Speech First, Inc. v. Sands (2023): A Doctrinal Crossroads for Campus Speech
This article talks about how Speech First, Inc. v. Sands (2023) raises important questions about whether college bias response systems can discourage students from speaking freely, even without formal punishment. It explains how the Fourth Circuit upheld Virginia Tech’s policy, while the Sixth Circuit took the opposite approach in a similar case, creating a divide in how courts view “chilled speech.” The article connects this case to earlier First Amendment decisions and shows how campuses are now struggling to balance inclusivity with open dialogue. Ultimately, it highlights that the legal boundaries around free speech on campus are still unsettled and increasingly important.
Trump v. Vance (2020) clarified that a sitting president is not immune from state criminal subpoenas.
The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that neither the Constitution nor the Supremacy Clause grants absolute presidential immunity, reinforcing that the president must comply with lawful judicial process like any other citizen.
Drawing on precedents from United States v. Burr, United States v. Nixon, Clinton v. Jones, the decision reaffirmed the principle that no one is above the law.
This case marked a significant moment in defining the limits of executive privilege and accountability.
This article discusses the landmark 1989 Supreme Court case in which Gregory Lee Johnson’s act of burning an American flag during a political protest was ruled as protected expression under the First Amendment. It explains how the Court’s 5-4 decision affirmed that the government cannot prohibit speech simply because it offends others. The piece also explores the aftermath of the ruling. Overall, the article highlights how Texas v. Johnson strengthened constitutional protections for symbolic and expressive conduct. This article examines how gerrymandering continues to shape American politics, focusing on Texas’ controversial new congressional map and the ongoing case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Abbott. It traces the history of redistricting cases, and explores how the Supreme Court’s shifting stance on partisan and racial gerrymandering could redefine fair representation in future elections. In 1963, the United States Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that fundamentally transformed the American criminal justice system: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). The Court considered whether the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment’s right to due process clause. Carson v. Makin asks whether Maine’s tuition-assistance program violates the Constitution by excluding religious schools from public funding. The case, argued before a conservative-leaning Supreme Court, could set a nationwide precedent on government aid for sectarian education and its limits under the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. The European Union’s Emissions Trading Scheme (E.T.S.) uses a cap-and-trade system to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, driving industries to become cleaner and more efficient. This article examines its successes, inefficiencies, and the political and cultural reasons the United States has not adopted a similar approach. New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) redefined U.S. libel law by holding that public officials must prove “actual malice” to win defamation suits, a standard later extended to all public figures. While this landmark decision safeguarded press freedom and democratic accountability, critics argue its broad reach can unfairly limit private citizens’ ability to recover damages when thrust into the public eye. Non-state actors engaged in espionage and hostile intelligence activity present unique challenges for U.S. national security, as they often fall outside traditional legal and policy frameworks. This article argues that WikiLeaks should be classified as a “non-state hostile intelligence service,” enabling the government to respond under existing counterintelligence authorities without additional approvals, and urges Congress to formalize this approach. The role of religion in public education has long sparked legal battles over parental choice and constitutional limits. This article reviews cases from Engel v. Vitale to Espinoza v. Montana and predicts the Supreme Court will side with parents in the current Carson v. Makin dispute over tuition assistance for religious schools. This article examines the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020), which held that Congress never disestablished Creek Nation land, placing much of eastern Oklahoma under tribal jurisdiction. The ruling reflects a broader judicial shift toward honoring historic treaties and restoring Native American sovereignty over reservation lands.The Gravity of Trump v. Vance (2020)
Texas v. Johnson (1989): Defining the Limits of Free Speech
Gerrymandering: Drawing the Lines That Divide Us
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) & Modern Legal Counsel
Prediction Post: Carson v. Makin
The E.U's Emissions Trading Scheme
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Spying on Non-Spies
Religious Freedom in Educational Institutions
McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020)