The past few weeks have demonstrated the efficacy and beauty of practicing law.  When Trump’s Executive Order banning travel from seven countries took effect, lawyers met with green card and visa holders detained at airports across the country.  Lawyers achieved a temporary stay of deportation of those who traveled before the EO took effect, and a stay of the travel ban to visa holders affected (and, in Boston, a stay of the entire order).  Lawyers even helped get back to this country some who lived here but were prevented from traveling, so they could reunite with their loved ones.   The finer points of immigration law and civil procedure became the focal point of the day, and now, as lawyers challenge the constitutionality of the travel ban (Ninth Circuit arguments to air today), equal protection and due process issues move to the fore.  All of this legal activity is rightly portraying lawyers as important guardians of justice and the rule of law.

To those energized by the ability of lawyers to concretely challenge the injustices plaguing our country, and to those now paying more attention to the courts as the arbiters of justice, I have a note about the role of law school and lawyers.  One reason the law can legitimately be used as a force for good is because it is generally logical, rational, and restrained.  Change through the courts is often incremental, and the positions of both sides usually have some merit.  Because everyone has his or her own sense of what is “just,” the law requires methodologies that are independent, nonpartisan, and coherent.  Creating legal doctrine that can be reconciled with all other areas of the law, on many levels of abstraction, is what gives the law its legitimacy.  If you want to go to law school, prepare yourself for an intellectual journey, where both your mind and your heart may change.

Continue reading “To those Inspired to Practice Law – Remember That Law School is Also an Intellectual Journey” →

I am excited that people are speaking positively about the rule of law.   President Trump’s attacks on the legitimacy of “so called” judges, and his initial reluctance to follow judicial decisions on his Executive Order banning travel from seven countries, threaten the fabric of our constitutional democracy and the concept of judicial review.  However, simply citing rule of law concerns without understanding them, or without having rules for applying them consistently, is actually antithetical to rule of law values.

Continue reading “What does “Rule of Law” Mean to You?” →

On Wednesday night, the peaceful protest of a speaking event by alt-right troll Milo Yiannopoulos at Berkeley turned violent.  Led by masked rioters, who the UC Berkeley administration claims are not students, protesters bashed in ATMs and windows, set fires, and punched people. The riots appear to be a coordinated effort by the antifa (anti fascist and anti capitalist) movement, whose slogan is resist, to shut down Milo, a gross, unnuanced, racist troll who has signaled out students for harassment, but who does not advocate for violence against anyone.

Although Berkeley’s Chancellor recognized that, as a public institution committed to promoting challenging exchanges of ideas, it must allow Milo to speak, the event was cancelled due to the destructive nature of the protests.  The cancellation of Milo’s speaking event at Berkeley, and a previous cancellation at UC Davis, demonstrate a loss of free speech norms that is gaining momentum in this country, on both the right and the left.

Continue reading “The Berkeley Protests and the Loss of Free Speech Norms” →

Last night, after Judge Neil Gorsuch was nominated to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, many cited Burwell v. Hobby Lobby as a reason to oppose his nomination.  Judge Gorsuch signed onto a Tenth Circuit opinion, affirmed by the Supreme Court, holding that closely held for-profit corporations need not follow the Affordable Care Act’s mandate to provide health insurance coverage for contraception that the owners’ believe facilitate abortions.

Because I have taught Law and Religion, and because I am now teaching Insurance, I want to comment on the case that joins both subjects.  I understand the opposition to the result in Hobby Lobby.  However, as Judge Gorsuch alluded to last night, results should not be the primary way in which we judge whether an opinion is correct.  Below is a quick and dirty primer on why Judge Gorsuch’s reasoning is justifiable.

Continue reading “Why Hobby Lobby Should Not Be Disqualifying for Judge Gorsuch (i.e. it’s not as bad as it seems)” →

My views about the proper role of a law professor (in and out of the classroom) were well set prior to the election of President Trump.  My views haven’t changed completely, but have adjusted somewhat in light of Trump’s unique threat to rule of law values.   I would like to share the evolution of my views to work through them in a public way.  Although many use the phrase “not just academic” to disparage a particular mode of abstract thinking, we must continue to establish, question, and preserve important ideals and conceptual constructs even when human lives (and precisely because human lives) are affected by those abstract ruminations.

Continue reading ““Academic” Thoughts During Seriously Troubled Times” →

Below is an email I sent to the Scientists’ March on Washington, connecting free speech to science.  Some commenters on the March’s webpage expressed the belief that science should be used to advance particular ideals, values, or causes, and I hope the March doesn’t echo that view.  Science, like free speech, must remain a process-based concept in order to retain its value.

“Dear Organizers of the Scientists’ March On Washington,

Continue reading “Free Speech, Science, and Ideology” →

If America were a reality show, the Trump Presidency would be off to an exciting start. Although raucous displays make for good television, they don’t necessarily make for good governance. During Trump’s first week in office, we saw some good and some bad omens for the fate of free speech values under a Trump Administration.

Continue reading “Women’s Marches, Press Showdowns, and Punching Nazis: First Amendment Values at the Beginning of the Trump Administration” →

Today, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lee v. Tam, a case about whether a federal statute barring registration of racially offensive trademarks violates the First Amendment.  For background and legal analysis on the case, I have written a blog series, which starts here.  Because the Justices framed the issues in this case so differently, this oral argument post will detail the views and concerns of each Justice, Justice by Justice.  I will also address how the attorneys for each side handled those concerns, and who I thought won over each Justice.

Continue reading “Oral Argument in Lee v. Tam: Justice by Justice” →

Because I teach, write, and care about First Amendment issues, I have come to appreciate more deeply the importance of the media’s role in fostering two of the major values underlying the First Amendment.  The media provides necessary information that allows citizens to participate more fully and rationally in our democracy (the participatory self governance theory of free speech).  More broadly, the media provides necessary information on which Americans can form opinions about any number of issues (the marketplace of ideas in the search for truth theory of free speech).  Unfortunately, at a time when the media’s role is most critical, more and more Americans have become cynical about the media.

If Americans don’t trust the media to report stories accurately and fairly, its critical role will be undermined.  The proliferation of actual “fake news” hasn’t helped this cynicism, nor has the increasing use of the concept of “fake news” to discredit stories one disfavors.  I would like this blog post to begin a conversation on how to restore faith in the media, by which I mean – how can more Americans embrace mainstream journalism as its source of credible information on topics relevant to public life and important private matters?

Continue reading “Neutrality, Partisanship, and Restoring Faith in the Media” →

Part Five:  The Final Pre-Argument Analysis

On January 18, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Lee v. Tam, the case that will decide whether the federal government’s denial of trademark registration to disparaging trademarks violates the First Amendment.

This case is extremely important — it will resolve the balance between free speech rights and government prerogative to deny benefits to those whose speech it finds disagreeable.  The outcome of this case will directly affect The Slants, the band whose trademark registration was denied because it was deemed offensive to those of Asian heritage, and Washington’s football team, whose trademark registration was cancelled as disparaging to Native Americans.  The case will also resonate more broadly to implicate any government program or government benefit where the government wishes to disassociate itself from objectionable/racist speech.

For an overview of the facts and legal issues in this case, see Part One of this series here.  In Part Two, here, I discuss the argument by Petitioner Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that the government should be permitted to create an optional government program without endorsing racial slurs.  In Part Three, here, I present some of the best arguments in favor of the PTO, articulated in an amicus brief written by law professors who study trademark law.  In Part Four, here, I disagree with these law professors and explain why trademark law’s disparagement clause likely amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

In this post, I will present some of the best arguments in favor of Respondent Simon Tam, a member of The Slants, and some of the concerns with those arguments.

Continue reading “Lee v. Tam: Offensive Trademarks at the Supreme Court (A Series)” →