E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Today's decision in United States v Stevens has already attracted a great deal of comment. I add one snarky observation and two analytic ones. Snark: You rarely get in trouble with the press when you write an opinion invoking the First Amendment to bar the government from doing something. ("Rarely," not "never": see Citizens United.)
Others have made the first analytic point, that Chief Justice Roberts's effort to distinguish the Court's creation of a new exception to First Amendment coverage is transparently circular. See, for example, Michael Dorf.) The test for new exceptions is apparently historical, except when it isn't, in which case the test involves precisely the kind of balancing the Chief Justice says is "startling and dangerous."
The second analytic point is about one line in Justice Alito's dissent. He writes, "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes." What on earth is "violent" doing in that sentence? Does Justice Alito mean to suggest the possibility that the First Amendment does protect non-violent criminal conduct engaged in for expressive purposes? (An easy case: Defacing public property with graffiti? A harder one: Solicitation of others to break into government buildings and destroy government documents [the solicitation is nonviolent, after all]?) Or is this just a slip of the pen?