Stephen Vukovits argues that Kennedy v. Bremerton School District's treatment of the Lemon test means that, for purposes of standing, courts should now "recognize that merely being offended by an alleged government endorsement of religion does not constitute a concrete and particularized injury-in-fact."
Responding to Elon Musk's proposed acquisition of Twitter, Daphne Keller suggests that "middleware" models, not common carriage rules, best put control over internet speech regulation in the hands of users.
Responding to Elon Musk's proposed acquisition of Twitter, Professors evelyn douek and Genevieve Lakier argue that the Twitter deal is a byproduct, not a driver, of broader ongoing shifts in free speech politics and First Amendment doctrine.
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble.” Host Kyra Cooper speaks with Professor John Inazu (WashU School of Law) about the right to assemble in light of modern protest movements and a global pandemic.
Judge Michael Hawkins and Matthew Stanford on how Congress should regulate Big Tech.
The First Amendment’s Religion Clauses requires an exemption to certain anti-discrimination laws, like the ADA, for certain employees of religious employers. But lower courts disagree about which employees qualify for the so-called “ministerial exception.” This Essay argues that the exception should apply to any employee of a religious group who fills a religious role.