutes a public official for soliciting campaign contributions in alleged violation of the Hobbs Act or other federal anti-corruption laws, must the Government prove the defendant made an “explicit promise or undertaking” in exchange for the contribution, McCormick v. United States(1991) (emphasis added), as five circuits require, or “only . . . that a public official has obtained a payment . . . knowing that [it] was made in return for official acts,” Evans v. United States (1992), as three other circuits hold?)
  • MasTec Advanced Technologies v. National Labor Relations Board ((1) Whether, under NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (Jefferson Standard), an employer may discharge an employee for his or her disloyalty when that employee makes disparaging and disloyal public statements about the employer’s only customer; and (2) whether, in such cases, the employee’s disloyalty is measured under an objective or subjective standard.)

You may also like...

1 Response

  1. Brett Bellmore says:

    One scary guy. You read his writings, and can understand why the left keep ending up with gulags and secret police. He really does think that liberties only have instrumental value, and only insofar as they advance the cause.