Schwartz kraken9/13/2023 Notably, the Court expressly reserved the question of whether "a narrowly tailored statute designed to prohibit certain forms of anticompetitive conduct or certain types of secondary pressure may restrict protected First Amendment activity." Claiborne Hardware (1982), which involved a consumer boycott of white-owned businesses in Mississippi, established the broad principle that the government cannot prohibit nonviolent, politically motivated boycotts and argues that principle "makes clear that violates the First Amendment." But although the Court held that the "nonviolent elements of petitioners' activities are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment," the conduct at issue in Claiborne involved private actors rather than government officials, and there was no state statute involved in the case. The court disagreed with Martin's position here's an excerpt: Specifically, Martin argues that, because it was clearly established that Defendants should have known that Georgia's law requiring the clause violated the Constitution, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. She argues that the district court erred in dismissing her claim that Defendants violated her First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by refusing to contract with her to speak at an academic conference unless she signed a clause, required by Georgia law, promising she would not participate in a "boycott of Israel" for the duration of the contract. § 1983 suit … on the grounds of qualified immunity. Chancelloravoids the question:Ībby Martin appeals the district court's dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. But yesterday's Eleventh Circuit decision by Judges Wilson, Branch, and Luck in Martin v. At the same time, they, like other antidiscrimination laws, might be unconstitutional as applied in certain situations, perhaps including selection of speakers at an academic conference (though the question is complicated when the government is acting as contractor). Andrew Koppelman's, and my amicus brief on the subject, as well as Prof. 2022) (en banc) was correct in upholding them (see also Prof. I think they are facially constitutional, and Arkansas Times LP v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |