A Law School for the Consumer

Imagine, if you will, a law school truly devoted to the education of its students

Freedom of Speech After Justice Brennan

This article will explore the positions taken in a number of the most important areas of the law of freedom of speech by each of the Justices presently on the Court, and will attempt to suggest the extent to which protection of speech has been, or likely will be, diminished in the post-Brennan era. Obviously, not every aspect of the law of freedom of speech could be, or is, covered in this article. To that extent, any picture that emerges from the ensuing discussion may not be fully representative; the selected topics are, however, by their nature, highly indicative of the depth of a Justice\u27s commitment to the protection of speech. Because the assessment herein of the Justices is essentially comparative in nature, this article does not evaluate each of their rulings and doctrinal positions in terms of their ultimate persuasiveness or desirability. Finally, this article assumes a fair amount of knowledge of First Amendment law on the part of the reader; space limitations simply do not permit elaborate explanation of every underlying concept in an article of this scope

First Amendment Fora Revisited: How Many Categories Are There?

In 2009, I published an article which focused on the remarkable lack of clarity surrounding the term “limited public forum” in the law of freedom of speec

Communists and the First Amendment: The Shaping of Freedom of Advocacy in the Cold War Era

This Article examines in chronological sequence, the evolution of first amendment law in tandem with the experience of the Communist Party of the United States. It begins with the case of Dennis v. United States, decided in 1951, which upheld the conviction of eleven leaders of the Communist Party of the United States for conspiring to advocate the forcible overthrow of the U.S. government. The author examines the present significance of this decision with respect to freedom of association and speech. Between the years of 1949 and 1967, the story of American Communists parallels the evolution of the law of freedom of speech in this country. The author explores this relationship, and concludes with an analysis of how this case law affects our freedom of speech and association today

Personal Jurisdiction in Florida: Some Problems and Proposals

As any well-taught law student knows, two things must generally be true in order for an American court to render a binding in personam judgment against a party who does not reside within the borders of the state in which the court is located:\u27 (1) the party\u27s conduct must fall within the terms of a statute of that state, universally known as a long arm statute, conferring power upon that state\u27s courts to hear cases of the kind described therein, and (2) the assertion of personal jurisdiction under the long arm statute must satisfy the minimum contacts test articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the case of International Shoe Co. v. Washington

A Response to Professor Graglia

Professor Graglia raises the question: why do we have federal courts

Fighting for the Rights of Others: The Troubled Law of Third-Party Standing and Mootness in the Federal Courts

The author examines the development and current status of third-party standing in the federal courts, with special attention to its justification in light of the Supreme Court\u27s decisions on mootness in class actions. Professor Rohr suggests that for the sake of clarity, economy, and consistency of approach, federal courts should grant third-party standing to any litigant who appears reasonably likely to give adequate representation to the interests of the third parties whose rights the litigant wishes to assert