The policy -- here, applied to someone passing out religious valentines -- also bans "signs ... with offensive content," and more generally limits even nonoffensive signs and leafleting to a narrow "free speech zone."
An important new book by my colleague Justin Driver, which should be of interest of all who follow constitutional law
A great set of colloquies on originalism, the Federalist, and human imperfection.
He's right that Congress has delegated too much power, but wrong about the reason, which is not that Congress is afraid to legislate but that it legislates too much.
No great surprises so far. But some notable points nonetheless.
Background on Senator Leahy's line of questioning about allegedly stolen e-mails and documents from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
An arbitrator held that this wasn't "just cause" required for firing under the tenure contract; last week, a Pennsylvania appellate court declined to set aside the arbitrator's decision.
My Spanish blasphemy post reminded that I've been meaning to blog about the Indonesian decision, handed down last month.
"The Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers has announced that it is also planning to ask the judge to consider investigating Toledo for hate crimes after he said during a television interview that if people were shot for their religious beliefs and Catholic churches burned during the Spanish Civil War, it was because they 'must have done something."'
Three Incidents Last Week Demonstrate the Problem
Claims that Kavanaugh is outside the legal "mainstream" are misguided, and mostly just reflect growing partisan polarization over legal issues. The real danger is not that we will have non-mainstream Supreme Court justices, but that some mainstream ideas are badly wrong.
A new book you might like about Stoic philosophy.
I hope the hearing gets more serious. So far the hooting and hollering from the audience have been embarrassing for the Democrats.
Another bad legal development for the Kansas Secretary of State and Gubernatorial hopeful.
A good example of a court properly protecting the public right of access to court records.
Did the Senate confirm the judicial nominees of other Presidents under a cloud of scandal?
The Post has a symposium in which a a variety of legal commentators (myself included) discuss what they consider to be Judge Kavanaugh's most important opinions.
In a concurring opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Don Willett expresses concern about the " kudzu-like creep of the modern immunity regime."
Oregon is one of a handful states that bans age discrimination against 18-to-20-year-olds by places of public accommodation.
Drop drippers, solitary confinement, and hawks v. eagles.
"While not a criminal matter, an order of protection exposes a respondent to an array of restrictions, including severe limitations on his or her Second Amendment rights. A respondent deserves a meaningful due process opportunity to present his or her case."
The rule would have banned, among other things, "harmful verbal ... conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others" "on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law," including "in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law."
Legal scholars are often accused of claiming that the Constitution fits their political views. Here are several important issues where it doesn't fit mine.
The Constitution embodies many values; I'm skeptical that any one of them is "the central" one.
An interesting Arizona Supreme Court Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee opinion.
One Brown University researcher thinks "maybe not" and got thrown under the bus for it by the university.
Tracy Zona was ordered to "remove forthwith, all references to petitioner the family and legal representatives and make no further posting in re of any kind"; she was then ordered to spend five days in jail unless she removed the posts (which she did).
Efforts on both right and left to make the democracy-promotion the key focus of constitutional law should be rejected.
An illustration, it seems, of how badly statistics can go wrong (and of the principle "Garbage In, Garbage Out").
But would the First Amendment allow Congress to regulate search results?
The upside greatly outweighs any downside
A new study suggests that trigger warnings may actually increase student vulnerability to offensive or troubling material.
The ruling is notable in underscoring how the Supreme Court's sports-betting decision in Murphy v. NCAA helps sanctuary cities.
Intellectual creatures, abashed racism, and so, so much self- defecation.
House Republicans seeking to impeach Rod Rosenstein embarrass themselves.
The eminent domain reform bill is the same legislation that has passed the House three previous times since 2005. Each time, it died in the Senate without ever coming to a vote.
A follow-up to the May federal court decision holding that the school district's actions violated the First Amendment.
Yet the order (narrowed on appeal to 50 feet, but still unconstitutional) seems to have been based on pretty normal -- if acrimonious -- local political debate. We're asking the Ohio Supreme Court to review the decision upholding it.
Political conflict over judicial confirmations may be harmful for the courts.
Metcalf v. United States gives the Supreme Court the opportunity to decide.
