Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
30 ?ears of uesegregaLlon
Monday cLoer 10 2011
1113 AM
Imp|ementat|on of 8rown
O towo ll (DS 1933) gave Lhe power Lo Lhe school auLhorlLles Lo lmplemenL LhaL towo rule suecL Lo
Lhe courLs flndlng LhaL Lhey were acLlng ln good falLh
O JanLed pollcles ln place Lo lnLegraLe Lhe wltb oll Jelletote speeJ
O C8A of 1964 wlLhheld federal funds from any school LhaL refused Lo lnLegraLe
O teeo v cooty cbool ootJ (DS 1968) freedom of cholce plans falled Lo comply wlLh towo ll
O JhlLe chlldren and lack chlldren dldn'L choose Lo aLLend Lhe oLher schools
O Some ellmlnaLed de ure segregaLlon uL schools remalned segregaLed /c dlsLrlcLs were drawn y place
of resldence and nelghorhoods remalned segregaLed (de facLo segregaLlon)
O Mllllkeo v toJley (DS 1977) ConsLlLuLlon ls noL vlolaLed y raclal lmalance ln Lhe schools
wlLhouL more
O wooo v cbotlotteMeckleotq ootJ of Jcotloo (DS 1971) unanlmously afflrmed a uC order
requlrlng a large unan school sysLem Lo redraw lLs dlsLrlcL llne and us sLudenLs
O Coal was Lo achleve unlLary" sLaLus formally desegregaLed schools
O CourL had Lhe auLhorlLy Lo use frank gerrymanderlng of school dlsLrlcLs and use uslng
O @oday de ure segregaLlon ls unconsLlLuLlonal uL de facLo segregaLlon ls consLlLuLlonal
kemedy|ng De Iacto D|scr|m|nat|on
O Porents lnvo/ved in community 5choo/s v 5eott/e 5choo/ uist No 1 {u5 2007) o// roce conscious
po/icies ore equo//y suspect ond rocio/ bo/oncinq po/icies ore never oppropriote
O nly a plurallLy for Lhe oplnlon LhaL all race consclous pollcles are equally suspecL
4 uld noL have enough voLes for Lhe Lheory LhaL once unlLary sLaLus has een achleved
Lhe gov'L can no longer lmpose race ased pollcles
4 ennedy concurrence elleves LhaL schools need noL accepL Lhe sLaLus quo of raclal
lsolaLlonlsm ln schools color llnd consLlLuLlon cannoL e a unlversal prlnclple
O romoLlng a dlverse sLudenL ody ls a compelllng sLaLe lnLeresL
O @he approach used y Lhe sLaLe may noL LreaL each sLudenL ln a dlfferenL
fashlon solely ased on Lhelr race Lhere are oLher meLhods
O @wo school dlsLrlcLs soughL Lo achleve dlverslLy ln Lhelr schools LhaL was roughly approxlmaLe Lo
Lhe dlverslLy demographlc ln Lhe school dlsLrlcL
4 Dsed race as a facLor ln asslgnlng klds schools
O uoes noL overrule wooo usL flnds LhaL once of goal of unlLary sLaLus has een achleved Lhe
need for race consclous pollcles ends
O Applled SS faclally race ased does noL faclally urden mlnorlLles does noL faclally eneflL
mlnorlLles does noL have a dlscrlmlnaLory purpose or effecL
4 lnterests offered by the stote 4k cOMPLLlN6 but not here
O Interest |n promot|ng d|vers|ty
Dnder CruLLer Lhe Lype of dlverslLy promoLed musL e road here
race was only one facLor and roken down lnLo lack/whlLe
ollcy was noL lndlvlduallzed race ls declslve
O kemedy|ng past d|scr|m|nat|on
oulsvllle schools were once segregaLed and a permlsslle response
was Lo have raceased lnLegraLlon pollcles
O 8D@ once Lhe goal of lnLegraLlon has een achleved (oltoty
stots) Lhere ls noLhlng lefL for Lhe courL Lo remedy
-oLhlng Lo show LhaL SeaLLle schools were segregaLed and Lhey were
never suecL Lo a courLordered lnLegraLlon
O -oLhlng for Lhe courL Lo remedy
4 8aclal classlflcaLlons employed are noL narrowly Lallored Lo achlevlng Lhe educaLlon and
soclal eneflLs LhaL flow from raclal dlverslLy
O @he plans are only dlrecLed aL raclal alance whlch Lhe courL has prevlously
condemned as llleglLlmaLe
O 8ace pollcy musL e Lled Lo some pedagoglc concepL of Lhe level of dlverslLy
needed Lo aLLaln Lhe asserLed educaLlon eneflL
O Cov'L shouldn'L e regulaLlng afLer unlLary sLaLus has een achleved
4 Jearlness of gov'L supervlslon of school oard pollcles
4 -o hard proof of Lhe eneflLs of dlverslLy Lo supporL race alanclng pollcles
4 Color llnd consLlLuLlon LreaL ppl as lndlvlduals and noL memers of a parLlcular race
Cender ulscrlmlnaLlon
@uesday cLoer 11 2011
1122 AM
O 8eed v 8eed (DS 1971) ushered ln a new era of L Cl challenges Lo sLaLe sponsored dlscrlmlnaLlon on
Lhe asls of gender
4 Challenge Lo a law LhaL req'd courLs Lo prefer males Lo females ln decldlng who Lo apL as
admlnlsLraLors of esLaLes of persons who had dled lnLesLaLe
4 CourL purporLed Lo apply 888 uL lnvalldaLed Lhe sLaLuLe as a vlolaLlon of Lhe L Cl
4 Concluded LhaL Lhls Lhe sLaLe's asserLed lnLeresL of reduclng Lhe workload on proaLe courLs y
ellmlnaLlng a class of conLesLs was lnsufflclenL Lo usLlfy dlscrlmlnaLlon
O lronLlero v 8lchardson (DS 1973) sLruck down a gender dlscrlmlnaLory sLaLuLe under Lhe L Cl
4 Challenge Lo a federal law permlLLlng men ln Lhe armed servlces Lo auLomaLlcally clalm Lhelr
wlves as dependenLs Lo recelve a greaLer allowance for houslng and medlcal eneflLs
O Jomen had Lo prove LhaL Lhelr husands were dependenL upon Lhem for more Lhan
half of Lhelr supporL
4 9|ura||ty dec|ared that c|ass|f|cat|ons based on sex are |nherent|y suspect and therefore must
be sub[ected to str|ct [ud|c|a| scrut|ny (on|y had 4 votes)
O ong and unforLunaLe hlsLory of sex dlscrlmlnaLlon
O eoJet llke toce ooJ ootloool otlqlo ls oo ltole cbotoctetlstlc JetetloeJ solely y
lttb
4 SLewarL concurrence soughL Lo apply Lhe sLandard ln keeJ
O Lqual 8lghLs AmendmenL equallLy of Lhe rlghLs under law shall noL e denled or arldged y Lhe DS or
y any sLaLe on accL of race
4 keeJ was declded efore Lhe SenaLe had a chance Lo veLo lL
4 tootleto was declded afLer Lhe SenaLe olned Lhe ouse ln passlng lL and 23 sLaLes had raLlfled lL
4 LvenLually Lhe amendmenL ran lnLo pollLlcal opposlLlon and had sLlll noL reached Lhe requlslLe 38
sLaLes needed ln 1976
O Cra|g v 8oren (US 1976) gov't c|ass|f|cat|ons based on gender are sub[ected to IS
4 verLurned law requlrlng males Lo e 21 Lo uy nonlnLoxlcaLlng eer whlle women only had
Lo e 18
4 App||ed IS gov't c|ass|f|cat|on based on gender must be substontio//y re/oted to an importont
gov't |nterest
4 8rennan had wanLed Lo apply SS ln tootleto uL only applled lS here
O @hls case lnvolved dlscrlmlnaLlon agalnsL men noL women
O Jllllng Lo compromlse Lo geL whaL he wanLed
4 AfLer keeJ declslons clLlng admln ease or employlng archalc generallzaLlons of women are noL
lmporLanL gov'L lnLeresLs sufflclenL Lo saLlsfy lS
4 MusL reallgn Lhelr laws ln genderneuLral fashlon or adopL procedures for ldenLlfylng Lhose
lnsLances where Lhe sexcenLered generallzaLlon acLually comporLs wlLh facL
4 eoJet oseJ tles ote oot sstootlolly teloteJ to tbe lpottoot qovt lotetest of ttofflc sofety
O Un|ted States v V|rg|n|a (US 1996) court app||es IS+ to |nva||date VMI's ma|e on|y adm|ss|ons po||cy
4 Challenge Lo IMl's male only admlsslons pollcy 7 Lo 1 oplnlon Lo lnvalldaLe Lhe pollcy
4 CourL purporLed Lo apply lS
O 1rue IS state must show that the cha||enged c|ass|f|cat|on serves an |mportant gov't
ob[ect|ve and that the d|scr|m|natory means emp|oyed are substant|a||y re|ated
O l5+ 1he proffered justificotion must be exceedinq/y persuosive qenuine ond not
hypothesited or invented posthoc
4 ulssenL lmplles LhaL Lhls was lS+
4 IMl's purporLed lnLeresL ln havlng a male only campus are noL sufflclenLly lmporLanL
O Arg Slngle sex educaLlon provldes lmporLanL educaLlonal eneflLs
IMl noL esLallshed wltb tbe ptpose of provldlng eLLer educaLlon
usLlflcaLlon musL sLaLe a purpose noL a raLlonallzaLlon
O Arg ConLrluLes Lo Lhe dlverslLy of educaLlonal opporLunlLles
-o slngle sex educaLlonal opporLunlLles are avallale for women
O Arg IMl would have Lo glve up Lhe adversaLlve meLhod
MalnLenance of Lhe adversaLlve meLhod and admlsslon of women are noL
muLually excluslve
Assumes LhaL women are lncapale of survlvlng Lhe adversaLlve meLhod sLaLe
may noL rely on flxed noLlons of Lhe alllLles of men and women
-oL a mandaLe LhaL women parLlclpaLe usL an opLlon
4 roposed soluLlon of IJl ls lnsufflclenL
O SeparaLe uL oot epol lnsLlLuLlon pale shadow of IMl
O IJl's educaLlonal approach relles on Lhe same sLereoLype women can'L handle Lhe
adversaLlve meLhod
4 8ehnqulsL concurrence
O @he vlolaLlon ls havlng an allmale school wlLhouL havlng an allfemale school
O IA should demonsLraLe equal lnLeresL ln educaLlng women IJl ls lnferlor Lo IMl
4 ulssenL
O CourL dldn'L really apply lS exceedlngly persuaslve usLlflcaLlon
O @rue lS doesn'L requlre a leasL resLrlcLlve means analysls only a susLanLlal relaLlon
O Jomen aren'L a dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy warranLlng helghLened proLecLlon
O Mlchael M v Superlor CourL of Sonoma CounLy (DS 1981) courL upheld a CA rape law
4 lurallLy oplnlon CourL upheld CA sLaLuLory rape law whlch made lL unlawful for a male noL hls
wlfe Lo have sex wlLh a female under Lhe age of 18
4 lssue Lhe sLaLuLe made only males suecL Lo prosecuLlon ln slLuaLlons where Lwo slmllarly
slLuaLed ppl were lnvolved (le male and female oLh under Lhe age of 18)
4 SLaLe's purporLed lnLeresL of prevenLlng Leen pregnancy was sufflclenLly lmporLanL
O CourL can only reecL Lhe sLaLe's purporLed lnLeresL of Lhe sLaLe lf lL could noL have een
Lhe Lrue goal of Lhe leglslaLlon
O revenLlng llleglLlmaLe pregnancy ls aL leasL one purpose of Lhe sLaLuLe and Lhe sLaLe
has an lmporLanL lnLeresL ln prevenLlng lL
4 8oys and glrls are noL slmllarly slLuaLed /c women could geL pregnanL and males cannoL
women have Lo acLually ear Lhe urden
O uoesn'L accepL Lhe arg LhaL Lhe sLaLuLe ls underlncluslve lL need noL e a preclse as
posslle
O -guyen v l-S (DS 2001) upheld a sLaLuLe maklng lL more dlfflculL for a chlld orn aroad ouL of wedlock
Lo one DS parenL Lo clalm clLlzenshlp lf Lhe parenL was Lhe faLher
4 ulsLlncLlon ls noL marked y mlsconcepLlon or preudlce
4 usLlflcaLlon LhaL Lhe moLher who ls presenL aL chlldlrLh would e more llkely Lo develop a
relaLlonshlp wlLh Lhe chlld and Lhus clLlzenshlp should e easler Lo demonsLraLe
O Personne/ 4dministrotor of M4 v leeny {u5 1979) focio//y qender neutro/ /ows thot hove o
discriminotory effect ore not unconstitutiono/ obsent o discriminotory purpose
4 Challenge Lo Lhe consLlLuLlonallLy of a MA veLeran's preference sLaLuLe on Lhe ground LhaL lL
dlscrlmlnaLes agalnsL women
O @he o preference sLaLuLe operaLes overwhelmlngly ln favor of males
O eLlLloner recelved hlgh exam scores yeL dldn'L recelve Lhe poslLlon as less quallfled
males dld
4 M4 stotute is defined on qender neutro/ terms ond per uovis ond 4r/inqton neiqhts neutro/
/ows with o discriminotory effect ore not unconstitutiono/ without o discriminotory purpose
O @oo many nonveLeran males are affecLed y Lhe sLaLuLe as well Lo vlew lL as preLexL for
preferrlng men over women
O -oLhlng Lo lndlcaLe LhaL Lhls was enacLed wlLh a dlscrlmlnaLory purpose
O 8osLker v Colderg (DS 1981) MlllLary Servlce AcL dld noL vlolaLe Lhe L componenL of Lhe u Cl of Lhe
3
Lh
Am
4 MlllLary SelecLlve Servlce acL auLhorlzed Lhe presldenL Lo requlre Lhe reglsLraLlon of males uL
noL females
4 ueference Lo congresslonal udgmenLs ln maLLers of naL'l defense and mlllLary affalrs and gov'L
lmporLanL lnLeresL ln ralslng and supporLlng armles
O ow do you declde whaL level of scruLlny Lo apply Lo a classlflcaLlon Lhe courL doesnL LreaL all forms of
dlscrlmlnaLlon Lhe same
SS lS 888 everyLhlng else
O 8ace
O -aLlonal rlgln
O Allenage clLlzenshlp sLaLus
O Cender
O eglLlmacy parenLs
marrlage when you were
orn
O JealLh
O SporLs preference
O alr sLaLus
O Jhen do Lhey apply helghLened scruLlny?
O Jhen lL lnvolves a dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy
4 lLeral meanlng ulscreLe (easlly ldenLlflale) lnsular (seL aparL)
4 SusLanLlve do Lhey have access Lo Lhe pollLlcal process
O Jhen lL lnvolves ppl who don'L have access Lo Lhe pollLlcal process
O Jhen Lhe characLerlsLlc lnvolved ls lmmuLale
O Jhen Lhe group has een suecL Lo a hlsLory of dlscrlmlnaLlon
Age ulscrlmlnaLlon
@hursday cLoer 13 2011
1149 AM
AGL
O MassachuseLLs 8d f 8eLlremenL v Murgla (DS 1976) suecLed a sLaLuLe LhaL classlfled on Lhe asls of
age Lo 888
O Challenge Lo Lhe mandaLory reLlremenL pollcy for once Lhey reach Lhe age of 30
4 Murgla arg Lhe pollcy was overlncluslve /c lL sweeps ln many more 30+ people Lhan
necessary /c lL geLs offlcers LhaL are physlcally flL as well
O -oL a case for SS classlflcaLlon does noL lnLerfere wlLh a fundamenLal rlghL or operaLe Lo Lhe
pecullar dlsadvanLage of a suspecL class
4 SuspecL class saddled wlLh such dlsalllLles or suecLed Lo such a hlsLory of
purposeful unequal LreaLmenL or relegaLed Lo such a poslLlon of pollLlcal powerlessness
as Lo command exLraordlnary proLecLlon from Lhe maorlLarlan process" San AnLonlo
School ulsL v 8odrlguez (DS 1973)
O CourL suecLs Lhe sLaLuLe Lo 888
4 SLaLe has a leglL lnLeresL ln havlng a physlcally flL pollcy force
4 SeLLlng 30 as a enchmark dlsquallfles a proporLlonaLe amounL of ppl
4 SLaLe need noL adopL Lhe mosL preclse LesL (le lndlvlduallzed deLermlnaLlons)
DISA8ILI1
O C|eburne v C|eburne L|v|ng Center app||ed k8k+ to str|ke down a 1k |aw requ|r|ng a spec|a| use
perm|t for the operat|on of a group home for the menta||y retarded
O Court c|a|med to app|y k8k |n str|k|ng down the |aw
4 Seemed more ||ke k8k+ court found that the regu|at|on was under|nc|us|ve b]c
perm|t requ|rements shou|d be |n p|ace for other bu||d|ngs as we||
4 ess wllllng Lo flll ln Lhe lanks and provlde poLenLlal usLlflcaLlons for Lhe sLaLe
O @esL for when Lo apply helghLened scruLlny
4 MenLal lnflrmlLy Lends Lo e lmmuLale
4 Are Lhey a dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy?
O lLeral maye
O SusLanLlve proaly
4 lsLory of dlscrlmlnaLlon yes for many years we dldn'L undersLand menLal lllness
O SLaLe's purporLed lnLeresLs were noL leglLlmaLe
4 Arg fear of negaLlve aLLlLudes of Lhe surroundlng properLy owners
O DnsusLanLlaLed clalms of negaLlve aLLlLudes and fear are noL enough
4 Arg lear of harassmenL from sLudenLs
O SLudenLs wenL Lo school wlLh menLally reLarded chlldren
4 Arg flood plaln
O Jhy don'L any of Lhe oLher sLrucLures requlre a permlL
4 Arg legal responsllllLy
O ulfflculL Lo elleve LhaL Lhey would cause much damage
O Jhy dld Lhe courL apply 888
4 @here are some real dlfferences LhaL usLlfy dlfferenL LreaLmenL sLaLe has a leglLlmaLe
lnLeresL ln deallng wlLh and provldlng for Lhose dlfferences
4 elghLened scruLlny lnvolves Loo much udlclal lnLervenLlon
O Lqua| 9rotect|on kev|ew k8k (ka||way Lxpress) k8k+ (C|eburne) IS (M|chae| M) IS+ (VMI) SS
(Grutter) SS(9arents Invo|ved)
ulscrlmlnaLlon on Lhe 8asls of Sexual rlenLaLlon
Monday cLoer 17 2011
1144 AM
O komer v Lvans (US 1996) court d|dn't app|y trad|t|ona| k8k but never he|d that d|scr|m|nat|on on the
bas|s of sexua| or|entat|on was suspect
O lound unconsLlLuLlonal Am 2 whlch repealed all ordlnances ln C LhaL anned dlscrlmlnaLlon on
Lhe asls of sexual orlenLaLlon and prohllLed Lhe enacLmenL of slmllar sLaLuLes
O SLaLes arg Am 2 usL denles homosexuals speclol tlqbts noL afforded Lo oLhers
4 Am 2 acLually repealed all laws provldlng proLecLlon for homosexuals and prohllLed Lhe
enacLmenL on any furLher laws
4 roLecLlon agalnsL arlLrary dlscrlmlnaLlon ls noL a speclal rlghL
O AfLer Am 2 homosexuals would have had Lo pass an amendmenL Lo Lhe sLaLe consLlLuLlon Lo geL
any proLecLlon from dlscrlmlnaLlon could noL resorL Lo munlclpal ordlnances
4 oses a speclal dlsalllLy on homosexuals
O Am 2 caLegorlcally denles an enLlre class of people Lhe alllLy Lo resorL Lo Lhe legal process for
redress of grlevances
4 aws LhaL make lL more dlfflculL for one group Lo seek gov'L ald are lnherenLly vlolaLe L
O CourL applles someLhlng more aLLune Lo 888+ ln Cleurne
4 SLaLe's arg clLlzens freedom of assoclaLlon
O -o leglL sLaLe lnLeresL ln lndulglng peoples preudlces
4 SLaLe's arg conservaLlon of resources Lo flghL oLher forms of dlscrlmlnaLlon
O Am ls overly road for Lhls usLlflcaLlon
O aws of Lhls klnd ralse Lhe lnevlLale lnference LhaL Lhe dlsadvanLage lmposed ls orn of
anlmoslLy Loward Lhe class of persons affecLed
O Scalla dlssenL Lhls ls a culLure war LhaL Lhe courL shouldn'L e lnvolved ln
4 SLaLe has a leglL lnLeresL ln preservlng sexual norms
O Should pollcles ased on sexual orlenLaLlon e suecLed Lo helghLened scruLlny sLrong case
O Are Lhey dlscreLe and lnsular mlnorlLy
4 lLeral noL really dlscreLe and lnsular
4 SusLanLlve some pollLlcal power
O @here ls a hlsLory of preudlce
O lmmuLale Lhlngs LhaL we can'L conLrol and Lhlngs LhaL are so cenLral Lo our ldenLlLy LhaL Lhe
gov'L should e permlLLed Lo Lell us Lo change
IV IkLLDCM CI S9LLCn
A 1ypes of kestr|ct|ons
ConLenL8ased 8esLrlcLlons
Jednesday cLoer 19 2011
1130 AM
8ackground
O 1
sL
Am Congress shall make no law arldglng tbe fteeJo of speecb
O Appllcale Lo Lhe sLaLes Lhrough Lhe u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am Crosaen v Amerlcan ress (DS 1936)
O lreedom of speech ls noL asoluLe some regulaLlon ls permlsslle
O 1
sL
Am ls prlnclpally concerned wlLh expresslon and Lhe alllLy Lo convey a message
O @heorles of Lhe 1
sL
Am
O Cov'L accounLalllLy ueslgned Lo ensure LhaL Lhe gov'L sLays accounLale Lo Lhe clLlzens
O MarkeL place of ldeas Alds ln Lhe quesL for Lhe LruLh y creaLlng a rousL markeLplace of ldeas
4 @he esL LesL of LruLh ls Lhe power of Lhe LhoughL Lo geL lLself accepLed ln Lhe
compeLlLlon of Lhe markeL tos v uolteJ totes (DS 1919)
O CourL declded LhaL law Lhe law was noL narrowly Lallored Lo achleve Lhe gov'L goal of proLecLlng
Lhe dlgnlLy of forelgn dlplomaLs
O @wo prlnclples concerns
O Iarlous Lypes of regulaLlons LhaL Lhe gov'L wanLs Lo lmpose on speech
O Iarlous klnds of speech LhaL Lhe gov'L wanLs Lo regulaLe
Content 8ased kestr|ct|ons sub[ect to SS
O ConLenL ased resLrlcLlon ls a resLrlcLlon on speech ased upon Lhe conLenL of whaL ls elng sald
O oos v otty (DS 1988)
O 1
sL
Am challenge Lo a uC pollcy maklng lL unlawful Lo dlsplay a slgn wlLhln 300 fL of Lhe emassy lf
lL was deslgned Lo rlng lnLo pullc odlum any forelgn gov'L
O CourL concluded LhaL lL was a unconsLlLuLlonal conLenL ased resLrlcLlon
4 ConLenL ased /c lL prohllLed only placards LhaL conLalned message crlLlcal of forgelgn
gov'Ls
O Content based restr|ct|ons are sub[ected to SS the regu|at|on must be necessary to serve a compe|||ng
gov't |nterest and narrow|y ta||ored to ach|eve that |nterest
O -eed noL favor one parLlcular vlewpolnL over anoLher a law LhaL prohllLs sLaLemenLs ln favor or agalnsL
elLher vlewpolnL ls sLlll a conLenL ased resLrlcLlon
O 8epullcan arLy of MlnnesoLa v JhlLe (DS 2002) applled SS Lo lnvalldaLe a sLaLe rule prohllLlng
candldaLes for udlclal offlce from expresslng Lhelr vlews on pollLlcal and legal lssues
O 1
sL
Am challenge Lo a rule prohllLlng candldaLes for udlclal elecLlons from announclng Lhelr
vlews on dlspuLed pollLlcal and legal lssues
4 Cenerally appllcale Lo oll dlscusslons on dlspuLed legal and pollLlcal lssues dldn'L
slngle ouL one parLlcular vlew
O @he was a conLenL ased resLrlcLlon whlch req'd SS
4 Could only flgure ouL wheLher Lhe parLlcular sLaLemenL was ln vlolaLlon y looklng Lo Lhe
acLual conLenL of Lhe sLaLemenL
4 Also urdened a parLlcular caLegory of speech LhaL ls aL Lhe core of 1
sL
Am freedoms
O urporLed compelllng gov'L lnLeresLs
4 reservlng lmparLlallLy of Lhe sLaLe udlclary
4 reservlng appearance of Lhe lmparLlallLy of Lhe sLaLe udlclary
O Iarlous deflnlLlons of lmparLlallLy
4 ack of las for or agalnsL elLher parLy ls essenLlal Lo u noL narrowly Lallored Lo
advance Lhls lnLeresL
O nly resLrlcLs speech ased on lssue noL for or agalnsL any parLy
4 ack of preconcepLlon ln favor of or agalnsL a parLlcular legal vlew noL a compelllng
sLaLe lnLeresL
O IlrLually lmposslle Lo flnd a udge who does noL have preconcepLlons aouL
LhaL law
4 pen mlndedness very underlncluslve
O A candldaLe can say whaLever he wanLs up unLll Lhe day he announces hls
candldacy
O Narrow|y ta||ored the |aw must not unnecessar||y c|rcumscr|be protected express|on
O aws can also e anned for elng lmpermlsslly vague
O IlewpolnL dlscrlmlnaLlon ls a parLlcularly prolemaLlc Lype of conLenL ased resLrlcLlon
uefamaLlon
Monday cLoer 31 2011
1133 AM
O uefamaLlon legal remedy Lo recover damages agalnsL a person who pullcly made false sLaLemenLs
agalnsL you
O A sLaLemenL ls defamaLory lf lL Lends so Lo harm Lhe repuLaLlon of anoLher so as Lo lower hlm Lhe
esLlmaLlon of Lhe communlLy or Lo deLer Lhlrd persons from deallng wlLh hlm
O Slander (spoken) and lel (prlnLed) are clear resLrlcLlons on speech
O MlghL e ouLslde Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am /c defamaLory speech ls false a clvlllzed soc'y
cannoL refuse Lo proLecL repuLaLlon
O I|rst Am restr|ct|ons on defamat|on
O N1 v Su|||van (US 1964) Pub/ic Officio/s Pub/ic condidotes or Pub/ic liqures may not recover
for a defamatory statement re|at|ng to h|s off|c|a| conduct un|ess
4 1hat statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made w|th actua| ma||ce
4 ueflnlLlons
O AcLual mallce a delleraLe and reckless falslflcaLlon
O ullc offlclal a person who holds a poslLlon of such an apparenL lmporLance
LhaL Lhe pullc has an lndependenL lnLeresL ln Lhe quallflcaLlons and
performance of Lhe person LhaL holds lL
O ullc flgure a person who has volunLarlly ecome a Lhe suecL of pullc
aLLenLlon
uoes noL encompass Lhose who have merely ecome lnvolved ln or
assoclaLed wlLh a maLLer LhaL aLLracLs pullc aLLenLlon
O Gertz v kobert Je|ch Inc (US 1974) A pr|vate f|gure may not recover for a defamatory
statement regard|ng o motter of pub/ic concern un|ess
4 1he statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made know|ng|y or at |east neg||gent|y
4 ueflnlLlon
O MaLLer of ullc Concern someLhlng LhaL ls a suecL of leglLlmaLe news
lnLeresL LhaL ls a suecL of general lnLeresL and of value and conern Lo Lhe
pullc aL Lhe Llme of pullcaLlon
O New ork 1|mes v Su|||van (US 1964) estab||shed the pub||c off|c|a| except|on to the defamat|on ru|e
O -?@ ad regardlng acLlons y Lhe pollce agalnsL lacks ln MonLgomery A agalnsL M ln parLlcular
4 Sulllvan Commlssloner of ullc Affalrs ln MonLgomery were under hls
supervlslon
O Sulllvan sued -?@ and 4 lack ppl responslle for Lhe ad under A defamaLlon law
4 @here was false sLaLemenLs ln Lhe arLlcle
4 Arg slnce he was head of Lhe false sLaLemenLs made aouL Lhe defamed hlm
4 lel per se lf Lhe words Lend Lo lnure a person ln hls repuLaLlon or rlng hlm lnLo
pullc conLempL (@ruLh was Lhe only defense)
O SC precedenL suggesLed LhaL defamaLory sLaLemenLs were ouLslde Lhe proLecLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 owever some llmlLed excepLlons are warranLed
O 9ub||c Cff|c|a| Lxcept|on to Defamat|on a pub||c off|c|a| may not c|a|m defamat|on un|ess he
can prove by c|ear and conv|nc|ng ev|dence that
4 1he statement was concern|ng the pub||c off|c|a|
4 1he statement was about the|r off|c|a| conduct
4 1he statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made w|th actua| ma||ce know|ng or reck|ess d|sregard for the
truth or fa|s|ty of the statement
O ere Lhe sLaLemenLs were aouL offlclal conducL and false uL
4 Lhere was no proof LhaL Lhey were made wlLh acLual mallce
4 Lhere was no proof LhaL Lhe sLaLemenLs concerned Lhe pullc offlclal
O Jhy are pullc offlclals dlfferenL
4 8egulaLlon of speech concernlng pullc offlclals sLrlkes aL Lhe very cenLer of Lhe
consLlLuLlonally proLecLed are of free expresslon
4 Je seek Lo a rousL pullc deaLe aouL pullc lssues Lhe gov'L and pullc offlclals
4 ullc offlclals and pullc flgures have greaLer access Lo channels of effecLlve
communlcaLlon and have a more reallsLlc opporLunlLy Lo counLeracL false sLaLemenLs
O 8efused Lo recognlze an excepLlon for any LesL of LruLh especlally one LhaL puLs Lhe urden of
provlng LruLh on Lhe speaker
4 @he urden of provlng LruLh would lead Lo selfcensorshlp
O Gertz v kobert Je|ch Inc (US 1974) estab||shes the pr|vate f|gure + pub||c concern except|on
O A pr|vate f|gure may not recover for a defamatory statement regard|ng a matter of pub||c
concern un|ess
4 1he statement was fa|se and
4 1he statement was made know|ng|y or at |east neg||gent|y
O Dnder Lhe 1
sL
Am Lhere ls no such Lhlng as a false ldea
4 udges and urles do noL slL Lo correcL false oplnlons
4 @he compeLlLlon of ldeas ln Lhe markeLplace wlll deLermlne Lhe LruLh
O -o consLlLuLlonal value for false sLaLemenLs of facL
4 Chapllnsky v -ew ampshlre (DS 1942) Lhey are of such sllghL soclal value as a sLep Lo
LruLh LhaL any eneflL ls clearly ouLwelghed y Lhe soclal lnLeresL ln order and morallLy
O 8epresenLs a alance /w Lhe needs of Lhe press and Lhe lnLeresLs Lhe prlvaLe person on maLLers
of pullc concern
O Dun 8radstreet Inc v Greenmoss 8u|d|ers |nc (US 198S) 1
st
Am does not protect speech about
pr|vate f|gures on a matter of pr|vate concern
O -o req of acLual mallce for defamaLlon clalm regardlng a sLaLemenLs made aouL a prlvaLe flgure
on a maLLer of prlvaLe concern
O 8alanced Lhe sLaLe lnLeresL ln compensaLlng lndlvlduals for lnury Lo Lhelr repuLaLlon agalnsL Lhe
1
sL
Am lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhls Lype of expresslon
4 Speech on maLLers of prlvaLe concern ls of less 1
sL
Am concern
O nust|er Magaz|ne Inc v Ia|we|| (US 1988) extends Su|||van to IILD c|a|ms
O LxLends Sulllvan Lo oLher LorL clalms
O 9ub||c f|gures and pub||c off|c|a|s may not recover for the tort of IILD by reason of pub||cat|ons
un|ess they can show that
4 1he pub||cat|on conta|ns fa|se statements of fact and
4 1he pub||cat|on was made w|th actua| ma||ce
O Snyder v 9he|ps (US 2011)
O lssue wheLher Lhe 1
sL
Am prohllLs holdlng JesLoro 8apLlsL Church llale for lLs speech
ecause lL consLlLuLes a maLLer of prlvaLe concern
4 JesLoro plckeLed a soldlers funeral wlLh slgns addressed aL homosexuals ln Lhe
mlllLary wars aouL and ause ln Lhe CaLhollc Church
O lalnLlff was noL a pullc offlclal or a pullc flgure need Lo deLermlne lf Lhls was a sLaLemenL
aouL prlvaLe flgure on a maLLer of pullc concern
4 Arg agalnsL church JesLoro's speech e afforded less Lhan full 1
sL
Am proLecLlon /c
of Lhe words were aouL a maLLer of prlvaLe concern and /c Lhe church explolLed Lhe
funeral as a plaLform for Lhelr message
4 Arg for church Lhe slgns were noL dlrecLed aL Lhe plalnLlff and lnsLead addressed
maLLers of pullc concern
O ullc Concern speech ls a maLLer of pullc concern lf
4 lL can e falrly consldered as relaLlng Lo any maLLer of pollLlcal soclal or oLher concern
Lo Lhe communlLy or ls a suecL of leglLlmaLe news lnLeresL
4 lacLors ook Lo Lhe conLenL form and conLexL of Lhe speech as revealed y Lhe whole
record
O Church memers had a rlghL Lo e where Lhey were
4 roLesLed from a pullc sldewalk aL a pullc sLreeL corner
4 JesLoro alerLed local auLhorlLles ahead of Llme and complled wlLh guldellnes
4 lckeLlng was conducLed under supervlslon 1000fL from Lhe funereal
O JesLoro's speech was aL a pullc place on a maLLer of pullc concern afforded speclal
proLecLlon under Lhe 1
sL
Am
scenlLy and Chlld ornography
Jednesday -ovemer 02 2011
1122 AM
C8SCLNI1
O M|||er v Ca||forn|a (US 1973) 1est for Cbscen|ty
O Jhether the average person app|y|ng contemporary commun|ty standards wou|d dec|de that
the work taken as a who|e oppeo/s to the prurient interest
4 9rur|ent character|zed or arous|ng |nord|nate or unusua| sexua| des|re
O Jhether the work dep|cts or descr|bes in o potent/y offensive woy sexuo/ conduct spec|f|ca||y
def|ned by the app||cab|e state |aw and
O Jhether the work taken as a who|e /ocks serious /iterory ortistic po/itico/ or scientific vo/ue
O @he maLerlal musL oLh arouse and dlsgusL Lo quallfy as oscene
O koth v Un|ted States (US 19S7) the 1
st
Am does not protect obscen|ty
O lssue
4 8oLh wheLher Lhe federal oscenlLy sLaLuLe vlolaLes Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 AlerLs wheLher Lhe CA oscenlLy sLaLuLe vlolaLes Lhe 1
sL
Am and Lhe 14
Lh
Am
O Cbscen|ty |s not w|th|n the area of const|tut|ona||y protected speech or press
4 scenlLy ls uLLerly wlLhouL redeemlng soclal lmporLance
O scenlLy and sex are noL Lhe same as oscenlLy deals wlLh sex ln a manner appeallng Lo prurlenL
lnLeresL
4 -ormal porLrayal of sex ln arL llLeraLure and sclence ls noL sufflclenL reason Lo deny
maLerlal consLlLuLlonal proLecLlon
O 8oLh @esL wheLher Lo Lhe average person applylng conLemporary sLandards Lhe domlnanL
Lheme of Lhe maLerlal Laken as a whole appeals Lo Lhe prurlenL lnLeresL
CnILD 9CkNCGkA9n
O New ork v Ierber (US 1982) ch||d pornography |s a another category of speech def|ned by |ts content
that |s beyond the protect|on of the 1
st
Am
O lssue ls a -? crlmlnal sLaLuLe annlng dlsLrluLlon of chlld pornography unconsLlLuLlonal under
Lhe 1
sL
Am
O States are ent|t|ed to greater |eeway |n the|r regu|at|on of pornograph|c dep|ct|ons of ch||dren
4 Compelllng lnLeresL ln Lhe proLecLlon of chlldren Lhe maklng of Lhe fllms Lhemselves
are lnLrlnslcally relaLed Lo chlld ause
4 ulsLrluLlon of phoLos and fllms deplcLlng Lhe lmages only furLhers Lhe harm
O ard Lo regulaLlon Lhe producLlon
O 8y crlmlnallzlng dlsLrluLlon Lhe markeL for chlld porn wlll dry up Lhus endlng
Lhe prolem of producLlon
4 ulmlnlmus values of chlld porn welghed agalnsL Lhe exLreme cosLs Lo chlldren
O SLaLe offense musL e llmlLed Lo works LhaL vlsolly deplcL sexual conducL y chlldren elow a
speclfled age caLegory of sexual conducL musL e sulLaly llmlLed and descrled
O AshcrofL v lree Speech CoallLlon (DS 2002) 1
sL
Am prohllLs Lhe gov'L from annlng nonoscene vlrLual
chlld pornography
O DnlLed SLaLes v Jllllams (DS 2008) gov'L may punlsh a person for dlsLrluLlng vlrLual chlld pornography
as Lhough lL were real chlld pornography
Symollc ConLenL
Monday -ovemer 07 2011
1104 AM
O JhaL acLlvlLles and conducL counL as speech?
O Spence v JashlngLon (DS 1974) ConducL may e sufflclenLly lmued wlLh elemenLs of
communlcaLlon Lo fall wlLhln Lhe scope of Lhe 1
sL
and 14
Lh
Am
O 1|nker v Des Mo|nes Independent Commun|ty Schoo| D|st (US 1969) schoo| regu|at|on proh|b|t|ng
students from wear|ng arm bands v|o|ated the 1
st
Am
O School adopLed Lhe reg afLer learnlng LhaL sLudenLs were wearlng Lhem ln opposlLlon Lo Lhe
IleLnam Jar
O Court w||| app|y SS when the gov't seeks to regu|ate conduct because of the express|ve
e|ements of that conduct
O CourL found LhaL Lhe school was acLlng Lo punlsh peLlLloners for a sllenL and passlve expresslon of
oplnlon
O DndlfferenLlaLed fear or apprehenslon of dlsLurance ls noL enough Lo usLlfy such a conLenL
ased regulaLlon of expresslve acLlvlLy
O Un|ted States v C'8r|en genera||y app||cab|e gov't regs w|th an |nc|denta| |mpact on speech
O Jhen speech and nonspeech elemenLs are comlned ln Lhe same course of conducL sufflclenL
gov'L lnLeresL ln regulaLlng Lhe nonspeech elemenL can usLlfy lncldenLal resLrlcLlons on speech
O C'8r|en 1est gov't may regu|ate express|ve conduct |f four cond|t|ons are met
4 1he reg |s w|th|n the const|tut|ona| power of the gov't
4 1he reg furthers an importont or substontio/ qovt interest
4 1he gov't |nterest |s unre/oted to the suppression of free expression and
4 1he incidento/ restriction is no qreoter thon essentio/ to the furtherance of the |nterest
O 1exas v ohnson (US 1989) estab||shes the test for symbo||c conduct protected w|th|n the 1
st
Am
O Challenge Lo a @O law whlch crlmlnallzes desecraLlon of a sLaLe or naLlonal flag
4 uesecraLlon deface damage or oLherwlse mlsLreaL ln a way LhaL Lhe acLor knows wlll
setlosly offeoJ one or more persons llkely Lo oserve or dlscover hls acLlon
O u arresLed afLer urnlng a flag as a means of proLesL
O 1he 1est for Symbo||c Conduct must be suff|c|ent|y |mbued w|th the e|ements of
commun|cat|on as to fa|| w|th|n the scope of the 1
st
and 14
th
Am
4 Must have an |ntent to convey a part|cu|ar message and
4 It must be ||ke|y that the message wou|d be understood by the v|ewer of the message
O @ypes of conducL deemed sufflclenLly expresslve under Lhe 1
sL
Am
4 Jearlng lack armands Lo proLesL Lhe IleLnam Jar
4 SlLlns y lacks
4 lckeLlng
O 8urn|ng a f|ag |s a trad|t|ona||y express|ve act|v|ty but burn|ng a f|ag does send a message and
the 1k statute cr|m|na||z|ng f|ag burn|ng was an unconst|tut|ona| |nfr|ngement on the 1
st
Am
O @O's real lnLeresL was noL unrelaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of free expresslon
4 llag desecraLlon sLaLuLe expressly dealL wlLh desLrucLlon of a flag ln a way LhaL would
serlously offend someone
4 @O would noL punlsh someone for urnlng an old and LaLLered flag Lo desLroy lL
O @O's purporLed lnLeresLs
4 Arg sLaLe lnLeresL ln prevenLlng u@
O @here was no u@ can'L speak ln condlLlons
O ln order Lo make an lnclLemenL arg under 8randenurg Lhe acLlon musL e
dlrecLed aL lnclLlng lawless acLlon
4 Arg lnLeresL ln preservlng Lhe flag as a symol of naLlonhood and naLlonal unlLy
O @haL lnLeresL ls relaLed Lo Lhe suppresslon of free expresslon
O -o flag urnlng excepLlon
4 llag emodles Lhe rlghLs proLecLed ln Lhe ConsLlLuLlon lncludlng Lhe rlghL Lo hold Lhe
flag lLself ln conLempL and urn lL
4 nce you acknowledge Lhe gov'Ls rlghL Lo an a message /c lLs Lroullng you creaLe a
sllppery slope effecL
4 llag urnlng ls noL Lhe same as Lhe oLher caLegorlcal excepLlons lnclLemenL oscenlLy
defamaLlon all lack serlous llLerary arLlsLlc pollLlcal or sclenLlflc value)
O DnlLed SLaLes v Llchman (DS 1990) sLruck down a federal acL prohllLlng knowlngly muLllaLlng Lhe flag
wltbot teqotJ Lo wheLher Lhe conducL mlghL offend someone else
@radlLlonally expresslve
acLlvlLles
@yplcally nonexpresslve acLlvlLles
ConLenL 8ased
suecLed Lo SS
ConLenL -euLral
O 8oos holdlng a slgn
crlLlclzlng Lhe govL
O JhlLe speech
crlLlclzlng govL
O LOCL@l-
CaLegorlcally excluded
(lnclLemenL chlld porn
defamaLlon eLc)
O l-@L8MLulA@L
SC8D@l-?
O Jard Muslc
O 8arnes uanclng
O llylng a flag (flag
symol long done Lo
express a polnL)
O ohnson urnlng a flag as a form a
crlLlclsm of Lhe govL (message
crlLlclsm of presldenL undersLood
as such)
O 88lL- SC8D@l-? never
lnvalldaLed reg under Lhls sLandard
(lS mlnus)
O 8rlen symollc drafL card
urnlng (message crlLlclze war
undersLood crlLlclsm)
O CovL can lncldenLally urden
expresslon
O CourL has never lnvalldaLed a
generally conLenL neuLral
regulaLlon of conducL
rovocaLlve Speech
@uesday -ovemer 08 2011
1113 AM
IIGn1ING JCkDS
O Chap||nsky v New nampsh|re (US 1942) 1
st
Am does not protect "f|ght|ng words"
O Challenge Lo a - sLaLuLe regardlng Lhe use of offenslve derlslve or annoylng words dlrecLed aL
an lndlvldual wlLh Lhe lnLenL Lo derlde offend or annoy hlm
4 u called a god damn rackeLeer and a god damn fasclsL"
4 Je wouldn'L expecL a Lo lash ouL when Lhey hear someLhlng llke LhaL
O I|ght|ng words are of not essent|a| part of any expos|t|on of |deas and are s||ght soc|a| va|ue as
a step to truth that any benef|t |s outwe|ghed by the soc|a| |nterest |n order and mora||ty
4 I|ght|ng words words that by the|r very utterance |nf||ct |n[ury or tend to |nc|te an
|mmed|ate breach of the peace
4 llghLlng words assumes LhaL Lhe llsLener would e proved Lo vlolence lf lnsulLed
4 @here mlghL e some words Loday LhaL would cause even Lhe mosL clvlllzed Lo lash ouL
O CourL has never afflrmed anoLher convlcLlon under Lhe flghLlng words docLrlne slnce Lhls case
9kCIANI1
O Cohen v Ca||forn|a (US 1971) SC struck down the conv|ct|on as unconst|tut|ona| under the 1
st
Am
profan|ty |s a protected area of free speech
O Challenge Lo a CA law prohllLlng mallclously and wlllfully dlsLurlng Lhe peace and quleL of any
nelghorhood y offenslve conducL
4 ueals here wlLh a convlcLlon resLlng solely upon speech u wore a ackeL aL Lhe
courLhouse LhaL sald luck @he urafL" on lL
4 u wore Lhe ackeL knowlng Lhe words were on lL as a means of expresslng hls feellngs
aouL Lhe IleLnam Jar
O I|ght|ng words must be d|rected at a part|cu|ar ||stener who wou|d understand them as a d|rect
persona| |nsu|t
4 Could end up punlshlng people efore any acLual harm resulLed
4 eckler's veLo shouldn'L leL a groups dlsLasLe for a message supporL lLs suppresslon
4 ullc speech Lhose who dldn'L wanL Lo see lL could averL Lhelr eyes
O 9rofan|ty |s not beyond the protect|on of the 1
st
Am
4 SuecLlng ourselves Lo cerLaln offenslve speech ls a necessary consequence of havlng
Lhe rlghL Lo speak freely
O Serves a dua|commun|cat|ve funct|on conveys an |dea as we|| as expresses and emot|ona|
connect|on beh|nd the |dea
4 Can'L suppress cerLaln words wlLhouL lnherenLly suppresslng ldeas
4 u was noL arresLed /c he sald Lhe word fuck" he was arresLed /c of lLs connecLlon Lo
hls haLred for Lhe drafL
nA1L S9LLCn
O kAV v C|ty of St 9au| (US 1992) sets up the except|ons to the except|on categor|ca| exc|us|on ru|e
state can ban f|ght|ng words but not hate speech
O Challenge Lo a M- sLaLuLe prohllLlng cross urnlng on pullc or prlvaLe whlch one knows or has
reasonale grounds Lo know would arouses anger ln oLhers oo tbe osls of toce
4 u were whlLe klds arresLed for urnlng a cross on Lhe fronL lawn of a lack famlly
O CourL Lhe sLaLuLe ls unconsLlLuLlonal /c lL prohllLs oLherwlse permlsslle speech solely on Lhe
asls of Lhe suecLs Lhe speech addresses
O Content 8ased keg ku|e 1
sL
Am generally prevenLs gov'L from proscrllng speech or expresslve
conducL /c of dlsapproval of Lhe ldeas expressed (ConLenL ased resLrlcLlons suecL Lo SS)
4 Lxcept|on for Categor|ca| Lxc|us|ons conLenL ased resLrlcLlons are permlsslle when
Lhe area of speech ls of such sllghL soclal value as a sLep Lo LruLh LhaL any eneflL ls
ouLwelghed y soclal lnLeresL ln morallLy
O @ypes scenlLy uefamaLlon llghLlng Jords eLc
4 Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on gov'L oy oot furLher resLrlcL a suseL of a caLegorlcally
excluded area on a asls oteloteJ Lo proscrlale conLenL of Lhe caLegory
O le coot teqlote ooly loclteeot lovolvloq toclol ptejJlce
O Cov'L M regulaLe a caLegorlcally excluded areas are regulaLed ecose of
tbelt coostlttlooolly ptosctlole cooteot
Cov'L M -@ e suecL Lhe caLegorlcally excluded areas Lo conLenL
dlscrlmlnaLlon y furLher regulaLlon unrelaLed Lo Lhelr dlsLlncLlvely
proscrlale conLenL
O le ermlsslle gov'L may proscrle llel lmpermlsslle gov'L oy oot
proscrle only llel LhaL ls crlLlcal of Lhe gov'L
4 I|rst Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on gov'L oy furLher resLrlcL a suseL
of a caLegorlcally excluded area lf Lhe asls for Lhe conLenL dlscrlmlnaLlon conslsLs
enLlrely of Lhe very teosoo tbe eotlte closs was proscrlale ln Lhe flrsL place
O lf Lhe reason for regulaLlng Lhe enLlre class was found neuLral enough Lhen lL
sLands Lo reason LhaL lL ls also neuLral enough Lo regulaLe a suseL of Lhe class
O Lxamples
Lx #1 A sLaLe M prohllL only LhaL oscenlLy whlch ls Lhe mosL
paLenLly offenslve lo lts pttleoce (Lhe mosL lasclvlous dlsplay of sexual
acLlvlLy)
Lx #2 A sLaLe M NO1 prohllL only LhaL oscenlLy whlch lncludes
offenslve pollLlcal message
Jhy? Lhere ls a caLegorlcal excepLlon for oscenlLy /c lLs poLenLly
offenslve and appeals Lo Lhe prurlenL lnLeresL
O ln Lx #1 Lhe asls for regulaLlon of Lhe suseL was Lhe same
as Lhe asls for Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe enLlre class
O ln Lx#2 Lhe asls for Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe suseL was enLlrely
unrelaLed Lo Lhe asls for Lhe regulaLlon of Lhe enLlre class
4 Second Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on to the Lxcept|on gov'L oy furLher resLrlcL a
suseL of a caLegorlcally excluded area lf Lhe suseL happens Lo e assoclaLed wlLh
pottlclot secooJoty effect of tbe speecb so LhaL Lhe regulaLlon ls usLlfled w/o
reference Lo Lhe conLenL of Lhe speech
O |e permlLLlng all oscene llve performances except tbose lovolvloq loots
ecause lL ls excludlng Lhe suseL /c of Lhe secondary effecL of chlld ause
O kegs d|rected not aga|nst speech but aga|nst conduct m|ght acc|denta||y
sweep |n a part|cu|ar contentbased subcategory of speech
le sexually derogaLory flghLlng words mlghL vlolaLe @lLle Ill
O rdlnance here applles only Lo flghLlng words LhaL lnsulL or provoke vlolence on Lhe asls of race
color creed rellglon or gender
4 @he ordlnance falls wlLhln Lhe LxcepLlon Lo Lhe LxcepLlon /c lL regulaLes a suseL of a
caLegorlcally excluded class on a asls unrelaLed Lo why Lhe enLlre class ls regulaLed
4 rdlnance ls clearly vlewpolnL dlscrlmlnaLlon
O ClLy's arg Lhe sLaLuLe should survlve conLenL ased SS /c lL ls narrowly Lallored Lo meeL a
compelllng gov'L lnLeresL
4 CourL flnds LhaL Lhe lnLeresL ln ensurlng Lhe aslc human rlghLs of memers of groups
LhaL have een hlsLorlcally suecLed Lo dlscrlmlnaLlon ls compelllng
4 CourL also flnd LhaL Lhe regulaLlon ls noL reasonaly necessary Lo meeL SL aul's
compelllng lnLeresL
O A sLaLuLe crlmlnallzlng cross urnlng ln general would have Lhe same eneflclal
effecL
O @he only lnLeresL served y Lhe conLenL llmlLaLlon ls expresslng Lhe clLles
hosLlllLy Loward Lhe parLlcular pracLlces preclsely forldden y Lhe 1
sL
Am
O ower Lo proscrle speech on one conLenL elemenL does noL denoLe power Lo descrle speech
on oLher conLenL elemenLs
1nkLA1S
O Jatts v Un|ted States (US 1969) genu|ne threats are not protected speech
O Challenge Lo a federal sLaLuLe crlmlnallzlng LhreaLs of vlolence dlrecLed agalnsL Lhe presldenL
4 u lf Lhey ever make me carry a rlfle Lhe flrsL man l wanL Lo geL ln my slghLs ls 8"
O CourL found Lhe sLaLuLe consLlLuLlonal
4 -aLlon has a valld lnLeresL ln proLecLlng Lhe safeLy of lLs Commander ln Chlef
4 @hreaLs musL e dlsLlngulshed from consLlLuLlonally proLecLed speech
O V|rg|n|a v 8|ack (US 2003) some cross burn|ngs f|t w|th|n th|s mean|ng of |nt|m|dat|ng speech
O Challenge Lo a IA sLaLuLe LhaL made lL a crlme Lo urn a cross wlLh Lhe lnLenL Lo lnLlmldaLe a
person or group of persons
O Cross urnlng ls symol of haLe ofLen Lhough Lo convey a message of lnLlmldaLlon
O 1
sL
Am permlLs a sLaLe Lo an a Lrue LhreaL where a speaker means Lo communlcaLe a serlous
expresslon of an lnLenL Lo commlL an acL of unlawful vlolence Lo lndlvldual(s)
O Also falls wlLhln Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe excepLlon Lo Lhe excepLlon
C1nLk CA1LGCkILS
O Un|ted States v Stevens (US 2010) an|ma| crue|ty |s not a c|ass of speech qua||fy|ng for categor|ca|
exc|us|on from 1
st
Am protect|on
O Challenge Lo a federal sLaLuLe LhaL anned Lhe creaLlon selllng or possesslon of deplcLlons of
anlmal cruelLy lf LhaL conducL vlolaLes federal or sLaLe law
4 SLaLe was enacLed Lo comaL crush vldeos" women ln hlgh heels crushlng small
anlmals
4 LxempLs any deplclLlon LhaL has serlous rellglous pollLlcal sclenLlflc educaLlonal
ournallsLlc hlsLorlcal or arLlsLlc value
4 u's vldeos were aouL dog flghLlng and dogs aLLacklng a wlld oar
O Cov'L soughL Lo add deplcLlons of anlmal cruelLy as anoLher area of caLegorlcally unproLecLed
speech
4 8alanclng LesL /w Lhe soclal value of Lhe deplcLlons compared Lo Lhelr harm
4 ong hlsLory of prohllLlon of anlmal cruelLy
O Court adhoc cost benef|t ana|ys|s |sn't the proper test to determ|ne wh|ch th|ngs fa|| |nto the
category of unprotected speech
4 revlous cases llke etet were noL only aouL alanclng
O ln lerer Lhe gov'L had a compelllng lnLeresL ln proLecLlng chlldren from ause
and Lhe value of uslng chlldren ln Lhese works was dlmlnlmus
O Chlld porn was also lnLrlnslcally relaLed Lo Lhe underlylng lllegal chlld ause and
was Lherefore an lnLegral parL of Lhe producLlon of such maLerlals
4 CannoL e undersLood Lo creaLe a freewheellng auLhorlLy Lo declare new caLegorles of
speech ouLslde Lhe scope of Lhe 1
sL
Am
O Acknow|edges that there are probab|y some other categor|es of speech that have been
h|stor|ca||y unprotected but have yet to be |dent|f|ed but an|ma| crue|ty |sn't one of them
V kLLIGICN
a1nL LS1A8LISnMLN1 CLAUSL
CovL Ald Lo 8ellglous lnsLlLuLlons
@hursday -ovemer 10 2011
1113 AM
O 1
sL
Am Congress shall make no law respecLlng an esLallshmenL of rellglon or prohllLlng Lhe free
exerclse Lhereof
O LsLallshmenL Cl no respecLlng an esLallshmenL of rellglon
O lree Lxerclse Cl no law prohllLlng Lhe free exerclse of rellglon
O CanLwell v ConnecLlcuL (DS 1940) u Cl of Lhe 14
Lh
Am makes oLh of Lhese clauses appllcale Lo Lhe
sLaLes
O roLecLlons of Lhe LsLallshmenL Cl (Lverson v 8oard of Lwlng @ownshlp (DS 1947)) -elLher sLaLe nor
federal gov'L can
O lorce nor lnfluence a person Lo go Lo or remaln away from church agalnsL hls wlll
O lorce hlm Lo profess a ellef or dlsellef ln an rellglon
O unlsh hlm for enLerLalnlng or professlng rellglous ellefs for church aLLendance or non
aLLendance
O 8eynolds v DnlLed SLaLes (DS 1878) Lhe 1
sL
Am lmplemenLs Lhe separaLlon of church and sLaLe
O Clvlc ldeal ln whlch Lhe gov'L and rellglon operaLe ln separaLe spheres
O Cov'L ls secular and Lhe clergy has no pollLlcal auLhorlLy
O @wo approaches Lo LsL Cl
O SeparaLlonlsm asoluLe separaLlon /w gov'L and rellglon
O -onpreferenLlallsm gov'L may noL prefer one rellglon over anoLher or rellglon over non
rellglon (lncreaslngly popular vlew)
O Lverson v 8oard of Lducat|on of Lw|ng 1ownsh|p (US 1947) upho|ds aga|nst Lst C| cha||enge an N
statute prov|d|ng tax funds for bus|ng students to Catho||c paroch|a| schoo|s
O Challenge Lo a - sLaLuLe auLhorlzlng lLs local school dlsLrlcLs Lo make conLracLs for LransporLaLlon
of chlldren Lo and from school
4 lncluded LransporLaLlon for sLudenLs ln CaLhollc parochlal schools
4 LsL Cl challenge Lhe use of Laxpayer money Lo pay for sLudenLs LransporLaLlon Lo and
from CaLhollc parochlal schools
4 @axpayer money lndlrecLly supporLed rellglon money glven Lo parenLs Lo relmurse
Lhem for Lhelr ouL of pockeL expense
O Court Lstab||shed two pr|nc|p|es
4 Lst C| |ntended to erect a wa|| of separat|on b]w church and state
O -o Lax small or large may e levled Lo supporL any rellglous acLlvlLles
O roLecLs secular lnsLlLuLlons from Lhe corrupLlve effecL of rellglon (@)
O roLecLs Lhe church from pollLlcal corrupLlon (8J)
O 8oLh rellglous and secular lnLeresLs wlll e proLecLed (M)
4 Neutra||ty pr|nc|p|e Lst C| requ|res the state to be neutra| |n |ts re|at|ons w|th groups
of re||g|ous be||evers and nonbe||evers
O Cov'L may provlde eneflLs Lo rellglous lnsLlLuLlons so long as lL does so ln a
neuLral fashlon does noL favor rellglon over nonrellglon
O SLaLes vlolaLe Lhe LsL Cl y uslng Laxralsed funds Lo supporL an lnsLlLuLlon whlch Leaches Lhe
LeneLs and falLh of any church
4 - dld noL vlolaLe Lhe LsL Cl / lL used Lax ralsed funds Lo pay Lhe us fares of parochlal
school puplls as a parL of a general program
O rolem Lwo elemenLs are ln conLrasL wlLh each oLher
4 SeparaLlonlsm gov'L can'L supporL rellglon
4 -euLrallLy gov'L musL supporL rellglon and nonrellglon equally
O MlLchell v elms (DS 2000) pollcy permlLLlng Lhe use of pullc funds Lo pay for llrary ooks compuLers
la equlpmenL and oLher edu lLems aL rellglous schools dldn'L vlolaLe LsL Cl
O lurallLy asserLed LhaL Lhe pollcy was permlsslle so long as no rellglous lndocLrlnaLlon LhaL
occurs ln Lhe schools could e aLLrluLed Lo Lhe gov'L funds
O Lemon v urtzman (US 1971) mu|t|factor test to assess whether a po||cy v|o|ates the Lst C|
O Challenge Lo gov'L salary supplemenL ln A and 8l for prlvaLe schools lncludlng rellglous prlmary
and secondary schools
4 8oLh pollcles llmlLed gov'L ald Lo Lhe supporL of seclot sjects ln Lhe rellglous schools
O uld lL vlolaLe Lhe no supporL prlnclple ?LS
4 Cov'L funds are golng dlrecLly Lo employees aL rellglous schools
O uld lL vlolaLe Lhe neuLrallLy prlnclple -
4 Ceneral program paylng for salarles of Leachers aL oLh rellglous and nonrellglous
prlvaLe schools and gov'L already pays pullc school Leacher salarles
O Lemon 1est assess|ng whether a part|cu|ar po||cy v|o|ates the Lst C| the court must |ook to
4 1he statute must have a secu|ar purpose
4 1he statute must ne|ther odvonce nor inhibit re/iqion
4 1he statute must not excessive/y entonq/e the gov't and re||g|on
O cbotoctet ooJ ptpose of tbe lostlttloo eoefltteJ
O Notte of tbe olJ
O kelotloosblp /w qovt ooJ tellqlos otbotlty
O ollcles ln Lhls case fall Lhe enLanglemenL LesL
4 CharacLer and purpose schools are rellglon ased
4 -aLure of ald dlrecL ald Lo rellglous schools
4 8esulLlng relaLlonshlp gov'L req Lo meddle ln Lhe flnances of rellglous lnsLlLuLlon
O 8y avoldlng enhanclng or lnhllLlng rellglon pollcles ofLen Llmes excesslvely enLangle Lhe gov'L
and rellglon /c Lhe gov'L musL conLlnuously monlLor Lhe use of dlsLrluLed funds
O @wo rolems wlLh Lhe emon @esL
O Iague and openended
O @he lasL Lwo facLors Lend Lo counLeracL one anoLher
O SC has noL always followed Lhe emon @esL
O -onpreferenLlallsm has Lrlumphed over SeparaLlonlsm recenLly
O Mueller v Allen (DS 1983) SC applled Lhe emon @esL and upheld Lhe Lax reak law
4 Challenge Lo a M- law LhaL permlLLed Lax deducLlon for money all parenLs spend on
Lhelr sLudenLs educaLlon
O Allowed parenLs Lo deducL Lhe cosL of LulLlon lncurred ln sendlng Lhelr klds Lo
prlvaLe rellglous schools
4 CourL applled Lhe emon @esL and upheld Lhe law
O Secular purpose promoLlon of educaLlon
O rlmary effecL noL Lo advance secLarlan alms of Lhe nonpullc schools
O LnLanglemenL pullc funds ecome avallale only as a resulL of numerous
prlvaLe cholces made y lndlvldual parenLs
O 8osenerger v 8ecLor and IlslLors of DIA (DS 1993) SC sLruck down Lhe prlnLlng pollcy whlch
prohllLed Lhe ChrlsLlan group from prlnLlng rellglous maLerlal
4 Challenge Lo a pullc unlverslLy's refusal Lo use funds derlved from sLudenL acLlvlLy fees
Lo pay prlnLlng cosLs for Lhe newspaper of a ChrlsLlan Lvangellcal Croup
O CourL held LhaL Lhe excluslon consLlLuLed lmpermlsslle vlewpolnL
dlscrlmlnaLlon ln vlolaLlon of Lhe 1
sL
Am lreedom of Speech
4 Cov'L prlnLlng program was neuLral Loward rellglon
O ald a Lhlrd parLy Lo operaLe Lhe prlnLlng
4 ecL of Lhe sLudenL acLlvlLles fund was Lo promoLe an open forum for speech
4 -oL a Lax levled for dlrecL supporL of rellglon
O e|man v S|mmonsnarr|s (US 2002) court uphe|d the student voucher program aga|nst Lst C|
cha||enge
4 Cha||enge to a Cn voucher program for students that ||ve |n C|eve|and and seek to
attend pr|vate schoo|s and ne|ghbor|ng pub||c schoo|s
O @ulLlon ald ls dlsLrluLed dlrecLly Lo Lhe parenLs who could endorse Lhe check
over Lo Lhe school of Lhelr cholce
O 36 prlvaLe school parLlclpaLed ln Lhe program and 82 of Lhem had a rellglous
afflllaLlon
O 96 of Lhe sLudenLs who parLlclpaLed ln Lhe voucher program wenL Lo rellglous
schools pracLlcal effecL was Lo provlde susLanLlal supporL for rellglon
4 Court app||ed a vers|on of the Lemon 1est fo|ded step three |nto step two
O Neutra| program Lhe money can go anywhere Lhe parenLs declde (all schools
are opLlons)
O Advanc|ng or |nh|b|t|ng re||g|on gov'Ls role ends aL Lhe dlsLrluLlon
ulsLrluLlon Lo a road class of clLlzens +many lnLervenlng cholces y
Lhe parenLs follow
O AcLually Lo Lhe flnanclal dlsadvanLage of prlvaLe rellglous schools whlch
recelved Z Lhe gov'L asslsLance off communlLy schools and 1/3 of magneL
4 SouLer dlssenL
O Lverson conLrols maorlLy lgnores lL and Lhe Lrue meanlng of neuLrallLy and
prlvaLe cholce
-euLrallLy does Lhe scheme fovot tellqlos lnsLlLuLlons
O usL look aL Lhe scale of Lhe ald golng Lo rellglous lnsLlLuLlons
rlvaLe cholce wheLher Lhe prlvaLe hand ls qeoloely ftee Lo send Lhe
money ln elLher a secular dlrecLlon or a rellglous one
O @he facL LhaL almosL all sLudenLs are golng Lo rellglous schools
lndlcaLes a lack of opLlons no free cholce
O Lvery oecLlve underlylng Lhe prohllLlon of rellglous esLallshmenL ls
eLrayed y Lhe scheme
O CovL fundlng of rellglous pracLlces ls generally okay as long Lhere ls equal fundlng Lo nonrellglous
pracLlces
O -onpreferenLlallsL prlnclple govL cannoL prefer one rellglon Lo anoLher or rellglon over non
rellglon
O -o longer follow Lhe separaLlon prlnclple
8ellglon ln Schools
Monday -ovemer 14 2011
1149 AM
O LsL Cl does noL ar all rellglous acLlvlLles ln pullc lnsLlLuLlons
4 SC occaslonally permlLs some such acLlvlLles ouLslde Lhe prlmary and pullc school conLexL LhaL
are Jeeply eeJJeJ lo tbe blstoty ooJ ttoJltloo of tbe cootty
O LsL Cl does noL prevenL Lhe dlsplay of rellglous symols on gov'L properLy lf
4 @he symols have a secular purpose and
4 uo noL amounL Lo an endorsemenL of a parLlcular rellglon or rellglon ln general
O LsL Cl ars prayer ln pullc schools lf tbe ptoyet ls oo offlclol ot opptoveJ pott of scbool octlvltles
4 8anned wheLher Lhe sLudenLs say Lhe prayer or merely hear Lhe prayer
4 8anned wheLher Lhe prayer ls denomlnaLlonal or nondenomlnaLlonal
4 8anned wheLher Lhe prayer ls sllenL or spoken
4 8anned wheLher Lhe prayer ls volunLary or lnvolunLary
O I|||no|s ex re| McCo||um v 8oard of Lducat|on (US 1948) SC |nva||dated a schoo| board's re||g|on
po||cy
4 lacLs
Challenge Lo a school oard pollcy permlLLlng Leachers employed y prlvaLe rellglous
groups Lo come lnLo school durlng Lhe regular uslness hours and susLlLuLe secular
Leachlng for rellglous Leachlng
O Classes offered y roLesLanL CaLhollc and ewlsh Leachers
SLudenLs who chose noL Lo parLlclpaLe were noL released from school req'd Lo go Lo
anoLher parL of Lhe school for secular edu
SLudenLs who chose Lo parLlclpaLe were req'd Lo aLLend Lhe rellglon classes
4 Court found that the po||cy v|o|ated the Lst C| b]c |t amounted to a ut|||zat|on of the tax
estab||shed and taxsupported pub||c schoo| system to a|d re||g|on |n spread|ng |ts fa|th
O orach v C|auson (US 19S2) uphe|d a pub||c schoo| re||g|on po||cy
4 Challenge Lo a school oard pollcy permlLLlng Lhe release of chlldren from school durlng school
hours Lo aLLend secLarlan classes ouLslde Lhe pullc schools
4 Court found that the po||cy d|d not v|o|ate the Lst C| b]c no one was forced by the schoo| to go
|nto a re||g|ous c|assroom and no re||g|ous exerc|se was brought |nto the c|assroom
4 oldlng oLherwlse would req Lhe school Lo deny permlsslon Lo rellglous sLudenLs who asked Lo
e excused for Lhe oservance of rellglous hollday
O Lnge| v V|ta|e (US 1962) estab||shed a strong separat|on pr|nc|p|e b]w church and state
4 Challenge Lo a school oard pollcy LhaL req'd LhaL a prayer creaLed y Lhe school oard e read
aloud ln class everyday
@he prayer was nondenomlnaLlonal and nonsecLarlan
SLudenLs weren'L req'd Lo lndlvldually repeaL Lhe prayer
4 Lnge| estab||shed a strong separat|on pr|nc|p|e
Gov't composed prayers are prob|emat|c under the 1
st
Am even |f nonsectar|an and
nondenom|nat|ona|
Vo|untar|ness |s not enough compu|s|on |s not req'd for a |aw to v|o|ate the Lst C|
4 Any prayer ln pullc schools ls LanLamounL Lo esLallshlng rellglon
Schemp a req LhaL sLudenLs read 10 passages from Lhe lle and reclLe Lhe lords
prayer durlng Lhe school day vlolaLed Lhe LsL Cl
4 Gov't |n th|s country be |t state or federa| |s w|thout power to proscr|be by |aw any part|cu|ar
form of prayer wh|ch |s to be used as an off|c|a| prayer
9ub||c schoo| cannot compose prayers |ead prayers or set as|de spec|f|c t|me for
prayers
-? sLaLe prayer offlclally esLallshes Lhe rellglous ellefs emodled ln Lhe prayer
O Schoo| D|st of Ab|ngton 1wp V Schempp (US 1963) Lst C| proh|b|ts read|ngs from the 8|b|e and
rec|tat|on of the Lord's 9rayer dur|ng schoo|
4 @he pollcy vlolaLed Lhe LsL Cl /c Lhe prayers were prescrled as a parL of Lhe currlcular acLlvlLles
of sLudenLs who were req'd y law Lo aLLend school
4 uldn'L maLLer LhaL sLudenLs were noL req'd Lo parLlclpaLe
O Jest VA State 8oard of Lducat|on v 8arnette (US 1943) states cannot requ|re students to sa|ute the
f|ag and rec|te the p|edge of a||eg|ance
4 8of8 guards Lhe lndlvldual's rlghL Lo speak hls own mlnd
4 -o offlclal hlgh or peLLy can prescrle whaL shall e orLhodox ln pollLlcs naLlonallsm rellglon or
oLher maLLers of oplnlon or force clLlzens Lo confess y word or acL Lhelr falLh Lhereln
O Lee v Je|sman (US 1992) |nc|ud|ng prayer as a part of a pub||c nS graduat|on ceremony v|o|ated the
Lst C|
4 Cov'L dldn'L compose or lead Lhe prayer memers of Lhe clergy lnvlLed Lo dellver enedlcLlon
School dlsL chose Lhe clergy memer and dlcLaLed Lhe ounds of Lhe prayer
eglLlmaLe aLLempL Lo keep Lhe prayer nonsecLarlan and nondenomlnaLlonal
4 Jelsman's dad flled a consLlLuLlonal challenge Lo Lhe prayer as a vlolaLlon of Lhe LsL Cl
4 Coerc|on created a forma| re||g|ous exerc|se wh|ch students were ob||gated to attend
-o real cholce noL Lo aLLend graduaLlon lL's an lnLegral parL of Lhe S experlence
IolunLary ln Lheory noL appllcaLlon
4 ne|ghtened concern w|th prayer |n the pub||c schoo| context
eer pressure and pullc pressure Lo parLlclpaLe even Lhough Lhere ls no req psych
sLudles show LhaL chlldren are more suscepLlle Lo pressure Lo parLlclpaLe
SLandlng and remalnlng sllenL ls more Lhan usL a slgn of respecL denoLes parLlclpaLlon
and agreemenL wlLh Lhe message
4 A sp|r|tua| |mperat|ve for one m|ght be coerc|on for another
SLaLe cannoL req one of lLs clLlzens Lo forfelL hls or her rlghLs and eneflLs as Lhe prlce
of reslsLlng conformance
4 1he aff|rmat|ve act|on of the gov't was |nvo|v|ng the prayer |n the graduat|on ceremony
ueclslons y Lhe prlnclpal are aLLrluLale Lo Lhe sLaLe
4 8|ackmun Concurrence
Coerc|on |s suff|c|ent to estab||sh an Lst C| v|o|at|on but not necessary
O LsL Cl proscrles pullc school from conveylng or aLLempLlng Lo convey a
message LhaL rellglon or a parLlcular rellglous ellef ls favored or preferred
O A req of coerc|on wou|d make the Lst C| redundant b]c the IL C| a|ready
forb|ds the gov't |nterfer|ng w|th an |nd|v|dua|'s free exerc|se of re||g|on
LsL Cl prohllLs gov'L endorsemenL sponsorshlp or acLlve lnvolvemenL ln rellglon
4 SouLer Concurrence
Cov'L endorsemenL of a parLlcular rellglon conveys a message of excluslon Lo all Lhose
who do noL adhere Lo LhaL rellglon
Cov'L endorsemenL of a parLlcular message permlLs Lhe ellef LhaL Lhe gov'L supporLs
LhaL parLlcular rellglon
@he quesLlon lsn'L wheLher Lhe school made a good falLh efforL Lo make Lhe prayer non
secLarlan lL's Lhe leglLlmacy of Lhe underLaklng of esLallshlng a prayer ln Lhe flrsL place
4 Scalla ulssenL
aLes gov'L clLlng psych sLudles
nly sees gov'L compelllng" as y force of law or LhreaL of penalLy
Cov'L can encourage respecL among rellglons
Many pracLlces lndlcaLe gov'L endorsemenL of rellglon
O Good News C|ub v M||ford (US 2001) SC struck down a pub||c schoo| po||cy that proh|b|ted a re||g|ous
organ|zat|on from us|ng the schoo| after schoo| hours
4 SC found LhaL Lhe an vlolaLed Lhe 1
sL
Am proLecLlon for freedom of speech /c lL consLlLuLed
vlewpolnL dlscrlmlnaLlon
O Santa Ie |ndependent Schoo| D|str|ct v Doe (US 2000) struck down a schoo| board po||cy perm|tt|ng
appo|nt|ng of a study to g|ve the bened|ct|on
4 Challenge Lo a pullc S pollcy auLhorlzlng Lhe sLudenL ody Lo voLe each year on wheLher Lo
choose a sLudenL Lo dellver a rlef lnvocaLlon efore Lhe sLarL of fooLall games
4 Court he|d that the program v|o|ated the Lst C| b]c the spec|f|c purpose of the po||cy was to
preserve a popu|ar statesponsored re||g|ous pract|ce
4 Cov'L pollcy + gov'L properLy + gov'L sponsored school relaLed evenL
O Lpperson v Arkansas (US 1968) court |nva||dated a |aw forb|dd|ng the teach|ng of evo|ut|on |n pub||c
schoo|s and un|vers|t|es v|o|ated the Lst C|
4 IlolaLes Lhe roader neuLrallLy prlnclple prefers rellglon over nonrellglon
4 urpose was Lo dlsmlss Lhe Lheory of evoluLlon whlch was lnconslsLenL w/Lhe vlew of Lhe
rellglous maorlLy
O Ldwards v Agu|||ard (US 1987) struck down as v|o|at|ve of the Lst C| a |aw req the teach|ng of both
evo|ut|on and creat|on|sm |f e|ther was taught
4 Applled Lhe emon @esL no clear secular purpose Lo Lhe law
@he purpose musL e slncere and noL a sham
AcL doesn'L granL Leachers Lhe flexllllLy Lo Leach whaL Lhey chose
MoLlvaLed y a deslre Lo advance a rellglous vlewpolnL
lL's noL y chance LhaL Lhe pollcy req'd Leachlng of a rellglous vlew along wlLh evoluLlon
raLher Lhan any oLher vlew
4 Scalla dlssenL geL rld of Lhe emon LesL
urpose prong ls especlally ad
8ellglous Symollsm
Jednesday -ovemer 16 2011
1102 AM
O Marsh v Chambers (US 1983) uphe|d a NL statute perm|tt|ng appo|nt|ng a chap|a|n to be|ng each
|eg|s|at|ve sess|on w|th a prayer
4 Challenge Lo a -L sLaLuLe permlLLlng Lhe use of pullc funds Lo hlre a chaplaln Lo open each
leglslaLlve sesslon wlLh a prayer
4 n|stor|ca| patterns a|one cannot [ust|fy contemporary v|o|at|ons of const|tut|ona| guarantees
but here the h|story sheds ||ght on the |eg understand|ng of the Lst C|
Leg|s|at|ve prayers are deep/y embedded |n the h|story and trad|t|on of our country
4 8urger was Lhe auLhor of Lhe emon @esL uL he dldn'L apply lL here applles hlsLorlcal approach
llrsL Congress passed a sLaLuLe permlLLlng a chaplaln Lo conducL prayers Lo open
Congresslonal sesslons
SLaLuLe was passed qulLe conLemporaneously wlLh Lhe enacLmenL of Lhe 8of8
4 Appears LhaL Lhe pollcy would have falled Lhe emon @esL how does Motsb square wlLh Lhe
oLher LsL Cl cases llmlLed prlnclple or road
O Lynch v Donne||y (US 1984) he|d that a town's d|sp|ay of the creche |n a Chr|stmas d|sp|ay d|d not
v|o|ate the Lst C|
4 Challenge Lo Lhe ChrlsLmas dlsplay ln Lhe clLy ln 8l where Lhe creche was lncluded as one of Lhe
symols
Scene also lncluded oLher symols LradlLlonally correspondlng wlLh ChlrsLmas
All componenLs of Lhe dlsplay are owned y Lhe clLy
4 9|ura||ty app||ed the Lemon 1est wh||e acknow|edg|ng that there |s not one set test |n these
c|rcumstances
urpose
O Ilewed ln Lhe conLexL of Lhe hollday season lL ls apparenL LhaL Lhe Lown dld
noL puL lL Lhere wlLh Lhe lnLenL of conveylng supporL for a parLlcular rellglon
O Creche dlsplays Lhe hlsLorlcal orlglns of Lhls LradlLlonal evenL long recognlzed
as a naLlonal hollday
rlmary LffecL
O @he creche ls noL more of an endorsemenL or eneflL Lo rellglon Lhan Lhe
prevlous gov'L alds and endorsemenLs Lo rellglon LhaL have een permlLLed
O recedenL holds LhaL on occaslon some advancemenL of rellglon wlll resulL
from gov'L acLlon here lL was lndlrecL remoLe and lncldenLal
LnLanglemenL
O -o admlnlsLraLlve enLanglemenL /w rellglon and sLaLe resulLlng from Lhe
clLy's ownershlp and use of Lhe Creche
4 C'Connor Concurrence (S
th
Vote) app||ed two factors of the Lemon 1est (dropped purpose)
Lntang|ement there was no entang|ement here
Gov't endorsement or d|sapprova| of re||g|on 1wo Iactors
O Lxam|ne what message the commun|ty |ntended to commun|ty
4 Gov't po||cy can advance or |nh|b|t re||g|on but moy not endorse or
d|sapprove of re||g|on
4 CommunlLy dld noL lnLend Lo convey any message or endorsemenL or
approval/dlsapproval of ChrlsLlanlLy
4 nly lnLended Lo use Lhe creche as a symol of celeraLlon of a pullc
hollday Lhrough LradlLlonal symols
O Lxam|ne the message the commun|ty actua||y commun|cated from the
perspect|ve of the reasonab|e observer
4 CommunlLy dlsplay of Lhe creche does noL communlcaLe a message
LhaL Lhe gov'L lnLends Lo endorse rellglous ellefs
4 Creche ls usL a symol Lo represenL a pullc hollday LhaL ls lLself noL
undersLood Lo e an endorsemenL of rellglon
O County of A||egheny v ACLU (US 1989) Lstab||shes a context ana|ys|s
4 9etltteJ a clLy Lo dlsplay of a menorah /c lL was accompanled y a ChrlsLmas Lree
4 lJ oot petlt Lhe clLy Lo dlsplay a creche /c lL was unaccompanled y oLher rellglous and non
secular symols
1LN CCMANDMLN1S CASLS Sp||t Iour in fovor of d|sp|ay (kehnqu|st 1homas Sca||a and ennedy) and Iour
oqoinst d|sp|ay (Souter Stevens G|nsburg C'Connor) Cne Sw|ng (8reyer LS (McCreary) NC (Van Crden)
O McCrery County v ACLU of (US 200S) aff|rms DC |n[unct|on proh|b|t|ng d|sp|ay of the 10
Commandments |n the courthouse
4 Souter 8reyer Stevens G|nsburg 9|ura||ty
LsL Cl challenge Lo Lhe placemenL of large coples of Lhe @en CommandmenLs ln ?
CourLhouses
O AfLer Lhe challenge ? amended Lhe dlsplay Lo say LhaL Lhe @en
CommandmenLs are Lhe precedenL legal code upon whlch Lhe clvll and
crlmlnal codes of ? are founded
O Amended lL Lo lnclude elghL oLher docs ln smaller frames each havlng a
rellglous Lheme or excepL Lo hlghllghL a rellglous elemenL
uC lssued an lnuncLlon Lo remove Lhe dlsplays
O Amended Lhem Lo lnclude 9 oLher small frames wlLh coples of varlous
documenLs from our DS hlsLory (le ueclaraLlon of lndep ady lerLy -aL'l
MoLLo eLc)
Dec||nes to drop the purpose assessment of the Lemon 1est
O Lxam|nat|on of purpose |s a key e|ement of a good dea| of Con Law doctr|ne
O Court w||| not accept a sham exp|anat|on from a state regard|ng the purpose
of |ts acts
1here |s an |nherent re||g|ous message |n the 10 commandments
O keasonab|e observer cou|d on|y th|nk the count|es meant to emphas|ze and
ce|ebrate the Commandments re||g|ous message
O Cov'L oecLlve enhanced y Lhe correspondlng rellglous references and Lhe
accompanylng resoluLlon's clalm aouL Lhe emodlmenL of eLhlcs ln ChrlsL
O nly afLer mounLlng Lhe Lhlrd dlsplay dld Lhe sLaLe offer a usLlflcaLlon of
educaLlng Lhe pullc aouL docs LhaL played a role ln our sysLem of gov'L
llLlgaLlon usLlflcaLlon
9urpose needs to be taken ser|ous|y |n Lst C| [ur|sprudence and needs to be
understood |n ||ght of context
O -oL saylng LhaL Lhe 10 commandmenLs can never e consLlLuLlonally
lnLegraLed lnLo a gov'L dlsplay
O usL saylng Lhe dlsplay aL lssue here falls
Neutra||ty |s |mportant |n Lst C| [ur|sprudence
O lnLended noL only Lo proLecL Lhe lnLegrlLy of lndlvldual consclence ln rellglous
maLLers
O lnLended Lo guard agalnsL Lhe clvlc dlvlslveness LhaL follows when Lhe gov'L
welghs ln on one slde of Lhe rellglon deaLe
4 C'Connor Concurrence
4 Sca||a kehnqu|st 1homas ennedy D|ssent
O Van Crden v 9erry (US 200S)
4 kehnqu|st Sca||a ennedy 1homas 9|ura||ty
LsL Cl challenge Lo sLaLe monumenL llsLlng Lhe 10 commandmenLs
O More 8ellglous symols on Lhe monumenLs
O @he monumenL was presenLed y Lhe lraLernal rder of Lhe Lagles of @O
@wo approaches Lo LsL Cl Cases
O lsLorlcal sLrong role played y rellglon and rellglous LradlLlons LhroughouL
our naLlon's hlsLory
O SeparaLlonlsm gov'L lnLervenLlon ln rellglous maLLers can lLself endanger
rellglous freedom
uoes noL apply Lhe emon @esL here
Je should focus on Lhe naLure of Lhe monumenL and y our naLlon's hlsLory
O 10 CommandmenLs are dlsplayed ln many of our gov'L ulldlngs
O 10 CommandmenLs are clearly rellglous uL mere rellglous conLenL or
promoLlng a rellglous message does noL vlolaLe Lhe LsL Cl
@he lncluslon of Lhe 10 commandmenLs carrles a dual rellglous and gov'L funcLlon
4 8reyer Concurrence (Contro|||ng Cp|n|on)
@hls ls a orderllne case
O 10 commandmenLs have a clear rellglous message uL focuslng on Lhe LesL of
Lhem alone does noL concluslvely resolve Lhe case
1o reach a proper resu|t we must exam|ne how the text |s used |ook at the context
O 10 commandmenLs can dlsplay a secular moral message or a hlsLorlcal
message
nere the 10 commandments convey a secu|ar message and a re||g|ous one but the
state |ntends the secu|ar message to preva||
O Croup LhaL donaLed Lhe monumenL were noL lnLeresLed ln lLs rellglous
message
O @he seLLlng of Lhe monumenL does noL suggesL anyLhlng sacred
O SLaLe soughL Lo dlsplay a message aouL @O ldeals
Monument went uncha||enged for 40 years wh|ch |nd|cates |ts acceptance as a
secu|ar message rather than a re||g|ous one
4 Stevens G|nsburg C'Connor Souter D|ssent
Sole funcLlon of Lhe monumenL was Lo dlsplay a rellglous message and sLaLe
endorsemenL of Lhe dlvlne code of Lhe udeoChrlsLlan Cod
LsL Cl has a sLrong presumpLlon agalnsL Lhe dlsplay of rellglous symols on pullc
properLy
O LsL Cl and lree Lxerclse clause esLallsh Lhe separaLlonlsm prlnclple
SeparaLlonlsm proLecLs many prlnclples
O LsL Cl demands rellglous neuLrallLy gov'L may noL prefer one rellglon over
anoLher or rellglon over nonrellglon
uoesn'L supporL sLrlcL separaLlonlsm LsL Cl doesn'L req Lhe sLaLe Lo hlde works of arL
or hlsLorlc memorallla from pullc vlew usL /c lL has rellglous slgnlflcance
O @hls case lsn'L aouL hlsLorlc preservaLlon or mere recognlLlon of rellglon
O lL was noL donaLed wlLh Lhe purpose of commemoraLlng @O hlsLory
lree Lxerclse ulscrlmlnaLlon and -euLral aws
O lree Lxerclse Clause Congress shall make no law respecLlng an esLallshmenL of rellglon ot ptoblltloq
tbe ftee exetclse tbeteof"
4 roLecLs an lndlvldual's ellefs and meLhods of worshlp
O Jldely accepLed prlnclples under Lhe lree Lx Cl Lhe gov'L cannoL
4 unlsh ppl for holdlng cerLaln rellglous ellefs
4 uLlaw worshlp
4 unlsh Lhe expresslon of rellglous docLrlne lL elleves ls false
4 lmpose speclal dlsalllLles on Lhe asls of rellglous ellef or rellglous sLaLus
O @here ls an osolte fteeJo Lo hold rellglous ellefs and oplnlons
4 lL's rarely Lhe case LhaL gov'L seeks Lo lnLerfere Jltectly wlLh Lhls rlghL
4 lree exerclse clause doesn'L glve lndlvlduals llcense Lo Lake any acLlon ln Lhe name of rellglon
O @wo meLhods of lncldenLal gov'L lnLerference wlLh someone's alllLy Lo pracLlce Lhelr rellglon
4 ovt ptobllts a person from engaglng ln a pracLlce tepJ y tbelt tellqloo
4 ovt tepltes a person Lo engage ln conducL LhaL Lhelr tellqloo fotlJs
O CUkkLN1 S1ANDAkD mp/oyment uivision uept of numon kesources of Oreqon v Sm|th (US 1990) +
church of the Lukumi 8obo/u 4ye lnc v city of nio/eoh (US 1993)
4 Gov't may enforce a |aw burden|ng a part|cu|ar re||g|ous pract|ce on/y if
1he |aw |s neutra| and of genera| app||cab|||ty or
O -euLral lLs oecL ls noL Lo lnfrlnge upon or resLrlcL pracLlces /c of Lhelr
rellglon
O Ceneral appllcalllLy underlncluslve applylng Lo rellglous pracLlces uL noL Lo
slmllar nonrellglous pracLlces
Gov't has a compe|||ng |nterest |n |mpos|ng the burden and the |aw |s narrow|y
ta||ored to advance that |nterest
O Sherbert v Verner (US 1963) gov't act|ons that substant|a||y burden re||g|on must be [ust|f|ed by a
compe|||ng gov't |nterest (SS)
4 lacLs
AppellanL 7
Lh
uay AdvenLlsL LhaL couldn'L work SaLurday(her SaaLh)
uenled unemploymenL falled w/o good cause Lo accepL sulLale work
4 Court app||ed SS incidento/ burdens on free exercise may be [ust|f|ed by a compe//inq stote
interest |n the regu|at|on of the sub[ect w|th|n the state's const|tut|ona| power to regu|ate
A |aw |s unconst|tut|ona| |f the purpose or effect of the |aw |s to |mpede the
observance of one or a|| re||g|ons or to |nv|d|ous|y d|scr|m|nate b]w re||g|ons
CourL req'd LhaL Lhe sLaLe have a compelllng reason for noL granLlng an excepLlon
O aw req'd her Lo choose /w adherlng Lo her rellglon and aandonlng lL Lo
accepL work
8eecLed Lhe sLaLe's arg LhaL an excepLlon would resulL ln admln dlfflculLles and fraud
O J|scons|n v oder (US 1972) app||es a |ess demand|ng approach than the SS |n 5herbert but struck
down gov't compu|sory schoo| attendance po||cy
4 Compulsory aLLendance law req parenLs Lo send Lhelr chlldren Lo school unLll Lhey Lurn 16
vlolaLed Lhe lree Lx Cl w/respecL Lo Lhe Amlsh
4 9letce v ocy of lststets Lhe SLaLe's power Lo lmpose reasonale regulaLlons for Lhe conLrol
and duraLlon of aslc educaLlon may e made Lo yleld
lmporLanL parenLal lnLeresL ln dlrecLlng Lhe rellglous uprlnglng of Lhelr chlldren
4 Court the state |nterest must be of a suff|c|ent magn|tude to overr|de the |nterest c|a|m|ng
protect|on under the Iree Lx C|
1he proctice must be rooted in o /eqit re/iqious be/ief ond not mere/y o persono/
preference or o rejection of the contemporory secu/or vo/ues
1be coplsoty otteoJooce low bos o sevete lpoct of tbe lsb tellqloo copels
tbe oJet tbteot of ptosectloo to petfot oo oct ot oJJs wltb tbelt tellqloo
O Lmp|oyment D|v Dept of numan kesources of Cregon v Sm|th (US 1990) SS does not app|y to |aws
that are neutra| and of genera| app||cab|||ty that on|y have an |nc|denta| effect of re||g|on
4 lacLs
8 crlmlnallzed possesslon of conLrolled susLances noL medlcally prescrled
8espondenLs flred for lngesLlng peyoLe aL a rellglous ceremony denled unemploymenL
4 court opp/ied k8k to re/iqion neutro/ /ows thot hove on incidento/ effect of burdeninq re/iqion
D|st|ngu|shed oder was a hybr|d c|a|m Iree Lx C| +D9 C| (9arenta| r|ght to d|rect the
educat|on of the|r ch||dren)
O Iree Lx + (nybr|d) neuLral generally appllcale laws LhaL lncldenLally affecL
rellglously moLlvaLed acLlon are only unconsLlLuLlonal when Lhey affecL lree x
ond onother constitutiono/ protection
D|st|ngu|shed Sherbert Sherbert 1est |s ||m|ted to s|tuat|ons that are capab|e of
|nd|v|dua| assessment (|e unemp|oyment compensat|on)
O wbete tbe stote bos lo ploce o syste of loJlvlJol exeptloos lt oy oot
tefse to exteoJ tbot syste to tellqlos botJsblp w/o copellloq teosoo
O ShererL ls lnappllcale Lo road crlmlnal prohllLlon of parLlcular conducL
O 9rob|em w]Sherbert
4 Jould lead Lo rellglous exempLlons from all klds of generally
appllcale crlmlnal law
4 8eLLer Lo noL allow any exempLlons Lhen Lo force Lhe gov'L Lo draw
dlsLlncLlons ased on Lhe slncerlLy of Lhe requesLers falLh
Leave |t to the po||t|ca| process States may grant exempt|ons for re||g|ous use of
drugs 8U1 they are not requ|red to grant exempt|ons
4 C'Connor Concurrence tejects tbe ojotltys opptoocb ooJ opplles (oJet/ltb%
4 D|ssent wbot st e ossesseJ ls tbe stotes lotetest ls lo tefsloq to qtoot oo exceptloo fot
tellqlos ooJ ceteoolol se of peyote
O Church of the Lukum| 8aba|u Aye Inc v C|ty of n|a|eah (US 1993) SS app||es to |aws affect|ng re||g|on
that are not of genera app||cab|||ty or target re||g|ous pract|ces
4 lacLs
Church whlch pracLlced Lhe SanLerla rellglon soughL Lo move Lo laleah Lhelr rellglous
pracLlce lnvolved anlmal sacrlflce
ln response clLy councll passed 3 ordlnances regardlng anlmal sacrlflce
4 Court SS app||es to |aws concern|ng re||g|on that are not genera||y app||cab|e or neutra|
55 Lows thot ore either not neutro/ or not qenero//y opp/icob/e must be justified by o
compe//inq qovt interest ond must be norrow/y toi/ored to odvonce thot interest
O Not neutro/ lows tbot loftloqe poo ot testtlct ptoctlces /c of tbelt tellqlos
otlvotloo
4 1ext refers Lo rellglous pracLlces w/o a dlscernlle secular meanlng
4 Lffect laws LhaL go eyond leglLlmaLe concern
4 Surround|ng Lvents conLexL of Lhe law's enacLmenL
O Not qenero//y opp/icob/e lows tbot totqet o cooJct w/o tellqlos otlvotloo
4 CannoL e underlncluslve (doesn'L regulaLe Lhlngs lL should) or
overroad (regulaLes Lhlngs lL shouldn'L)
@he sLaLuLe when read w/lLs excepLlons lndlcaLed LhaL Lhe ordlnances were only golng
Lo apply Lo Lhe SanLerla rellglon
@he ordlnances falled SS underlncluslve y noL prohllLlng nonrellglous anlmal cruelLy