scholarly journals Lawyer Advertising and the First Amendment

1981 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 967-1021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori B. Andrews
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Legal Services ◽  
State Regulations ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
Effective Advertising ◽  
A Current ◽  
State Board

A current Supreme Court case concerning lawyer advertising, In re R.M.J., is analyzed in the context of a discussion of the diverse state regulations governing lawyer advertising and solicitation. The article considers the regulations in terms of their constitutionality, their tendency to impede effective advertising, and the effect they have on the legal profession's provision of information to potential clients about the nature, availability, and cost of legal services. Analysis of the major commercial speech cases, from Virginia State Board of Pharmacy to Central Hudson, indicates that many state rules infringe on attorneys' First Amendment rights.

Occupying Public Ground

2021 ◽  
pp. 241-288
Author(s):  
Phoebe S.K. Young
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Vietnam War ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Occupy Wall Street ◽  
Wall Street ◽  
Significant Development ◽  
The Social ◽  
Public Nature ◽  
Supreme Court Case

Chapter 6 uses Occupy Wall Street as a window to examine episodes of politically inflected camping, particularly a series of encampments in the nation’s capital since the late 1960s. While for many Occupy seemed unprecedented, earlier protests that used camping to protest poverty, the Vietnam War, and homelessness reveal new perspectives on public nature. Many of them wound through the courts, culminating in a Supreme Court case from 1984 that examined whether the Constitution protected camping and sleeping outside as a First Amendment expression. The rise of the homeless crisis in the 1980s, which this last case concerned, was a significant development. Camping as function of poverty or as a platform for politics remained available as means of last resort—to find shelter or assert voice. Occupy, and protests that preceded it, attempted to use camping to reinvigorate political participation, to reestablish community and connection, and to renew the social contract.

When the First Amendment and Public Health Collide: The Court's Increasingly Strict Constitutional Scrutiny of Health Regulations That Restrict Commercial Speech

2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 690-712
Author(s):  
Samantha Rauer
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
First Amendment ◽  
Intermediate Level ◽  
Prescribing Habits ◽  
Commercial Speech ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Health Regulations ◽  
State Board

In Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., the Supreme Court departed from traditional commercial speech doctrine in striking down Vermont's Prescription Confidentiality Law under a heightened level of scrutiny. The Prescription Confidentiality Law was Vermont's attempt to prevent pharmacies from sharing information about doctors’ prescribing habits with drug manufacturers without the consent of the doctor. The law aimed to protect doctors, as well as to promote public health, by regulating speech and conduct that is arguably commercial in nature. The Court has purported to subject regulation of commercial speech to only an intermediate level of scrutiny since Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizen's Consumer Council, Inc. established that as the proper standard. Thus, it was inconsistent for the Court to categorize the commercial speech regulation in Sorrell as “content-based” and thus subject to a stricter level of review. The invalidation of the Prescription Confidentiality Law, however, is only the most recent development in the Court's strict treatment of health-related regulations infringing on commercial speech. The Court has been moving toward a more stringent level of scrutiny since first applying the commercial speech doctrine in a public health context in Rubin v. Coors.

Definition

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Camper
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
Legal Interpretation ◽  
Single Term ◽  
Supreme Court Case

Chapter 3 explores the interpretive stasis of definition, where there is a question concerning the intended or appropriate scope of the basic sense of a term in a text. The chapter shows how rhetors, by persuasively articulating a definition and resorting to various lines of argument, can shift the meaning of passages and reframe controversies hinging on a text’s interpretation by adjusting the scope of a single term. But only linchpin terms (similar to Burke’s and Weaver’s ultimate terms) have this governing quality. The chapter’s central example consists of oral arguments from the 2010 Supreme Court case McDonald v. City of Chicago that ultimately determined US citizens have a fundamental right to bear arms. The case partly rested on whether the Fourteenth Amendment’s phrase privileges or immunities, generally protected from state infringement, includes this right within its scope. The centrality of definitional disputes to legal interpretation is also considered.

Video as Text/Archive

2019 ◽  
pp. 778-797
Author(s):  
Bennett Capers
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Court Case ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Surveillance Cameras ◽  
American Law ◽  
Supreme Court Case ◽  
History Of ◽  
Constitutional Protections

This chapter focuses on a few issues related to video evidence and law, especially with respect to American law. The first issue is the history of the use of video evidence in court. The second issue involves constitutional protections regarding the state’s use of surveillance cameras. The chapter then turns to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris to raise concerns about the use of video evidence as not just proof but “truth.” These are of course just a sampling of the issues that the topic of video evidence could raise. The hope is that this chapter will spur further inquiry on the part of the reader.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document