Issue Archives

Introduction Partisan gerrymandering has a lengthy history, as political parties in power have repeatedly sought to construct electoral districts in ways that disfavor the minority party and ensure majority-party dominance. While more recently it appears that Republicans have reaped more of the bene­fits of partisan gerrymandering, over the past fifty years, each major politi­cal party, […]

Introduction “[T]he majority has chosen the winners by turning the First Amendment into a sword, and using it against workaday economic and regulatory policy. Today is not the first time the Court has wielded the First Amendment in such an aggressive way. And it threatens not to be the last. Speech is everywhere—a part of […]

Free speech cannot be progressive. At least it cannot be progressive if we are talking about free speech in the American context, with all the historical, sociological, and philosophical baggage that comes with the modern American free speech right. That is not to say that the right to free speech does not deserve protection. It might serve as an important side constraint on the pursuit of progressive goals and might even pro­tect progressives...

The most recent call for judicial intervention into state partisan gerrymandering practices ran aground on the shoals of standing doctrine in Gill v. Whitford. The First Amendment stood at the center of this latest gerrymandering challenge. Democratic voters claimed that the legislative districting scheme infringed on their associational rights by denying their party an opportunity for...

The Supreme Court’s “weaponized” First Amendment has been its strongest antiregulatory tool in recent decades, slashing campaign-finance regulation, public-sector union financing, and pharmaceutical regulation, and threatening a broader remit. Along with others, I have previously criticized these developments as a “new Lochnerism.” In this Essay, part of a Columbia Law Review...

Over the past four decades, the political economy of the First Amendment has undergone a significant shift. If in the early twentieth century winners in First Amendment cases tended to be representatives of the marginalized and the disenfranchised, these days, they are much more likely to be corporations and other powerful actors. This Essay excavates the causes of that change and suggests how it might be reme­died. It argues that the shift in...

What can the First Amendment accomplish in society? In particu­lar, can it foster equality? This Essay, written for Columbia Law Review’s 2018 Symposium on equality and the First Amendment, argues that, if the question is whether freedom of speech could serve equality, the answer is yes. Freedom of speech can serve nearly...

Any progressive agenda for change will require robust exercise of speech and associational rights that law currently restricts for labor unions. Although the Supreme Court’s conservative First Amendment judicial activism has raised doubts about whether constitutional protection for free speech can serve progressive ends, this Essay identifies a silver lining to the deregulatory use of the First Amendment. The Roberts Court’s extension of heightened...

The vision of free expression that characterized much of the twentieth century is inadequate to protect free expression today.

The twentieth century featured a dyadic or dualist model of speech regulation with two basic kinds of players: territorial governments on the one hand, and speakers on the other. The twenty-first-century model is pluralist, with multiple players. It is easiest to think of it as a triangle. On one corner are nation-states...

Over the past decade, the Roberts Court has handed down a series of rulings that demonstrate the degree to which the First Amendment can be used to thwart economic and social welfare regulation—generating widespread accusations that the Court has created a “new Lochner.” This introduction to the Columbia Law Review’s...