I'm somewhat surprised to see this, given how so many members of the ABA are members of the Trial Lawyers Association and such:
[Josh Blackman] Today in Supreme Court History: February 10, 1967
The Volokh Conspiracy / 2h
2/10/1967: The 25th Amendment is ratified. The post Today in Supreme Court History: February 10, 1967 appeared first on Reason.com .
YESTERDAY
“It’s going be a free-for-all in the country if they allow Colorado to get away with” keeping Trump off the ballot
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 11h
My appearance on Chicago's Morning Answer talking about the SCOTUS Colorado oral argument and the Special Counsel report about Biden being an “Elderly Man With a Poor Memory” The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
Biden Treasury Admits Giving Banks Terms Like ‘MAGA’ for Private Bank Transaction Searches
Yellen dodges questions on Treasury surveillance
•Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 14h
Other terms and words included Schumer, Pelosi, ANTIFA, and storm the Capitol. The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
[Josh Blackman] Oral Arguments in Trump v. Anderson Part IV: Justice Sotomayor and Kagan get the line between national power and federalism
The Volokh Conspiracy / 14h
[The states do not need Section 3 to impose qualifications on state-created positions. But only the national government should decide questions about the President. ] [This is the four installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson . The first installment focused on Justice Gorsuch's colloquies about Officers of the United States." The second installment focused on Justice J
Authorities Arrest Illegal Immigrant Teen From Venezuela for Times Square Shooting
Teen migrant arrested for Times Square shooting
•Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 15h
Jesus Alejandro Rivas-Figueroa, a 15-year-old illegal immigrant from Venezuela, is also a suspect in an armed robbery in the Bronx The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
[Eugene Volokh] Associational Standing Isn't Defeated by Pseudonymity in Members' Declarations
The Volokh Conspiracy / 15h
From today's Tenth Circuit decision in Speech First, Inc. v. Shrum , written by Judge Harris Hartz and joined by Judges Nancy Moritz and Veronica Rossman: Speech First, Inc. is a nationwide organization that describes its mission to include the protection of free speech on college and university campuses. When Oklahoma State University (OSU) implemented three schoolwide policies that allegedly ch
[Eugene Volokh] Students Don't Have Right to Lie About Administrators
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
From Judge Robert Jonker's opinion today in Ashton v. Okemos Public Schools (W.D. Mich.): [Plaintiff's] daughter, E.B., served a time-limited expulsion from her high school after she lied to her parents and to the police about her interaction at school with an administrator and tried to get another student to back her false story. E.B. actually admits she falsely accused the administrator but Pla
[Josh Blackman] Oral Arguments in Trump v. Anderson Part III: Justice Kavanaugh Gets Griffin's Case and Justice Barrett gets FedCourts
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Why did Jonathan Mitchell not vigorously defend Griffin's Case and Chief Justice Chase? And Mitchell missed Justice Barrett's question about direct/collateral challenges due to his refusal to accept the sword-shield dichotomy.] [This is the third installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson . The first installment focused on Justice Gorsuch's colloquies about Officers of
[John Ross] Short Circuit: A Roundup of Recent Federal Court Decisions
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Citizen Trump, political chalking, and rough business.] Please enjoy the latest edition of Short Circuit , a weekly feature written by a bunch of people at the Institute for Justice. New case! Just as Peter and Annica Quakenbush were about to open a conservation burial ground (or green cemetery) on their heavily forested property in rural Michigan, local officials passed an ordinance banning cem
[Josh Blackman] Oral Arguments in Trump v. Anderson Part II: Justice Jackson Gets "Office under the United States"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Justice Jackson explained that an ambiguous text should be interpreted in favor of expanding democracy. But Mitchells' concern about Foreign Emoluments Clause "boomerang" could have cut off a path of complete victory.] [This is the second installment in a series about the oral argument in Trump v. Anderson . The first installment focused on Justice Gorsuch's colloquies about "Officers of the Uni
[Josh Blackman] Oral Arguments in Trump v. Anderson Part I: Justice Gorsuch Gets "Officers of the United States"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Justice Gorsuch demonstrates that he is the Court's most careful, consistent textualist.] [This post will be the first installment in a series about oral argument in Trump v. Anderson .] I'll put my cards on the table: I was very critical of Justice Gorsuch's decision in Bostock . To be clear, I did not disagree with his textualist methodology. Rather, I disagreed with how he applied it. Specifi
[Eugene Volokh] If Lawyer Representing Himself Is "Unable to Keep His Personal Feelings out of His Pleadings and the Way He Litigates This Case,"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
["he might want to consider hiring an attorney to represent him in this case."] From Judge Kent Wetherell's decision yesterday in Kassenoff v. Harvey (N.D. Fla.) (for a news article with more background on the case, see here ): Plaintiff [Allan Kassenoff] is a lawyer from New York. Defendant [Robbie Harvey] is a "social media influencer" from Pensacola, Florida, with millions of followers on TikT
[Jonathan H. Adler] Climate Scientist Michael Mann Wins Defamation Suit Against Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg
Climate defamation trial intensifies
•The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[The jury found no real damages, but gave a sizeable punitive award that could be challenged on appeal. ] Yesterday, a jury in the District of Columbia ruled for climate scientist Michael Mann in his long-running defamation suit against writers Mark Steyn and Rand Simberg, for blog posts the two had written challenging the validity of his research and comparing Penn State's investigation into Man
[Jonathan H. Adler] While Attention Was on Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson, the Supreme Court Issued Two Opinions
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Things you may have missed between the Trump disqualification case, Biden special counsel report, and NBA trade deadline.] The oral argument in Trump v. Anderson was not the only activity at the Supreme Court yesterday. The Court also issued opinions in two argued cases—the second and third decisions to be released this term. In Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v
[Josh Blackman] Today in Supreme Court History: February 9, 1937
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
2/9/1937: NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. argued. The post Today in Supreme Court History: February 9, 1937 appeared first on Reason.com .
:@WilliamBaude: Is Congress A "Backstop"?
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Note: This is the tenth and hopefully the last – at least for now; we won't promise that we won't ever write more on this topic! – in a series of essays responding to objections that have been made to enforcing Section Three of the Constitution. The first nine essays can be found here , here , here , here , here , here , here , here , and here .] Since last fall, when our article The Sweep and F
[Eugene Volokh] Thursday Open Thread
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[What's on your mind?] The post Thursday Open Thread appeared first on Reason.com .
[Steven Calabresi] Offices Under the United States and the Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Incompatibility Clause both apply to "officers under the United States" and must thus mean the same thing] The oral argument today in Trump v. Anderson strongly suggests a Trump victory on the grounds advanced heroically by Josh Blackman and Seth Barrett Tillman. Many kudos to them both for the long and successful campaign that they have waged. The C
[Ilya Somin] Thoughts on the Supreme Court Oral Argument in the Trump Section 3 Case
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[The justices might well overrule the Colorado Supreme Court on the grounds that only Congress has power to enforce Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. Such a ruling would be a serious mistake.] (Wikimedia) Today's Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. Anderson overwhelmingly focused on the issue of whether Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is "self-executing," that is whether states can enfor
[Josh Blackman] Attending Oral Argument in Trump v. Anderson
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Not exactly what I expected, but a very rewarding experience. ] As regular readers will know, Seth Barrett Tillman and I have spent untold hours over the past six months, and really past three years, on Section 3. But when I walked into the Supreme Court this morning, I felt a sense of closure. All of the arguments that had to be made were made–Seth and I were up till about 10:30 pm last night,
[Eugene Volokh] "Seven Questions on Section 3: A Response to Professor Kurt Lash"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[A reply to Prof. Kurt Lash's response to the brief by Profs. Akhil Amar & Vikram Amar.] I asked Prof. Akhil Amar whether he was inclined to respond to Prof. Lash's response to the Amar brothers' amicus brief in Trump v. Anderson , and Prof. Amar suggested that I might publish a reply by Prof. Amar's research assistants at Yale Law School (Arshan Barzani, Samarth Desai, Jacob Hutt, and Jordan Kei
[Ilya Somin] C-SPAN Washington Journal Appearance on the Trump Section 3 Case
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Co-blogger Josh Blackman and I debated the case that will be argued before the Supreme Court this morning.] (Joe Ravi/Wikimedia/CC-BY-SA 3.0) Today, the Supreme Court will hold oral arguments in Trump v. Anderson , the case addressing whether Donald Trump is disqualified from the presidency under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Co-blogger Josh Blackman and I discussed and debated the case
[Josh Blackman] Today in Supreme Court History: February 8, 1941
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
2/8/1941: Justice Willis Van Devanter dies. Justice Willis Van Devanter The post Today in Supreme Court History: February 8, 1941 appeared first on Reason.com .
:@WilliamBaude: The Facts Matter, Trials Matter, The Record Matters
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Note: This is the ninth in a series of essays responding to objections that have been made to enforcing Section Three of the Constitution. The first eight essays can be found here , here , here , here , here , here , here , and here .] A question regularly raised about our interpretation and explication of Section Three is how its rules might bear on various different factual patterns, real or i
[Steven Calabresi] Trump v. Anderson, Professor Akhil Reed Amar, and the Constitutionality of the Presidential Succession Act
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Professor Amar's argument renders the presidential succession acts of 1792 and 1947 unconstitutional by barring putting the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Temper of the Senate in the line of succession to the presidency] Professors Akhil Reed Amar and David Vikram Amar argue that President Donald Trump is covered by the phrase in the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 3
[Josh Blackman] All Blackman-Tillman Articles, Presentations, Amicus Briefs, Commentary, and Blog posts on Section 3 and Insurrection
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[We started thinking about the topic on January 6, 2021, and have been writing since.] [This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] After the 2020 Presidential Election, we thought that we were done with pressing debates with a litigation-focus about the Constitution's "office"- and "officer"-language. The Emoluments Clauses litigation, which stretched for the entirety of Presid
[Josh Blackman] A Reply to Peter Keisler and Richard Bernstein, and Michael Luttig, on Section 3
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Keisler and Bernstein contradicted Luttig's position.] [This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman] Michael Luttig, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and as General Counsel of Boeing, has been one of the more vocal proponents of the view that Trump should be disqualified from the ballot. On January 29, Luttig was the lead signatory of an amicus bri
[Samuel Bray] Universal Injunctions, Congressional Capacity, and Filibuster Reform
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
Today I participated in a Rappaport Forum discussion at Harvard Law School titled "Rule by One Judge: The Question of Universal Injunctions." My fellow participant was Professor Mila Sohoni, and our moderator was Professor Guy-Uriel Charles. It was an excellent discussion, and you can watch it here . Two of the students who attended sent me this very interesting note afterwards, which I am postin
[Eugene Volokh] $25M in Libel Damages Based on Newspapers' Misidentification of Plaintiff as Broadcaster Who Used Racial Slurs
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
CBS News reports on Monday's verdict ($5M in actual damages and $20M in punitives), in Sapulpa v. Gannett Co. : The incident occurred in 2021 before the Norman-Midwest City girls high school basketball game when an announcer for a livestream cursed and called one team by a racial epithet as the players kneeled during the national anthem. The broadcasters told their listeners on the livestream tha
[Josh Blackman] Video: Heritage Panel on Section 3 Case
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
["The Legal Issues Behind the Colorado Ballot Disqualification Case"] Today, I spoke on a panel at the Heritage Foundation about Trump v. Anderson , the Section 3 case. My remarks begin around 44:45. The post Video: Heritage Panel on Section 3 Case appeared first on Reason.com .
:@WilliamBaude: The Objection That It Is Too Soon To Adjudicate Trump's Qualifications
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Note: This is the eighth in a series of essays responding to objections that have been made to enforcing Section Three of the Constitution. The first seven essays can be found here , here , here , here , here , here and here .] Another quasi-jurisdictional objection that has been made to the state ballot access litigation in particular is the argument that it is too soon to decide whether Donald
[Jonathan H. Adler] Jack Goldsmith on Why SCOTUS Should Review the D.C. Circuit's Decision on Presidential Immunity
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[The case raises an issue of high importance and the opinion may contain some loose reasoning.] I have a generally favorable view of the U.S. Court of Appeals decision in United States v. Trump , concluding that Donald Trump does not have absolute immunity from prosecution for his actions seeking to overturn the 2020 presidential election results. The 57-page opinion is careful and thorough, and
[Josh Blackman] Tillman in the Times: "A Legal Outsider, an Offbeat Theory and the Fate of the 2024 Election"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
["When the Supreme Court considers whether Donald J. Trump is barred from appearing on Colorado’s ballot, a professor’s scholarship, long relegated to the fringes, will take center stage."] Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Trump v. Anderson . Both Seth Barrett Tillman and I will be attending. Today, the New York Times published a profile of Seth, and his important work that
[Keith E. Whittington] A Call for Institutional Neutrality
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[An open letter released today from the AFA, HxA, and FIRE] Today the Academic Freedom Alliance , Heterodox Academy , and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression released a joint open letter calling for universities to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality. From the letter: A useful maxim to guide decision makers is "if an academic institution is not required to adopt a position
:@WilliamBaude: Section Three Is Not A "Political Question"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Note: This is the seventh in a series of essays responding to objections that have been made to enforcing Section Three of the Constitution. The first six essays can be found here , here , here , here , here , and here .] Are questions of the proper legal interpretation and application of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment nonjusticiable "political questions" – that is, questions that fed
[Josh Blackman] Today in Supreme Court History: February 7, 1870
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
2/7/1870: Hepburn v. Griswold decided. The post Today in Supreme Court History: February 7, 1870 appeared first on Reason.com .
[Eugene Volokh] ABA Adopts New Academic Freedom / Freedom of Expression Requirement for Law School Accreditation
ABA requires law schools' academic freedom
•The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
This apparently just happened; here's the full American Bar Association standard (and see this ABA Journal article ): Standard 208: Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression [a] A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that protect academic freedom. A law school's academic freedom policies shall: [1] Apply to all full and part-time faculty, as well as to all others teac
[Eugene Volokh] Young Kansas City Chiefs Fan Sues Deadspin Over Racism Allegations
Young Chiefs fan sues Deadspin
•84The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
From the Complaint filed today in Armenta v. G/O Media Inc. (Del. Super. Ct.): Nine-year-old H.A. loves the Kansas City Chiefs—and he loves his family's Chumash-Indian heritage. On November 26, 2023, H.A. displayed that love by attending the Chiefs-Raiders NFL football game wearing a Chiefs jersey and necklace, his face painted half-red and half-black, and a costume headdress— just as Chiefs fans
[Eugene Volokh] Prof. Michael McConnell: "'Narrow' or 'Sweeping'—What Does Originalist Evidence Have to Say?"
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
I'm delighted to pass along this item from Prof. McConnell (Stanford), one of the leading American originalist scholars: I most often agree with my good friends and casebook co-authors Will Baude and Michael Paulsen on matters of constitutional interpretation. But not about the attempted disqualification of Donald Trump for running for President. My friends published the opening salvo in the curr
[Eugene Volokh] Court Upholds Disbarment of Lawyer for In-Court Misconduct, Including Lawyers' Allegations of Anti-Female, Anti-Disabled, and Pro-Jewish Bias
Disbarred lawyer loses appeal
•The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
An excerpt from today's Appellate Court of Connecticut decision in Ambrose v. Ambrose , written by Judge Alexandra Davis DiPentima and joined by Chief Judge William Bright and Judge Bethany Alvord: The primary issue in this writ of error challenging the disbarment of an attorney is whether her due process rights were violated by the procedure used by the first defendant in error, Hon. Thomas G. M
[Eugene Volokh] Expelled White Student's Suit Against Howard Law School Largely Dismissed, but Can Go Forward on Some Claims
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
A short excerpt from today's long decision by Judge Trevor McFadden (D.D.C.) in Newman v. Howard Univ. School of Law (for more, read the whole thing): Howard University School of Law expelled Michael Newman. It claims that it did so because he repeatedly sent disruptive emails to his classmates against school policy. Newman tells a different story. He claims that his expulsion was the culmination
[Keith E. Whittington] Former Presidents Do Not Enjoy Blanket Criminal Immunity
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[So says the DC Circuit Court] The D.C. Circuit Court's opinion in US v. Donald Trump on whether the former president enjoys a blanket immunity from criminal prosecution for his actions while president is now out. It can be found here . It is a comprehensive opinion, and I think a correct one. Given my own scholarly interests, I was particularly anxious about how the court might handle the claim
[Eugene Volokh] The Doctrine of Hotchpot
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
What is this, under American law? (It has sometimes been referred to as "hotch-potch," but is not to be confused with "hodgepodge," the Wisconsin Court of Appeals tells us.) The post The Doctrine of Hotchpot appeared first on Reason.com .
[Stewart Baker] Serious threats, unserious responses
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Episode 490 of the Cyberlaw Podcast] It was a week of serious cybersecurity incidents and unimpressive responses. As Melanie Teplinsky reminds us, the U.S. government has been agitated for months about China's apparent strategic decision to hold U.S. infrastructure hostage to cyberattack in a crisis. Now the government has struck back at Volt Typhoon, the Chinese threat actor pursuing that strat
:@WilliamBaude: The Use and Misuse of Section Three's "Legislative History": Part II
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[Note: This is the sixth in a series of essays responding to objections that have been made to enforcing Section Three of the Constitution. The first five essays can be found here , here , here , here , and here .] Earlier today we began discussing the use and misuse of constitutional legislative history in interpreting Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. We first set out some important ge
[Jonathan H. Adler] DOJ Files Petition for Writ of Mandamus to End Juliana Climate Litigation
The Volokh Conspiracy / 16h
[The Justice Department is wasting no time seeking to put this zombie litigation out of its misery, and the plaintiffs are not happy about it.] The Department of Justice is wasting no time in seeking to put a swift end to the Juliana "Kids Climate Case." Last month, DOJ filed a motion for a stay in the district court so that the federal government could file a writ of mandamus to dismiss the case
National Security at the United Nations This Week (Feb. 5-Feb. 9)
Just Security / 17h
( Editors’ Note: This is the latest in Just Security’s weekly series keeping readers up to date on developments at the United Nations at the intersection of national security, human rights, and the rule of law. ) Security Council Briefing on Kosovo and Serbia Relations On Thursday, the United Nations Security Council heard a briefing from the Special Representative for Kosovo , Caroline Zaideh, o
NYU Prof Moves to Intervene in NYU Antisemitism Case – Fears Could Be Wrongly Labeled “Antisemitic”
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 18h
NYU Professor Andrew Ross fears that the antisemitism lawsuit against NYU could infringe on his First Amendment free speech rights: "Dr. Ross is not an anti-Semite but has with deep conviction spoken and written his criticism of the actions of the nation-state Israel." The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
Ireland Basketball Team Not Shaking Hands With Israel Team Does Nothing to Quell Antisemitism Accusations
Boycott of Israel game defended
•Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 20h
It's a shame that Team Ireland couldn't accept the truth about their country. The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
U. of Maine Kicks Off Black History Month by Raising a Black Lives Matter Flag
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 21h
"The ceremony was hosted by the university’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion" The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
MA Governor Maura Healey Nominates Her Former Romantic Partner to State’s Highest Court
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 22h
“Justice Wolohojian has served on the Appeals Court with distinction and her work is widely respected by members of the bench and bar. She has an exceptional understanding of the law and a strong commitment to the administration of justice” The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
Police Called When Pro-Palestinian Students at Cornell ‘Occupy’ the Library
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 22h
"Cornell says pro-Palestinian student protestors violated university policy" The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
Morning Joe Crew Lose Their Minds Over Special Counsel Describing Biden as ‘Elderly Man With a Poor Memory’
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 1d
"I will say that without — there’s no doubt in my mind that this special prosecutor could have written the same report without using these words: 'Elderly man with a poor memory.'" The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
Florida Supreme Court Strikes Down State Bar’s DEI Programs
Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion / 1d
"[T]he Florida Bar will transition its Diversity and Inclusion Committee to a new Membership Outreach Committee" The post first appeared on Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion .
END OF FEED
MARK ALL AS READ
Reviewed 54 articles
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
SCOTUSblog
22K followers
Simple Justice
1K followers
Balkinization
4K followers
EXPLORE
[Eugene Volokh] ABA Adopts New Academic Freedom / Freedom of Expression Requirement for Law School Accreditation
ABA requires law schools' academic freedom
•The Volokh Conspiracy by Eugene Volokh / Feb 9, 2024 at 5:01 PM//keep unread//hide
This apparently just happened; here's the full American Bar Association standard (and see this ABA Journal article):
Standard 208: Academic Freedom and Freedom of Expression
[a] A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that protect academic freedom. A law school's academic freedom policies shall:
[1] Apply to all full and part-time faculty, as well as to all others teaching in law school courses;
[2] Apply to conducting research, publishing scholarship, engaging in law school governance, participating in law related public service activities, curating library collections and providing information services, and exercising teaching responsibilities, including those related to client representation in clinical programs; and
[3] Afford due process, such as notice, hearing, and appeal rights, to assess any claim of a violation of the academic freedom policies.
A law school shall adopt, publish, and adhere to written policies that encourage and support the free expression of ideas. A law school's free expression policies must:
[1] Protect the rights of faculty, students, and staff to communicate ideas that may be controversial or unpopular, including through robust debate, demonstrations, or protests; and
[2] Proscribe disruptive conduct that hinders free expression by preventing or substantially interfering with the carrying out of law school functions or approved activities, such as classes, meetings, library services, interviews, ceremonies, and public events;
[c] Consistent with this Standard, a law school may:
[1] Restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, or that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests.
[2] Reasonably regulate the time, place, and manner of expression.
[3] Adopt policies on academic freedom and freedom of expression that reflect the law school's mission, including a religious mission, to the extent such policies are protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and are clearly disclosed in writing to all faculty, students, and staff prior to their affiliation with the law school.
Interpretation 208-1[:] Standard 208 applies to both public and private law schools.
Interpretation 208-2[:] A law school may, when appropriate, differentiate among students, faculty, and staff in its policies on freedom of expression.
Interpretation 208-3[:] Standard 208(a) does not preclude a law school from identifying the courses that will be taught, requiring courses to cover particular content, or requiring faculty, students, or staff to clarify in appropriate circumstances that their views are not statements by or on behalf of the law school.
Interpretation 208-4[:] This Standard does not prevent a law school from applying disciplinary action for conduct identified in Standard 208(b)(2).
Interpretation 208-5[:] Subsection (c) recognizes that law schools may restrict speech consistent with the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
Interpretation 208-6[:] Effective legal education and the development of the law require the free, robust, and uninhibited sharing of ideas reflecting a wide range of viewpoints. Becoming an effective advocate or counselor requires learning how to conduct candid and civil discourse in respectful disagreement with others while advancing reasoned and evidence-based arguments. Concerns about civility and mutual respect, however, do not justify barring discussion of ideas because they are controversial or even offensive or disagreeable to some.
[From the accompanying Report:] … In the background, but not influencing the creation of Standard 208, were the widely publicized disruption of a speech at Stanford Law School in March 2023 and a letter that month to the Council from the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce asking the Council to investigate the Stanford Law School's compliance with Standard 405(b)….
The post ABA Adopts New Academic Freedom / Freedom of Expression Requirement for Law School Accreditation appeared first on Reason.com.
https://reason.com/volokh/2024/02/06/aba-adopts-new-academic-freedom-freedom-of-expression-requirement-for-law-school-accreditation/
