McCullen v. Coakley - Case Brief - Lawaspect.com.

A summary and case brief of McCullen v. Coakley, 134 S. Ct. 2518 (2014), including the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, key terms, and concurrences and dissents.

WASHINGTON,DC (Catholic Online) - On Wednesday, January 15, 2014, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of McCullen v. Coakley. The case originated in my home State of Massachusetts. It concerns a matter which I spent years of my legal career fighting, the growing practice of suppressing speech which is unpopular.

A Massachusetts act making it a crime to knowingly stand on a “public way or sidewalk” within 35 feet of an entrance or driveway to any “reproductive health care facility” violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it burdens substantially more speech than is necessary to further the government's legitimate interests.

The revised statute drew renewed fire and, in 2009, we upheld it against a facial challenge. See McCullen v. Coakley (McCullen I), 571 F.3d 167 (1st Cir.2009), cert. denied, 130 S.Ct. 1881 (2010). This decision left open the plaintiffs' as-applied challenge, and they unsuccessfully pursued that initiative in the district court. See McCullen v.

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy: Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.

About the author. This sample is done by Scarlett with a major in Economics at Northwestern University. All the content of this paper reflects her knowledge and her perspective on On Don McCullen and should not be considered as the only possible point of view or way of presenting the arguments. Check out more papers by Scarlett.

Today we analyze a very intriguing issue raised by a case that will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next month, McCullen v.Coakley, in which the plaintiffs challenge a Massachusetts law limiting pedestrian traffic near abortion clinics. The statute in question makes it a crime to “enter or remain on a public way or sidewalk adjacent to” a reproductive rights clinic within 35 feet of.

The Disparagement Clause prohibits trademarks that disparage the members of a racial or ethnic group and violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. delivered the opinion for the 8-0 majority. The Court held that, the plain meaning of the text clearly indicated that the Disparagement Clause applied to.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, the state was the plaintiff. The state of Maryland believed that the federal bank should pay state taxes because they were operating on their land and using their resources. McCulloch v. Maryland: The Verdict. The United States Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland ruled in favor of the defendant, Andrew McCulloch.

The Supreme Court's new term, which started on October 7, includes several important cases concerning religion. The docket may also dismantle key precedents set by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who ushered in landmark decisions about government-sponsored prayer, abortion, and religious freedom—all of which are implicated in cases that the Court will hear this term.

The following is a list of all Supreme Court cases since the 2000-2001 term that have involved the First Amendment. The American Humanist Association (PDF) The Court held that the display and maintenance of a large memorial cross by a local government does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Descriptively, free speech consequentialism pervades the doctrine and is employed by even those who eschew consequentialism. In addition, some amount of free speech consequentialism is normatively beneficial because any alternative to balancing would involve absolutes that would both overprotect and underprotect speech.