Anti-Libel Injunctions and the Criminal Libel Connection
My new article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review late this year -- I'd love to get feedback, while there's still plenty of time to edit it.
My new article, forthcoming in the University of Pennsylvania Law Review late this year -- I'd love to get feedback, while there's still plenty of time to edit it.
It should be of great interest to anyone who follows debates over immigration.
Now out in the Texas Law Review.
Inmate sterilization, a rodent infestation, and the return of dueling dinos.
My testimony addressed the general problem of asset forfeiture, the potential impact of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Timbs v. Indiana, and Arkansas' recent reform law.
An allegedly bogus dossier on plaintiff was sent by defendant to a third party in 2003 -- and then hit the news in 2017. Can plaintiff sue for libel?
That's what Christiane Amanpour asked former FBI Director James Comey.
Political theorist Jacob Levy reminds us that the arc of history doesn't always bend towards justice. Moral retrogression has happened before, and could well occur again.
No such right is clearly established when it comes to booking mugshots, says a federal district court.
An April Fools' joke even less funny than many others.
Another amicus brief on severability and the Affordable Care Act.
A new amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit
Episode 257 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
The court held that plaintiffs' sexual harassment claims (under Title IX) and religious objection claims (under the Illinois RFRA and under the Free Exercise Clause) could go forward, at least for now.
Since I've been blogging today about public rights of access to sealed files, I thought I'd pass this along.
The Court acknowledges that crime victims and their families have important interests in the timely enforcement of capital sentences -- and encourages lower courts to prevent "dilatory" tactics.
This violates the First Amendment and common law rights of access to court records, I think; Paul Alan Levy (Public Citizen) has just filed a motion to intervene and unseal in the matter (Shelby Resorts Corp. v. Does, in New Jersey Superior Court).
Two prominent liberal constitutional law scholars warn against the dangers of court-packing.
The Trump Administration's embrace of an implausible legal theory has few defenders.
"What lower courts and local governments desperately need is not guidance on hypothetical cases that have never arisen. They need guidance on the many cases they're wrestling with today. Lemon doesn't provide that guidance. It makes the problem worse."
A new book explains that denying corporate personhood has been the key to protecting the rights of shareholders
OK, it wasn't just about the dog, but I think its presence (and effect) was likely especially telling ....
Yes, said an Ohio Court of Appeals majority opinion, reasoning that the speaker's past speech "was not engaged in for a legitimate reason, but instead for an illegitimate reason born out of a vendetta seeking to cause mental distress to his mother and sister and to exact personal revenge." No, argue the EFF, Prof. Aaron Caplan, and I in a brief we've just filed with the Ohio Supreme Court.
Islam contains concepts or practices that express religious freedom in a significant way but that fall short of a full and broadly respected human right of religious freedom.
Fortunately, the California Court of Appeal has just reversed the decision, on First Amendment grounds.
Why Hoda Muthana Can't Be Kept Out of the United States
Nineteenth Century Law and Twenty-first Century Cases
In a just-filed brief, the Trump Administration asks Supreme Court to reduce the degree of deference government agencies receive.
Let's look at real Muslim countries.
Episode 252 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
From today's Supreme Court opinion holding that a judge's vote may not be counted in an opinion released two weeks after his death.
If the decision holds up on appeal (which is quite likely), Congress would have to choose between expanding draft registration to women or ending it completely.
The strongest legal argument against Trump's attempt to use emergency powers to build the wall is that declaring an emergency does not authorize him to spend money and condemn property for that purpose. But he also lacks grounds to declare an emergency in the first place.