Waremart concluded that the Moscone Act violates the First Amendment as it extends greater protection to speech regarding a labor dispute than to speech.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
 The 5 th Amendment limits the national government, but the 14 th guarantees that states cannot deprive rights without “Due Process.”  Due process.
Advertisements

Presented by: Mark Meyerhoff Let’s Talk Politics and Religion: First Amendment Issues in the Workplace.
Chapter 1 Legal Framework Affecting Public Schools
Copyright © Allyn & Bacon 2008 Chapter 8 Teacher Freedoms This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are.
US Constitution and Right to Privacy Generally only protects against government action Doesn’t obligate government to do something, but rather to refrain.
Presented by Nasha Y. Torrez.  Allows Community input.  Helps the Board better understand the pulse of their constituents.  Gives the District more.
Cases that impact student journalists
Constitutional Law Part 4: The Federal Judicial Power Lecture 2: Congressional Limits.
By Andrew Stivers GONZALEZ V. OREGON. You decide: Prelude to Gonzalez V. Oregon A 107 year old woman, who is a resident of Portland, Oregon, has three.
Chapter 13.5 Freedom of Assembly Government Mr. Biggs.
EVEN THOUGH THE CHARTER IS THE HIGHEST LAW, CAN IT STILL BE CHALLENGED AND CHANGED?
Lemon v. Kurtzman by Jake Olsen. The Facts Two separate laws were at issue in this case – The Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act of 1969 – Pennsylvania.
Constitutional Law Part 8: First Amendment: Freedom of Expression
1 Law is a system of known rules applied by a judge is a pretence long under attack. In an important sense legal rules are never clear, if it had to be.
© 2007 Prentice Hall, Business Law, sixth edition, Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 4 Constitutional Law for Business and Online Commerce Chapter 4 Constitutional.
 The 5 th Amendment limits the national government, but the 14 th guarantees that states cannot deprive rights without “Due Process.”  Due process is.
Is Same-Sex Marriage Wrong?
2/11/11 B- Day Do Now: 1.Write down your homework Chapter 7 quiz review due on Tuesday Chapter 7Quiz on Wednesday Bring headphones to class on Monday 2.
Ethics and the Law Chapter 1.
Constitutional Law for Business and Online Commerce.
“Interpreting” the law
The Judicial Branch Missy LaCroix Annie Caldwell.
Joseph Lochner U.S. Supreme Court, Lochner v. New York (1905)
Does the First Amendment protect free speech if humanitarian groups want to provide support to designated terrorist organizations? Must a humanitarian.
State and Federal Court Systems Law Enforcement I.
Some Issues re Intermediate Scrutiny of Content- Neutral Regulations Intermediate scrutiny - Law must be narrowly drawn to meet important state interest.
Constitutional Law Part 8: First Amendment: Freedom of Expression Lecture 3: Places Available for Speech.
Chapter 4 Constitutional Law for Business and E-Commerce
The Constitution and Dispute Resolution OBE 118, Section10, Fall, 2004 Professor McKinsey Recommended Chapter Three review problems beginning on page 136.
Business Law and the Regulation of Business Chapter 4: Constitutional Law By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts.
Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved Slides developed by Les Wiletzky PowerPoint Slides to Accompany ESSENTIALS OF BUSINESS AND.
School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders, 5e © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 1 Legal Framework.
 Remember Hague: ◦ “Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out.
Criminal Case. Civil Case Original Jurisdiction.
Made it a crime:  To convey information with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the U.S. armed forces or to promote the success of its.
+ Perry’s Three Fora Traditional Public Forum Streets, Parks & Sidewalks CB/CN rules apply Designated/Public Forum State need not open property for expressive.
Freedom of the Press Freedom of Assembly, Association, and Petition Unit 6: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights, Lesson 2 How has the Supreme Court expanded.
ENATOA August 11, 2014 Brian T. Grogan, Esq., Moss & Barnett Election Programming On Local PEG Channels.
COPYRIGHT LAW 2003 Professor Fischer CLASS of April : PREEMPTION.
The United States Supreme Court. The decisions of the Supreme Court have wide- ranging effects because the Justices interpret the meaning of the Constitution.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide for Educational Leaders, 5e © 2012 Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Chapter 3 Students,
The Paralegal Professional Part II: Introduction to Law Chapter Five American Legal Heritage & Constitutional Law.
Judicial and First Amendment Supreme CourtJudicial BranchMore Supreme Court Freedom of Religion Freedom of Speech
In re Tam: Simon Tam and “The Slants”. In re Tam Simon Tam files for “THE SLANTS” for “entertainment in the nature of live performances by a musical band”
Brandi Miller Drake EDL 276: Applications of School Law February, 2016
Argued: March 19, 2007 Decided: June 25, =2&i= &w=580&fh=&fw=&ll=&pl=&r=
Objective; describe the kinds of speech the 1st Amendment does and does not protect.
Students do have rights to express their ideas and opinions in schools. However, student rights to expression in school are limited. Achieving the right.
Copyright © 2010 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. and the Legal Environment, 10 th edition by Richard.
 What is a Case Brief?  A case brief is a condensed, concise outline-form summary of a court opinion. Hence, the term “brief.” It is generally used.
Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S 401 (1989) Evan Liwosz Korey Freyermuth Julian Taylor.
BY: NIKKI & JULIA PERIOD: 4 DATE: 5/19/2015 Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier 1988.
Sign Ordinances – Reed v. Town of Gilbert Permit required to get a sign unless fell into 1 of 19 exemptions:  Political - temporary sign which supports.
Lesson 18: How Has the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Changed the Constitution?
Chapter 4 Constitutional Law for Business and Online Commerce
Chapter 2 Constitutional Law for Business and E-Commerce
Freedom of the Press By Michael Flax.
Lesson 18: How Has the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment Changed the Constitution?
Chapter 1 Legal Framework Affecting Public Schools
Chapter 1 Legal Framework Affecting Public Schools
Chapter 8 Teacher Freedoms
Exploring Time, Place, and Manner
Judicial Branch.
Speech Clauses III (Tests and Guidelines; Symbolic Speech)
Slide Set Twenty-Three: Modern Challenges in Property Law – Land Use 3
Public Forum Doctrine Religion and the Constitution.
Law and Public Education
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Alysha Gerba.
Public Forum Doctrine Law and Education.
Presentation transcript:

Waremart concluded that the Moscone Act violates the First Amendment as it extends greater protection to speech regarding a labor dispute than to speech on other subjects. Ralphs distinguished Waremart, on the ground that the Moscone Act does not restrict speech and applies on private land that is not a First Amendment public forum.

Is it clear that federal law always requires strict scrutiny for content discrimination? Is that true whether speech is favored or restricted? Ralphs says that SCOTUS decisions on speech regulations “do not require literal or absolute content neutrality, but instead require only that the [content-based] regulation be ‘justified’ by legitimate concerns that are unrelated to any ‘disagreement with the message’ conveyed by the speech.” Does that sound like a correct statement of federal law?

Ralphs : “it is well settled that statutory law—state and federal—may single out labor-related speech for particular protection or regulation, in the context of a statutory system of economic regulation of labor relations, without violating the federal Constitution” Does Ralphs permit content discrimination? So under Ralphs, would a California statute that favors nonlabor speech on private land be permissible?

Is Ralphs consistent with SCOTUS on content neutrality? “a restriction is content neutral if it is ‘justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.’” Clark v. Community for Creative Non–Violence … And with previous SCOCA statements on content neutrality: “A content-based restriction is subjected to strict scrutiny. … Restrictions upon speech “‘that by their terms distinguish favored speech from disfavored speech on the basis of the ideas or views expressed are content based.’” Fashion Valley

Viewing the issue as one of the forum, rather than the content, is Ralphs completely explained by the fact that it’s private property (not even a nonpublic forum) where regulation “need only be reasonable, as long as the regulation is not an effort to suppress the speaker’s activity due to disagreement with the speaker’s view” and government may “make distinctions in access on the basis of subject matter and speaker identity”. ISKCON. Golden Gateway relied on the public character of a site as determining whether California speech rights apply. Since the sidewalk in Ralphs was private enough to not be a public forum, shouldn’t that mean that no state speech rights exist there?

The Ralphs decision distinguished Carey and Mosley on the ground that those cases involved laws restricting speech in a public forum, while Ralphs concerned a statute permitting speech on private property – concluding that the area around the store entrance was not a public forum (under either federal or California law). Is that distinction well-taken, given that Carey involved a statute prohibiting picketing at private homes, but excepting (and thus permitting) picketing involving a labor dispute?

1. Ralphs says: “Decisions of the United States Supreme Court support the proposition that labor- related speech may be treated differently than speech on other topics.” Is that true? If so, isn’t that a complete justification for the Moscone Act and the decision in Ralphs ? 2.Does Ralphs necessarily conflict with federal law on content neutrality?

Justice Chin in dissent said: “The majority claims its interpretation of the Moscone Act is valid because the act does not limit free speech. It is true that the Moscone Act, itself, does not limit speech. But the Court of Appeal cases involving nonlabor speech at stores and medical clinics, which the majority purports to reaffirm, do limit speech. Thus, the majority upholds content-based discrimination between labor and nonlabor speech, which presents the difficult constitutional question the Waremart court identified.” Is Justice Chin right?

What are the ramifications of the public forum aspect of the Ralphs decision going forward?

Given the tensions between Ralphs and federal law, what are the possible future options? Going forward, is there any exterior area of a retail establishment that is closed to labor speech in California? What about the interior? Note the Chief’s concurrence, rejecting this possibility: “in Sears … we observed that ‘a strict reading [of the Moscone Act] might appear to authorize picketing in the aisles of the Sears store or even in the private offices of its executives.’”