4 First Amendment cases on fall docket

[struggle4progress]

<snip> The case that has probably drawn the most attention is Rumsfeld v. FAIR, a test of the so-called Solomon Amendment, most recently amended in 2004. That law requires colleges and universities, as a condition for receiving federal funds, to offer equal access to their campuses to military recruiters. Law schools, especially, had barred military recruiters or given them disfavored status because the armed forces prohibit acknowledged homosexuals from serving in the military. Over time, universities have complied with the law to varying degrees, but a group of law school professors called Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) challenged the law as a violation of the First Amendment rights of law schools. <snip>

The outcome of this term’s religion case may be less easy to predict. In the case Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Benificiente Uniao Do Vegetal, the Court will assess whether, under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the government must permit followers of a Brazilian religious sect to use hoasca, a hallucinogenic tea, in spite of the Controlled Substances Act, which bans such substances. <snip>

Also scheduled for argument this fall:

Garcetti v. Ceballos, another in a series of cases on the free-speech rights of government employees. The case, to be argued Oct. 12, involves deputy Los Angeles district attorney Richard Ceballos, who was punished for revealing a flaw in a pending case to a defense attorney. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Ceballos’ actions, like those of a whistleblower, should be protected by the First Amendment. “The right of public employees to speak freely on matters of public concern is important to the orderly functioning of the democratic process,” wrote Judge Stephen Reinhardt. <snip>

Scheidler v. National Organization for Women and Operation Rescue v. National Organization for Women. The cases represent the remaining issues from a lawsuit first brought by NOW in 1986 against aggressive anti-abortion protesters. NOW sought to apply the anti-racketeering law known as RICO against their activities, claiming their actions amounted to extortion aimed at shutting down clinics. The Supreme Court and lower courts have been grappling ever since with the question of whether RICO applies. <snip>

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=15840

[enough]

1. Thank you, very interesting.

It's amazing how long these things take. I remember when the idea of bringing RICO to bear against the anti-clinic activities was just a gleam in some crazy lawyers' eyes. Now here it is at SCOTUS.

Looks like a useful site.