Law Professor Helen Norton explains how a case currently pending for Supreme Court review could potentially expand First Amendment protection for public employees who report on government corruption and or speak as a public "citizen."
While most sitting Justices have opposed arguments in favor of televising Supreme Court oral arguments, little has been said about broadcasting the announcement of opinions. In their newest essay, First Amendment experts Floyd Abrams and Ronald Collins explore this possibility and the benefits it could offer the public.
Reprinted with Permission from Ballard Spahr An article in The New York Times about controversy surrounding an Ohio State University cancer researcher was […]
Reprinted with Permission from Ballard Spahr The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit yesterday became the third federal […]
The Newseum Institute’s First Amendment expert, Gene Policinski, originally published this commentary on June 13, 2019, on the Newseum blog, […]
Certain charges in Assange's case might threaten legal protections afforded to those who report confidential information obtained by others.
Catherine J. Ross, professor of law at George Washington University Law School, explains the possible issues that could arise if President Trump signs an executive order requiring colleges to support free speech on their campuses in order to receive federal research funds. "Ultimately, the central constitutional risk inherent in Trump’s proposed executive order is all too familiar: it will chill protected speech. What’s more, it will likely violate central tenets of the Speech Clause when enforced," she writes.
The post is another essay in response to Justice Clarence Thomas’s concurrence from a denial of certiorari in the case […]