The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
"See (Sorry)": A New Citation Signal
A nice touch, I thought, in Justice Kagan's dissent in today's Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton:
To account for that concession in its analysis—and yet avoid strict scrutiny, as it wishes—the majority relies on a well-known distinction in First Amendment law between direct and incidental restrictions on speech. See (sorry) E. Kagan, Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 413, 491–505 (1996).
Then-Professor Kagan's article is quite a legit cite here, by the way; it was an important and heavily cited work even before the author became a Justice.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
She had no reason to be sorry, as she would have if if she had favorably referenced Ron Vara.
Technically ignorant decision, but it made VPN providers quite happy.
I have never understood why Judge Ho routinely cites to his dissenting opinions. Saying “I agree with my position on this issue” doesn’t make it any more persuasive, and citing to a dissent just underscores the fact that none of his colleagues agree with his position.
Citing to your prior dissent says 'I still disagree' without having to regurgitate all the facts, reasoning and supporting citations that you laid out the first time but still providing a pointer to future readers who might want/need that background.