logo
  • Nonprofit News
  • Management
    • Boards and Governance
    • Communication
      • Framing & Narratives
    • Ethics
    • Financial Management
    • Fund Development
    • Leadership
    • Technology
  • Philanthropy
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Donor-Advised Funds
    • Foundations
    • Impact Investing
    • Research
    • Workplace Giving
  • Policy
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Housing
    • Government
    • Taxes
  • Economic Justice
    • Economy Remix
    • Economy Webinars
    • Community Benefits
    • Economic Democracy
    • Environmental Justice
    • Fair Finance
    • Housing Rights
    • Land Justice
    • Poor People’s Rights
    • Tax Fairness
  • Racial Equity
  • Social Movements
    • Community Development
    • Community Organizing
    • Culture Change
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Gender Equality
    • Immigrant Rights
    • Indigenous Rights
    • Labor
    • LGBTQ+
    • Racial Justice
    • Youth Activism
  • About Us
  • Log in
  • CONTENT TYPES
  • Webinars
    • Leading Edge Membership
    • Sponsored Webinars
    • Economic Justice
  • Tiny Spark Podcast
  • Magazine
    • Magazine
    • Leading Edge Membership
Donate
Gerrymandering, Supreme Court

Free Speech and the Supreme Court—And Its Meaning for Nonprofits

Carole Levine
December 7, 2017
Share6
Tweet12
Share
Email
18 Shares
“Free speech — *conditions apply.”

November 14, 2017; Bloomberg

It’s unusual to see one particular issue—free speech—appearing in so many cases in this year’s session of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Six out of 44, to be exact, which has caused dedicated SCOTUS watchers to take notice. Given the conservative leaning of this court, can we expect new interpretations that will have an impact on civil and human rights?

When it comes to free speech, legal experts do not seem to be of one mind on where this court is.

“The current court interprets the First Amendment more expansively in many ways than it did in the past,” said Rebecca Tushnet, an expert on the First Amendment who teaches at Harvard Law School. Although First Amendment claims have long had more “charisma” than other constitutional claims, “the gap may be getting even bigger,” she said. “When it comes to free speech, pretty much everybody is an activist,” said David Strauss, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago Law School.

Not everyone sees the Roberts court as pushing the free speech clause beyond its established boundaries. Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment scholar at UCLA School of Law, says the latest issues are mostly variations on topics the justices have been debating for decades. “I’ve heard the argument that somehow the First Amendment is straying into new areas,” Volokh said. “I just don’t see evidence for it, certainly not in this term’s cases.”

NPQ’s Martin Levine recently wrote about two other free speech cases in June 2017’s “Free Speech Just Got Freer.”

“In one case, the Court told the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office it could not deny trademark status to names it deems to be offensive. The specific case concerned an Asian American rock band that had unsuccessfully tried to protect its name, The Slants. In the ruling, Justice Alito wrote on behalf of a unanimous court that the law, even though it was applied evenhandedly, “violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The second case struck down a North Carolina statute that prohibited convicted sex offenders from accessing the Internet and social media. The specific case before the court asked whether a convicted sex offender could be arrested after he posted a message praising God on Facebook. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion recognized how critical social media has become for expression and communication, and therefore it must receive First Amendment protections.

By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”

Of the six free-speech-related cases in this SCOTUS term, perhaps the closest attention has been paid to the “wedding cake case” heard this week. In writing about the proceedings in SCOTUSblog, the analysis indicated the outcome could go either way, and that the final decision may lean on the position of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing vote. SCOTUSblog summarized some of the proceedings:

The dispute…dates back to 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Denver-area bakery, to order a special cake to celebrate their upcoming marriage. But Jack Phillips, the owner of the bakery, refused to make them a cake. Phillips, who describes himself as a “cake artist,” is also a Christian who closes his business on Sundays and refuses to design custom cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs—for example, cakes that contain alcohol, have Halloween themes or celebrate a divorce or same-sex marriage

But many of the more liberal justices’ questions seemed to focus on trying to convince their more conservative colleagues that, even if they might be inclined to vote for Masterpiece, it would be next to impossible to write a ruling for the baker that did not, as Justice Stephen Breyer put it, “undermine every civil rights law since year 2.”

Other free speech cases on the SCOTUS docket include:

  • A challenge to the requirement in some states that public-sector workers pay for the cost of union representation. This could prove a critical factor in who speaks for workers and for the financial stability of unions.
  • A challenge to a California law that requires licensed pregnancy clinics to tell patients that they can call a county health department to learn about state-funded prenatal, family planning and abortion services. This could also harken to the requirements for abortion clinics to perform ultrasounds and inform patients that fetuses can feel pain.
  • A Minnesota case to consider guaranteeing the right of people to wear political apparel (t-shirts and buttons) when they go to vote.
  • A man who says he was arrested in retaliation for suing and politically criticizing his local government.
  • Free speech also plays a central role in what could be a watershed case involving partisan voting districts. The court’s liberals could join with Justice Kennedy to allow legal challenges to partisan gerrymandering for the first time. During arguments in October, Kennedy suggested those challenges would be based on the First Amendment’s protections for speech and free association.

As you look at these cases and ponder the possible outcomes and the ramifications for work of nonprofits, the importance of the courts and who makes these decisions becomes a factor in the work of the sector.—Carole Levine

Share6
Tweet12
Share
Email
18 Shares

About The Author
Carole Levine

Carole Levine is a principal consultant at Levine Partners, providing consulting services to nonprofit organizations. She has held senior management positions in national nonprofits: The National PTA (Deputy Executive Director); Communities in Schools (Vice President of Expansion and Technical Assistance); The Family Resource Coalition (Director of Technical Assistance); and National Lekotek Center (Director of Development). Carole holds a BA in education and political science from Washington University, and an M.Ed. in Early Childhood Leadership and Advocacy from National Louis University. Carole has served on the boards of numerous organizations, holding national positions on the board of National Council of Jewish Women and on the International Council of Jewish Women. She is currently the Chair of Courts Matter Illinois, serves on the Steering Committee of Chicago Women Take Action and is the co-chair of BenchMark: NCJW’s Judicial Nominations Campaign. Carole is passionate about nonprofit, purposeful work, justice for all and her family (which includes 5 amazing grandchildren!).

Related
The Supreme Court Almost Takes Up the 2nd Amendment
By Carole Levine
December 5, 2019
DACA Supreme Court Case Has High Stakes
By Carole Levine
November 22, 2019
No Coin Toss This Time as Shelly Simonds Heads to the Virginia Statehouse
By Steve Dubb
November 8, 2019
South Dakota Settles “Riot Boosting” Suit by Agreeing to Nonenforcement
By Ruth McCambridge
October 25, 2019
The US Supreme Court’s Opening Week Was a Blockbuster!
By Carole Levine
October 14, 2019
Women Face Peril in Pending US Supreme Court Abortion Case
By Carole Levine
October 7, 2019
other posts by The Author
The Supreme Court Almost Takes Up the 2nd Amendment
By Carole Levine
December 5, 2019
School District and Nonprofit Lock Horns over Background...
By Carole Levine
December 2, 2019
Nonprofits and Courts Clash over Foster Care Reform in Texas
By Carole Levine and Ruth McCambridge
November 27, 2019
A Series on Sensemaking Organizations
The Sensemaking Organization: Designing for Complexity
The Sensemaking Mindset: Improvisation over Strategy
Structuring for Sensemaking: The Power of Small Segments
logo
Donate
  • About
  • Contact
  • Newsletters
  • Write for NPQ
  • Advertise
  • Writers
  • Funders
  • Copyright Policy
  • Privacy Policy

Subscribe to View Webinars

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our website.

 

Non Profit News | Nonprofit Quarterly
Powered by GDPR plugin
Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies so that we can provide you with the best user experience possible. Cookie information is stored in your browser and performs functions such as recognising you when you return to our website and helping our team to understand which sections of the website you find most interesting and useful.

Strictly Necessary Cookies

Strictly Necessary Cookie should be enabled at all times so that we can save your preferences for cookie settings.

If you disable this cookie, we will not be able to save your preferences. This means that every time you visit this website you will need to enable or disable cookies again.