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
An obscure dissent
by Justice Clarence Thomas may be nearly as disturbing for the future of
judicial review as the dismal line of decisions on the merits this past week.The case was Coral Ridge Ministries Media,
Inc v. Southern Poverty Law Center.The issue was whether the Southern Poverty Law Center had the legal
right to describe Coral Ridge as a ‘hate group” because that group condemned
same-sex marriage and homosexuality.Two
lower federal courts said this was an obvious exercise of free speech
rights.Thomas disagreed.
That Thomas would overrule New
York Times v. Sullivan (1964), a case which requires persons suing public
figures for defamation to prove falsehood and actual malice, is not disturbing, standing alone.Most constitutional democracies
have looser requirements for proving libel than the United States and those regimes seem about as
democratic as the United States.Thomas’s
timing may be suspect.As is true of
much of the Thomas oeuvre, he discovers historical objections to practices at
about the time conservatives raise political objections to practices.Donald Trump complains of being libeled and,
lo and behold, Thomas tells us that he never realized before that American
libel law was inconsistent with history (unsurprisingly, the story is far more
complicated).
The more disturbing problem is what
speech Thomas thinks is not protected.He excoriates the South Poverty Law Center for “lump[ing]” Coral Ridge's Christian ministry with groups like
the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis." Apparently, this is a falsehood. If, however, you believe persons have a
fundamental right to choose their intimate and marriage partners, Coral Ridge
starts to resemble the Ku Klux Klan and Neo-Nazis.That Coral Ridge, as Thomas points out,
claims they love homosexuals but not homosexuality is hardly dispositive.A great many members of religious hate groups claim to love Jews who convert to Christianity, just not their
Jewishness.One wonders why Thomas has
nothing to say about pro-life advocates who call doctors who perform abortions “murderers.”The one is no more false than the other.
A great
many people have pointed out that the Court’s solicitude for religion is
limited to conservative religions.Jews
who have religious obligations to provide and seek abortions are not likely to
be treated as well as Christians who have religious objections to
vaccines.Now we learn conservatives are preparing the rest of the First Amendment to be a shield for conservatives and a sword against liberals. While Thomas's first amendment may not protect the right to hime and Samuel Alito
bigots for their views on women and sexuality, right-wing radio is apparently the epitome
of speech protected by the Constitution. Stay tuned.