U. Miami Will Cover Security Costs of Student-Organized Charles Murray Debate on Free Speech
Very glad to see that there won't be a heckler's tax on the student group's invitation.
Very glad to see that there won't be a heckler's tax on the student group's invitation.
But you might lose it if you make even a small amount of money for posting (e.g., get advertising revenue from your blog).
Leading legal scholars on opposite sides of the political spectrum argue that the answer is yes. But it will not be easy to figure out how to do it.
Princeton University's Keith Whittington explains why it is sometimes wise -- even necessary -- to expose students to potentially offensive material
It appears that Justice Neil Gorsuch is far from the only one who questions the wisdom of Chevron deference and other findings from a new survey of federal judges.
This is one of the questions that may well arise in Jeff Sessions' new lawsuit against California's sanctuary laws.
Fighter jets, horse soring, and climate stewardship.
The anonymous plaintiff offers a pretty compelling factual story -- but the legal analysis is surprisingly unsettled.
The Trump Administration deserves to lose the case. But they do have better arguments here than in their previous efforts to undermine sanctuary jurisdictions.
Law review articles put citations to cases and statutes in footnotes. Briefs generally shouldn't.
That is what students at the University of Miami School of Law are reporting. [EARLIER UPDATE: The Dean tells me that things are more complicated than at first reported, and they're trying to see if things can be worked out; I hope to have more from the Dean in a few days.] [UPDATE 3/15: The University has agreed to pay the security fee.]
Canvassing the legal problems and practical effects of qualified immunity from constitutional lawsuits
Michigan public accommodations law bans discrimination based on age by businesses open to the public, including retailers.
Is this a chance for the Supreme Court to correct its constitutional mistake?
A very interesting piece by Stanford Prof. Michael McConnell on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Oregon law generally bans discrimination in selling goods based on age, so this lawsuit looks like a winner.
Episode 206 of the Cyberlaw Podcast
This year's Supreme Court term has produced a few opinions with unconventional line-ups.
"For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood."
This could result in a ruling overturning a terrible 1985 decision that makes it very difficult to bring takings cases in federal court.
You'd think we'd know that by now -- but the Supreme Court hasn't spoken to this. Now an Institute for Justice petition asks the Court to consider the issue, and my students and I have just filed an amicus brief (on behalf of many professors) supporting the petition.
A new video overview of American constitutional law for law students--or anyone who wants an accessible explanation of the canonical and anticanonical decisions of the Supreme Court.
A 1989 shooting at a Cal. schoolyard began the national "assault weapon" issue. It was a consequence of law enforcement failure.
It's right there in the North Carolina Constitution -- and the N.C. Supreme Court has just enforced it, in a case brought by a public employee, but potentially applicable to economic liberty claims brought by private businesses in the future.
I just stumbled across this in doing research on something else.
Scraping content, throttling data, and decency on the internet.
Twitter doesn't need to be a "planetary-scale hate machine" for everybody.
The charges -- for "distribution of violent images" -- could lead to up to three years in prison and a $90,000 fine.
20 states are right to claim that the mandate is now unconstitutional, but wrong to argue that this requires invalidating the entire Affordable Care Act.
Depends on what state, city, and county they're in.
What should the proper punishment be in such cases?
Will Baude and I have cosigned a new amicus brief on this in Janus v. AFSCME.
The Court's decision to take the case is not surprising. It could potentially result in a very important decision addressing the scope of presidential power over immigration.
The Supreme Court agrees to hear challenges to Travel Ban 3.0
Clearly unconstitutional, and a threat to a vast range of other, much more serious, speech.
A very interesting analysis of the Supreme Court's new Internet tax case (South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc.), by Notre Dame Prof. Randy Kozel.
A conference on January 26 at George Mason University's Antonin Scalia Law School will explore the intersection of administrative law and the First Amendment.
If the Positive Law test is originalist, then what isn't? A close look at Fourth Amendment history and some recent scholarship.
James Phillips, a Constitutional Law Fellow at The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, offers some very helpful data.
The latest twist in the Barley House case -- and my attempt to intervene.
Because "there is a First Amendment right to videotape police officers while they are conducting their official duties in public," that right applies even over the objections of the people being arrested by the officers.
When did the change happen, and how quick was it? [UPDATE: For more comprehensive data, see this post.]