government speech

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District

Issues

Does a prayer said by a public-school football coach in front of students constitute government speech unprotected by the First Amendment or private speech; and if it is private speech protected under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause, must a public school still prohibit it under the Establishment Clause?  

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a public school can prohibit a football coach from praying at midfield after a game ends. Petitioner Joseph A. Kennedy argues that he has a First Amendment right to pray on school grounds as long as he does so in his capacity as a private citizen and not as a coach. Respondent Bremerton School District contends that Kennedy impermissibly engaged in religious expression while in the course of performing his duties as a public-school employee. Therefore, Bremerton School District argues that it is properly within their discretion to prohibit Kennedy’s conduct as government speech. Bremerton School District further asserts that even if Kennedy’s prayer is properly considered private speech, they are compelled to prohibit it as a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case holds implications for the nature of the coach-student relationship, the scope of religious expression on public grounds, and the appropriate balance between free speech and religious pluralism.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a public-school employee who says a brief, quiet prayer by himself while at school and visible to students is engaged in government speech that lacks any First Amendment protection; and (2) whether, assuming that such religious expression is private and protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses, the Establishment Clause nevertheless compels public schools to prohibit it.

Joseph A. Kennedy (“Kennedy”) is a practicing Christian who served as a football coach at Bremerton High School in Bremerton, Washington, from 2008 to 2015. Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, at 1010.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor Nelson Tebbe and Professor Michael Heise for their guidance and insights into this case.

Submit for publication
0

Lee v. Tam

Issues

Is the disparagement clause of the Lanham Act, which allows the USPTO to refuse federal registration to marks which “may be disparaging” to persons of a certain race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

This case will address the constitutionality of the disparagement clause, or §2(a) of the Lanham Act. Simon Tam, spokesperson for THE SLANTS, an Asian-American dance-rock band, argues that this provision, which allows the USPTO to deny federal registration to marks that “may be disparaging,” poses impermissible censorship of political speech in instances where registrants seek to reappropriate a previously disparaging term. Michelle K. Lee, the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the USPTO, maintains that this provision merely denies federal registration for a government program but does not restrict an individual’s political or commercial speech. The resolution of this case will determine whether the owners of potentially disparaging marks, such as the Washington Redskins, have the right to register their marks, bring suit for infringement, and use government resources for policing new trademark applicants and potential infringement. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C.  1052(a), provides that no trademark shall be refused registration on account of its nature unless, inter alia, it “[c]onsists of * * * matter which may disparage * * * persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or nation-al symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The question presented is as follows:

Whether the disparagement provision in 15 U.S.C.  1052(a) is facially invalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

On November 14, 2011, Simon Tam filed an application to register the name of an Asian-American dance-rock band, THE SLANTS, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”). In Re Simon Shiao Tam, 808 F.3d 1321, at 10–11 (2015). Tam and his fellow band members have used this mark in commerce since 2006, when they first formed the band.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Murthy v. Missouri

Issues

Did the U.S. government’s conduct compel social media companies in a manner that caused First Amendment harm to social media users, and should the resulting injunction be modified?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether certain government officials impermissibly used their government speech to coerce social media companies to violate the First Amendment rights of social media users. The Court will analyze (1) whether the respondents have standing; (2) whether the government’s conduct violated the Respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the granted injunction was properly written. Murthy argues that (1) the respondents do not have standing because their injuries are not traceable to the government; (2) the government officials used their permissible government speech that did not contain any threats; and (3) the injunction is unnecessarily broad and vague and would harm the government and the public’s access to information. Missouri counters that (1) the Respondents have standing because their injuries are directly traceable to government officials and can be redressed; (2) the government officials’ unrelenting pressure crossed the line into impermissible speech that violated the Respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) the injunction is properly tailored to the harms that the Respondents suffered. The outcome of this case will affect the ability of the government to communicate with private entities, First Amendment rights, and social media content moderation policies. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether respondents have Article III standing; (2) whether the government’s challenged conduct transformed private social media companies’ content-moderation decisions into state action and violated respondents’ First Amendment rights; and (3) whether the terms and breadth of the preliminary injunction are proper.

Since the 2020 presidential election, some federal officials have communicated with social media platforms about “misinformation” on their websites. Missouri v. Biden, at 2. Officials from government agencies told these platforms to remove content and social media accounts involving topics such as COVID-19, pandemic lockdowns, and Hunter Biden’s laptop.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

Issues

1. Whether a permanent monument donated by a private organization to Pleasant Grove retains its character as private speech, or whether it becomes government speech because the city owns, controls, and decides to display it?

2. Did the Tenth Circuit err in finding that the monument’s physical presence in a park is dispositive in ruling that the relevant forum is a public forum, or should the court have ruled that access to the forum based on the city’s selection process renders it a nonpublic forum?

3. Would requiring the city to immediately erect and display Summum’s monument ultimately require the city to decide either to display monuments at the request of any private party or not to display any monuments at all?

 

Summum, a religious organization, seeks to place a monument containing the Seven Aphorisms of Summum among other historical and cultural artifacts and monuments displayed in Pioneer Park. It brought a civil suit in the Federal District Court of Utah, alleging that the city of Pleasant Grove had abridged its First Amendment freedom of speech rights in denying the request to display the Seven Aphorisms monument, while approving other similar expressive monuments. The District Court denied Summum’s preliminary injunction motion, but the Tenth Circuit reversed the ruling and granted the injunction, finding that any privately-donated monument retained its character as private speech. The court held that since a park is a traditional public forum, the city cannot engage in content-based restrictions of private speech without a compelling state interest and a narrowly-tailored policy to that end. The city contends that there is no First Amendment violation because the display constitutes government speech—the city owns, controls, and ultimately decides to display the monument. It fears that the Tenth Circuit ruling would chill free speech for both private parties and the government, for the ruling would require the city to display any monument at the request of a private party or, alternatively, ban all displays in public parks. But Summum argues that categorizing such displays as government speech, where the decision to display a monument is subject to the city’s selection process, would allow the city to engage in viewpoint discrimination.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

1. Did the Tenth Circuit err by holding, in conflict with the Second, Third, Seventh, Eighth, and D.C. Circuits, that a monument donated to a municipality and thereafter owned, controlled, and displayed by the municipality is not government speech but rather remains the private speech of the monument’s donor?

2. Did the Tenth Circuit err by ruling, in conflict with the Second, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits, that a municipal park is a public forum under the First Amendment for the erection and permanent display of monuments proposed by private parties?

3. Did the Tenth Circuit err by ruling that the city must immediately erect and display Summum’s “Seven Aphorisms” monument in the city’s park?

Pioneer Park, located in Pleasant Grove, Utah, contains a number of historical artifacts, buildings, and permanent displays, such as the city’s first city hall, its first fire department, a Ten Commandments monument, and a September 11 monument. See Summum v. Pleasant Grove, 483 F.3d 1044, 1047 (10th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Shurtleff v. City of Boston

Issues

Whether the City of Boston violated the First Amendment by denying a private party’s application to fly a Christian flag on a flagpole in front of Boston City Hall when the City had approved all 284 previous flag-raising applications; whether the flagpole is a designated public forum for the purposes of the First Amendment; and whether designating a private party’s flag in a public forum government speech inappropriately expands the definition of government speech.

In this case, the Supreme Court must decide whether the City of Boston violated the First Amendment by refusing to fly a flag bearing a Latin cross on a flagpole in front of City Hall. Boston allowed private parties to apply for permission to raise and display their flags on one of three flag poles in front of City Hall. Before Boston rejected Petitioner Harold Shurtleff’s application to fly a flag bearing a Latin cross, it had approved every one of the 284 applications it received. Shurtleff argues that Boston designated the flagpole as a public forum for private speech and committed unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by refusing to fly Shurtleff’s flag because it bore a Christian symbol. Boston responds that, because the flags flown in front of City Hall are government speech, not private speech, Boston could evaluate flag-raising applications with reference to content and viewpoint, without running afoul of the First Amendment. Interested parties on either side of the case warn of potential chilling effects on private speech, as well as the risk of hostility from the government or from private parties.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s failure to apply the Supreme Court’s forum doctrine to the First Amendment challenge of a private religious organization that was denied access to briefly display its flag on a city flagpole, pursuant to a city policy expressly designating the flagpole a public forum open to all applicants, with hundreds of approvals and no denials, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedents holding that speech restrictions based on religious viewpoint or content violate the First Amendment or are otherwise subject to strict scrutiny and that the establishment clause is not a defense to censorship of private speech in a public forum open to all comers;

(2) whether the First Circuit’s classifying as government speech the brief display of a private religious organization’s flag on a city flagpole, pursuant to a city policy expressly designating the flagpole a public forum open to all applicants, with hundreds of approvals and no denials, unconstitutionally expands the government speech doctrine, in direct conflict with the court’s decisions in Matal v. Tam, Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. and Pleasant Grove City v. Summum; and

(3) whether the First Circuit’s finding that the requirement for perfunctory city approval of a proposed brief display of a private religious organization’s flag on a city flagpole, pursuant to a city policy expressly designating the flagpole a public forum open to all applicants with hundreds of approvals and no denials, transforms the religious organization’s private speech into government speech, conflicts with the Supreme Court’s precedent in Matal v. Tam, and circuit court precedents in New Hope Family Services, Inc. v. Poole, Wandering Dago, Inc. v. Destito, Eagle Point Education Association v. Jackson County School District and Robb v. Hungerbeeler.

The City of Boston (“Boston”) owns and operates three flagpoles in City Hall Plaza, all of which stand conspicuously in front of the seat of its municipal government. Shurtleff v. City of Boston, at 82. The first flagpole flies the United States and POW/MIA flags, the second flies the Commonwealth of Massachusetts flag, and the third typically flies Boston’s flag. Id.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Walker v. Sons of Confederate Veterans

Issues

Do the messages and symbols on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech and has Texas engaged in viewpoint discrimination by rejecting the license-plate design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans?

The Supreme Court will determine whether states may limit the messages and symbols on state-issued specialty license plates and whether Texas committed viewpoint discrimination in rejecting the Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate design that included a logo of the confederate battle flag. Walker argues that the messages and symbols on state-issued license plates constitute government speech—which allows the government to restrict the speech and evade the requirement of viewpoint neutrality—and that Texas did not engage in viewpoint discrimination in refusing the confederate design because it did not issue any plates disparaging the confederacy. SCV counters that the messages and symbols are private speech protected under the First Amendment right to free speech, and that Texas committed viewpoint discrimination by rejecting the confederate license plate design. The Supreme Court’s decision in this case implicates states’ ability to favor certain viewpoints on state-issued license plates. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Do the messages and symbols on state-issued specialty license plates qualify as government speech immune from any requirement of viewpoint neutrality?  
  2. Has Texas engaged in “viewpoint discrimination” by rejecting the license-plate design proposed by the Sons of Confederate Veterans, when Texas has not issued any license plate that portrays the confederacy or the confederate battle flag in a negative or critical light? 

Texas provides drivers with the opportunity to purchase and utilize specialty license plates. See Tex. Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc. v. Vandergriff, 759 F.3d 388, 390 (5th Cir. 2014).

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to government speech