Eugene Volokh is the Gary T. Schwartz Professor of Law at the UCLA School of Law and co-founder of the Volokh Conspiracy blog, hosted at Reason.
Latest from Eugene Volokh
Speech First, a pro-campus-free-speech advocacy group, can go on with its challenge to UT-Austin's speech codes—and the panel strongly suggests those codes (backed by anonymous reporting to the Campus Climate Response Team) are unconstitutional.
"The Court cannot punish or hold Defendants liable merely for publishing a summary of Plaintiff's disciplinary action and their commentary about that decision."
in government education, employment, and contracting.
A good illustration of a basic principle: Facts are not protected by copyright.
An interesting new case from Wisconsin.
Prof. Steven Lubet (Northwestern Pritzker School of Law) has an excellent analysis.
The court relied on the right to “possess and protect ... reputation,” secured by the Pennsylvania Constitution.
So holds the California Court of Appeal, interpreting the California anti-SLAPP statute.
It's one of the public interest law firms that I admire most.
Sixth Circuit Strikes Down Transportation Agency's Exclusion on "Political" Ads and Ones That "Scorn or Ridicule"
The case involved an anti-Islam ad; the court reversed its earlier decision in favor of the transportation agency, based on two more recent Supreme Court decisions.
Pretty clearly unconstitutional, it seems to me, whether applied to pro-Trump T-shirts (as in a recently-filed lawsuit) or to other such material.
But the Oregon Court of Appeals rightly reverses.
Including from Above The Law, Jonathan Turley, PopeHat, Simple Justice, TechDirt, Reuters, Bloomberg, L.A. Times, Cleveland Plain Dealer, and more.
The Washington Supreme Court overrules a trial court's order requiring the removal of one such statement; but what should the general rule on this be?
Allegedly being "a plain, ill-dressed woman" who "indulges in coquettish vanity"? Oddly enough, not legally actionable.
In 2014, more than half of all California wiretaps (and one sixth of all the wiretaps in the U.S.) were authorized by one judge in Riverside County.
Officer Saqueta Williams had been on the DA's "Do Not Call [to Testify] List" because of alleged assault during an off-duty incident (as to which she was later acquitted)—she alleges the documentary falsely implied that she was on the list because she was "dirty and dishonest."
Remember: Lawyers' true superpower is to turn every question into a question about procedure.
"In nearly all civil and criminal litigation ..., one party asserts that the allegations leveled against it by another party are patently false"; but "if the purported falsity of the complaint's allegations were sufficient to seal an entire case, then the law would recognize a presumption to seal instead of a presumption of openness."
Colorado Coronavirus Response Unconstitutionally Restricted Religious Institutions, Holds Federal Judge
Houses of worship, which the Colorado order labels "critical" institutions, must be treated at least as well as other critical institutions.
over allegedly false fact-checking "charging [Owens] with spreading misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic on the internet in 'an attempt to downplay the severity' of the pandemic."
Plaintiffs allege that Seattle affirmatively supported the Capitol Hill Occupying Protest (rather than just declining to stop it).
"Plaintiff would have his allegations litigated in a star chamber with a jury of ordinary citizens presumably barred from discussing the case after their service in a closed courtroom."
Can't "define and express [your] identity" as your wife's husband, when she choose to identify you as her ex-husband.
Defendant Says He'd Never Try to Have Nonconsensual Sex; Is Accusation from When He Was 15 Admissible in Response?
Bonus fact: The majority opinion was written by a male judge, joined by three female judges (one of them a former sexual assault prosecutor). The dissent was written by a male judge.
Minnesota Order Banning "False or Defamatory Statements" Limited to Knowingly False And Defamatory Statements
So says the Minnesota Court of Appeals, as to a "harassment restraining order."
"[P]laintiff has ... made a sufficient showing that defendant has threatened his academic future in violation of his rights to equal treatment regardless of his sex ...."
A federal judge makes it clear: "the consumption of alcohol at a party does not vitiate journalistic intent"; hard-drinking reporters are as covered by the journalist's privilege as the abstemious. Other journalistic traditions that aren't disqualifying: bias, and bearing grudges.
An attempt to protect litigant privacy meant that binding precedent was vanished from Westlaw.
The results of facial recognition software might not be admissible evidence—but the police are allowed to use them to generate admissible evidence.
"Barrett says she owns a gun, but could fairly judge a case on gun rights" -- why the "but"?
He seems open to materially increasing Internet service and content providers' liability for libels posted by their users, and based on other user misconduct.