Delegation of Police Power to Religiously Affiliated Universities
The Supreme Court of North Carolina held this month that the arrest of a drunk driver by a police officer […]
The Supreme Court of North Carolina held this month that the arrest of a drunk driver by a police officer […]
As a legal matter, the ruling is in keeping with courts’ increasingly deferential interpretations of the standards governing school regulation of student speech. Perhaps more so than other recent school speech cases, however, it helps illustrate one of the most problematic aspects of the Supreme Court’s dominant Tinker framework—the possibility that schools can engage in viewpoint discrimination or allow a “heckler’s veto” by suppressing unpopular viewpoints to avoid unpleasantness.
On November 15th, New York Supreme Court Judge Michael D. Stallman denied an application by Occupy Wall Street protesters for a temporary restraining order preventing police from removing them from Zuccotti Park in lower Manhattan. Judge Stallman found that the First Amendment does not extend to the protesters’ practice of camping in the park overnight.
You know oral argument isn’t going well when a justice of the Court asks you to defend your decision not
In October, the Nebraska State Democratic Party ran this advertisement. Seemingly innocuous, it closes with Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson registering
Turnaround for Children, a New York-based nonprofit, has been partnering directly with high-poverty schools and districts to transform the physical and emotional environments in which children spend the school day.
Judge Leon’s ruling reflects a legitimate doctrinal concern: even for a particularly disfavored type of commercial speech such as cigarette advertising, there are limits on the extent to which companies can be forced to serve as a conduit for government speech unrelated to the truth of their advertising and completely inimical to their own commercial interests.
This past Monday, Fourth Amendment watchers began gathering at the Supreme Court on the eve of oral argument in United
Members of the Supreme Court seemed skeptical last Wednesday when asked to establish a new constitutional rule prohibiting the use
Arizona was back in the news last week with Governor Jan Brewer’s highly controversial move removing the chairwoman of the state’s “independent” redistricting committee. Seeing the process now corrupted by an ideologically aligned governor and legislature, what can the voters in Arizona to make the process more independent and more immune from partisan influence?
Whatever their excesses or ideological inconsistencies, they have clearly tapped into a widely felt discontent whose strength is manifested not so much by verbal communication as by the act of gathering together and providing a visible demonstration of solidarity and demographic strength. A stronger conception of the freedom of assembly would capture, better than courts’ current doctrine, the unique benefits which such a movement can bring to the process of American self-government.