Geoffrey R. Stone – författare

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for saying that 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' is not protected by the First Amendment. The case itself upheld an espionage conviction, but it also created a much stricter standard for governmental suppression of speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of American's leading First Amendment scholars, Geoffrey Stone and Lee Bollinger, have gathered a group of the nation's leading legal scholars (Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, and others) to evaluate the development of free speech doctrine since Schenk and assess where it might be headed in our post-Snowden era. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies--remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection for free expression it has afforded since the 1960s. Since 1919, the degree of judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, heightened political sensitivities, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what sort of speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that established free speech as we have come to understand it today, The Free Speech Century will serve as essential overview for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it continues to change to this day.

The Supreme Court's 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for saying that 'shouting fire in a crowded theater' is not protected by the First Amendment. The case itself upheld an espionage conviction, but it also created a much stricter standard for governmental suppression of speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of American's leading First Amendment scholars, Geoffrey Stone and Lee Bollinger, have gathered a group of the nation's leading legal scholars (Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, and others) to evaluate the development of free speech doctrine since Schenk and assess where it might be headed in our post-Snowden era. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies--remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection for free expression it has afforded since the 1960s. Since 1919, the degree of judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, heightened political sensitivities, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what sort of speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that established free speech as we have come to understand it today, The Free Speech Century will serve as essential overview for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it continues to change to this day.

The Supreme Court''s 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for first invoking the phrase "clear and present danger." Although the decision upheld the conviction of an individual for criticizing the draft during World War I, it also laid the foundation for our nation''s robust protection of free speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of America''s leading First Amendment scholars, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, have gathered a group of the nation''s leading constitutional scholars--Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, among others--to evaluate the evolution of free speech doctrine since Schenk and to assess where it might be headed in the future. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies--remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection it has afforded since the 1960s. Over the course of The First Amendment Century, judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that laid the foundation for America''s free speech tradition, The Free Speech Century will serve as an essential resource for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it is so critical both for the United States and for the world today.

The Supreme Court''s 1919 decision in Schenck vs. the United States is one of the most important free speech cases in American history. Written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, it is most famous for first invoking the phrase "clear and present danger." Although the decision upheld the conviction of an individual for criticizing the draft during World War I, it also laid the foundation for our nation''s robust protection of free speech. Over time, the standard Holmes devised made freedom of speech in America a reality rather than merely an ideal. In The Free Speech Century, two of America''s leading First Amendment scholars, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, have gathered a group of the nation''s leading constitutional scholars--Cass Sunstein, Lawrence Lessig, Laurence Tribe, Kathleen Sullivan, Catherine McKinnon, among others--to evaluate the evolution of free speech doctrine since Schenk and to assess where it might be headed in the future. Since 1919, First Amendment jurisprudence in America has been a signal development in the history of constitutional democracies--remarkable for its level of doctrinal refinement, remarkable for its lateness in coming (in relation to the adoption of the First Amendment), and remarkable for the scope of protection it has afforded since the 1960s. Over the course of The First Amendment Century, judicial engagement with these fundamental rights has grown exponentially. We now have an elaborate set of free speech laws and norms, but as Stone and Bollinger stress, the context is always shifting. New societal threats like terrorism, and new technologies of communication continually reshape our understanding of what speech should be allowed. Publishing on the one hundredth anniversary of the decision that laid the foundation for America''s free speech tradition, The Free Speech Century will serve as an essential resource for anyone interested in how our understanding of the First Amendment transformed over time and why it is so critical both for the United States and for the world today.

From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can't afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court's approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describer the Warren Court's extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation's commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of each case, the Court's reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court's most important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court's legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court's achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It demonstrates not only why the Warren Court's approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.

From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can''t afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court''s approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describe the Warren Court''s extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation''s commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of each case, the Court''s reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court''s most important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court''s legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court''s achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It demonstrates not only why the Warren Court''s approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.

From 1953 to 1969, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren brought about many of the proudest achievements of American constitutional law. The Warren declared racial segregation and laws forbidding interracial marriage to be unconstitutional; it expanded the right of citizens to criticize public officials; it held school prayer unconstitutional; and it ruled that people accused of a crime must be given a lawyer even if they can''t afford one. Yet, despite those and other achievements, conservative critics have fiercely accused the justices of the Warren Court of abusing their authority by supposedly imposing their own opinions on the nation.As the eminent legal scholars Geoffrey R. Stone and David A. Strauss demonstrate in Democracy and Equality, the Warren Court''s approach to the Constitution was consistent with the most basic values of our Constitution and with the most fundamental responsibilities of our judiciary. Stone and Strauss describe the Warren Court''s extraordinary achievements by reviewing its jurisprudence across a range of issues addressing our nation''s commitment to the values of democracy and equality. In each chapter, they tell the story of a critical decision, exploring the historical and legal context of each case, the Court''s reasoning, and how the justices of the Warren Court fulfilled the Court''s most important responsibilities. This powerfully argued evaluation of the Warren Court''s legacy, in commemoration of the 50th anniversary of the end of the Warren Court, both celebrates and defends the Warren Court''s achievements against almost sixty-five years of unrelenting and unwarranted attacks by conservatives. It demonstrates not only why the Warren Court''s approach to constitutional interpretation was correct and admirable, but also why the approach of the Warren Court was far superior to that of the increasingly conservative justices who have dominated the Supreme Court over the past half-century.

Written by a group of the nation''s leading constitutional scholars, a deeply informed, thoughtful, and often surprising examination of who has First Amendment rights to disclose, to obtain, or to publish classified information relating to the national security of the United States.One of the most vexing and perennial questions facing any democracy is how to balance the government''s legitimate need to conduct its operations-especially those related to protecting the national security-in secret, with the public''s right and responsibility to know what its government is doing. There is no easy answer to this issue, and different nations embrace different solutions. In the United States, at the constitutional level, the answer begins exactly half a century ago with the Supreme Court''s landmark 1971 decision in the Pentagon Papers case. The final decision, though, left many important questions unresolved. Moreover, the issue of leaks and secrecy has cropped up repeatedly since, most recently in the Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning cases. In National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press , two of America''s leading First Amendment scholars, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, have gathered a group of the nation''s leading constitutional scholars-including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Cass R. Sunstein, and Michael Morell, among many others-to delve into important dimensions of the current system, to explain how we should think about them, and to offer as many solutions as possible.

Written by a group of the nation''s leading constitutional scholars, a deeply informed, thoughtful, and often surprising examination of who has First Amendment rights to disclose, to obtain, or to publish classified information relating to the national security of the United States.One of the most vexing and perennial questions facing any democracy is how to balance the government''s legitimate need to conduct its operations-especially those related to protecting the national security-in secret, with the public''s right and responsibility to know what its government is doing. There is no easy answer to this issue, and different nations embrace different solutions. In the United States, at the constitutional level, the answer begins exactly half a century ago with the Supreme Court''s landmark 1971 decision in the Pentagon Papers case. The final decision, though, left many important questions unresolved. Moreover, the issue of leaks and secrecy has cropped up repeatedly since, most recently in the Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning cases. In National Security, Leaks and Freedom of the Press , two of America''s leading First Amendment scholars, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, have gathered a group of the nation''s leading constitutional scholars-including John Brennan, Eric Holder, Cass R. Sunstein, and Michael Morell, among many others-to delve into important dimensions of the current system, to explain how we should think about them, and to offer as many solutions as possible.

A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of "bad" speech on the internet within the American context.One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Newt Minow, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.

A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of "bad" speech on the internet within the American context.One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Newt Minow, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America's leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.

A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of "bad" speech on the internet within the American context.One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Newt Minow, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America''s leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.

A broad explanation of the various dimensions of the problem of "bad" speech on the internet within the American context.One of the most fiercely debated issues of this era is what to do about "bad" speech-hate speech, disinformation and propaganda campaigns, and incitement of violence-on the internet, and in particular speech on social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. In Social Media, Freedom of Speech, and the Future of our Democracy, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone have gathered an eminent cast of contributors--including Hillary Clinton, Amy Klobuchar, Sheldon Whitehouse, Newt Minow, Cass Sunstein, Jack Balkin, Emily Bazelon, and others--to explore the various dimensions of this problem in the American context. They stress how difficult it is to develop remedies given that some of these forms of "bad" speech are ordinarily protected by the First Amendment. Bollinger and Stone argue that it is important to remember that the last time we encountered major new communications technology-television and radio-we established a federal agency to provide oversight and to issue regulations to protect and promote "the public interest." Featuring a variety of perspectives from some of America''s leading experts on this hotly contested issue, this volume offers new insights for the future of free speech in the social media era.

A timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism, discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional perspective.Since 1961, the issue of "affirmative action" has been a hotly contested legal and political issue. Intended to address our nation's often horrifying discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities, affirmative action has led over the past sixty years to far greater minority representation across a vast range of industries, government positions, and academic institutions. Nonetheless, affirmative action policies in the United States continue to fall under assault. In A Legacy of Discrimination, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, two of America's leading constitutional scholars, trace the policy's history and the legal challenges it has faced over the decades. They argue that in order to fully comprehend affirmative action's original intent and impact, we must re-acquaint ourselves with the era in which it arose, beginning with the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century, 1954's Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Assessing this history, Bollinger and Stone introduce subsequent, and evolving, affirmative-action case law that had the intent and effect of constraining social, educational, and economic progress for Black people and other minority groups. They demonstrate how and why affirmative action policies stand on firm legal ground and must remain protected. Further, they explain why Americans must view affirmative action as a long-term moral commitment to secure justice, especially for Black Americans, after three and a half centuries of grave injustice that violates the most essential aspirations of our nation.A timely and robust overview of the history of our nation's historical and continuing racial discrimination and of the advent of affirmative action as a critical means to address this history, this book will serve as a powerful defense of a policy that has accomplished more than most people realize in making America a fairer and more inclusive country.

A timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism, discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional perspective.Since 1961, the issue of "affirmative action" has been a hotly contested legal and political issue. Intended to address our nation''s often horrifying discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities, affirmative action has led over the past sixty years to far greater minority representation across a vast range of industries, government positions, and academic institutions. Nonetheless, affirmative action policies in the United States continue to fall under assault. In A Legacy of Discrimination, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, two of America''s leading constitutional scholars, trace the policy''s history and the legal challenges it has faced over the decades. They argue that in order to fully comprehend affirmative action''s original intent and impact, we must re-acquaint ourselves with the era in which it arose, beginning with the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century, 1954''s Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Assessing this history, Bollinger and Stone introduce subsequent, and evolving, affirmative-action case law that had the intent and effect of constraining social, educational, and economic progress for Black people and other minority groups. They demonstrate how and why affirmative action policies stand on firm legal ground and must remain protected. Further, they explain why Americans must view affirmative action as a long-term moral commitment to secure justice, especially for Black Americans, after three and a half centuries of grave injustice that violates the most essential aspirations of our nation.A timely and robust overview of the history of our nation''s historical and continuing racial discrimination and of the advent of affirmative action as a critical means to address this history, this book will serve as a powerful defense of a policy that has accomplished more than most people realize in making America a fairer and more inclusive country.

A timely defense of affirmative action policies that offers a more nuanced understanding of how centuries of invidious racism, discrimination, and segregation in the United States led to and justifies such policies from both a moral and constitutional perspective.Since 1961, the issue of "affirmative action" has been a hotly contested legal and political issue. Intended to address our nation''s often horrifying discrimination against Black Americans and other minorities, affirmative action has led over the past sixty years to far greater minority representation across a vast range of industries, government positions, and academic institutions. Nonetheless, affirmative action policies in the United States continue to fall under assault. In A Legacy of Discrimination, Lee C. Bollinger and Geoffrey R. Stone, two of America''s leading constitutional scholars, trace the policy''s history and the legal challenges it has faced over the decades. They argue that in order to fully comprehend affirmative action''s original intent and impact, we must re-acquaint ourselves with the era in which it arose, beginning with the most important Supreme Court decision of the 20th century, 1954''s Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. Assessing this history, Bollinger and Stone introduce subsequent, and evolving, affirmative-action case law that had the intent and effect of constraining social, educational, and economic progress for Black people and other minority groups. They demonstrate how and why affirmative action policies stand on firm legal ground and must remain protected. Further, they explain why Americans must view affirmative action as a long-term moral commitment to secure justice, especially for Black Americans, after three and a half centuries of grave injustice that violates the most essential aspirations of our nation.A timely and robust overview of the history of our nation''s historical and continuing racial discrimination and of the advent of affirmative action as a critical means to address this history, this book will serve as a powerful defense of a policy that has accomplished more than most people realize in making America a fairer and more inclusive country.

Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.

Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "speech" and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "contributions" to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "expenditures," by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.

Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "e;speech"e; and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "e;contributions"e; to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "e;expenditures,"e; by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.

Money in political campaigns is a subject of endless current interest and enormous consequence for American democracy. Beginning in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court established a framework for public campaign regulation that declared that money constitutes "e;speech"e; and that the only constitutional basis upon which the government can regulate money was to prohibit corruption or the appearance of corruption. The Court then defined corruption narrowly and held that direct "e;contributions"e; to candidates could be limited on that basis but that "e;expenditures,"e; by political candidates and others, could not. Over time as the role of money became more and more serious in politics the Court in a number of decisions seemed to be turning more willing to accept regulation. But in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the new conservative Supreme Court sharply turned against permitting regulation, including of corporations. Today that regime of nearly full protection for anyone spending virtually any amount of money for or against candidates and issues remains securely in place. The question, after a half century of this system, is whether this interpretation of the First Amendment is sound or not. If yes, then what are the justifications and what will be the consequences? If not, then what are alternative interpretations and what would the world be like under each one? The contributors, all scholars and experts in this area, give their interpretations and proposals.

The university is a foundational institution in society and a cornerstone of democracy. However, recent actions taken by the Trump administration pose an existential threat to this institution by undermining its singular animating right: academic freedom. In Academic Freedom in the Era of Trump, preeminent thinkers draw from their experience as university leaders and First Amendment scholars to portray this troubling moment for academic freedom. The volume examines the legal, historical, and philosophical foundations of academic freedom, its First Amendment roots, and the implications of recent political interference. The Supreme Court has now enshrined the principle of academic freedom within our First Amendment jurisprudence, unceasingly affirming the principle while continuing to refine its contours. Yet, the Trump administration has employed an authoritarian playbook to assault this principle, withholding federal research funding and exploiting antidiscrimination laws, among other tactics. To prevail in this moment, universities must defend academic freedom by clarifying and reaffirming the constitutional origins, emphasizing the indispensable societal role, and refining and articulating the distinct culture and structures of universities that allow the principle to flourish. Urgent and timely, this book offers a powerful defense of the university as a space for free inquiry and democratic resilience.

The university is a foundational institution in society and a cornerstone of democracy. However, recent actions taken by the Trump administration pose an existential threat to this institution by undermining its singular animating right: academic freedom. In Academic Freedom in the Era of Trump, preeminent thinkers draw from their experience as university leaders and First Amendment scholars to portray this troubling moment for academic freedom. The volume examines the legal, historical, and philosophical foundations of academic freedom, its First Amendment roots, and the implications of recent political interference. The Supreme Court has now enshrined the principle of academic freedom within our First Amendment jurisprudence, unceasingly affirming the principle while continuing to refine its contours. Yet, the Trump administration has employed an authoritarian playbook to assault this principle, withholding federal research funding and exploiting antidiscrimination laws, among other tactics. To prevail in this moment, universities must defend academic freedom by clarifying and reaffirming the constitutional origins, emphasizing the indispensable societal role, and refining and articulating the distinct culture and structures of universities that allow the principle to flourish. Urgent and timely, this book offers a powerful defense of the university as a space for free inquiry and democratic resilience.

While freedom of speech has been guaranteed us for centuries, the First Amendment as we know it today is largely a creation of the past 80 years. "Eternally Vigilant" brings together a group of distinguished legal scholars to reflect boldly on its past, its present shape, and what forms our understanding of it might take in the future. The result is a unique volume spanning the entire spectrum of First Amendment issues, from its philosophical underpinnings to specific issues like campaign regulation, obscenity and the new media.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

While freedom of speech has been guaranteed us for centuries, the First Amendment as we know it today is largely a creation of the past eighty years. Eternally Vigilant brings together a group of distinguished legal scholars to reflect boldly on its past, its present shape, and what forms our understanding of it might take in the future. The result is a unique volume spanning the entire spectrum of First Amendment issues, from its philosophical underpinnings to specific issues like campaign regulation, obscenity, and the new media. "With group efforts, such as this collection of essays, it is almost inevitable that there will be a couple—and often several—duds among the bunch, or at least a dismaying repetition of ideas. Such is not the case here. . . . Whether one agrees with a given author or not (and it is possible to do both with any of the essays), each has something to add. Overall, Eternally Vigilant is a thoughtful and thought-provoking book, consistently intelligent and, at times, brilliant."—Richard J. Mollot, New York Law Journal Contributors: Lillian R. BeVier Vincent Blasi Lee C. Bollinger Stanley Fish Owen M. Fiss R. Kent Greenawalt Richard A. Posner Robert C. Post Frederick Schauer Geoffrey R. Stone David A. Strauss Cass R. Sunstein

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.  This year’s volume features prominent scholars assessing major legal events, including:  Mark Tushnet on President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”Kate Andrias on Union Fees in the Public SectorCass R. Sunstein on Chevron without ChevronTracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and Unauthorized DriversFrederick Schauer on PrecedentPamela Karlan on Gay Equality and Racial EqualityRandall Kennedy on Palmer v. ThompsonLisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter SuppressionMelissa Murray on Masterpiece CakeshopVikram David Amar on CommandeeringLaura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and OriginalismEvan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.  This year’s volume features incisive assessments of major legal events, including:  Gillian E. Metzger on The Roberts Court's Administrative LawPaul Butler on Peremptory Strikes in Mississippi v. FlowersNicholas O. Stephanopoulos on Partisan GerrymanderingKent Greenfield on Hate SpeechJennifer M. Chacon on Department of Commerce v. New YorkMicah Schwartzman & Nelson Tebbe on Establishment Clause AppeasementWilliam Baude on Precedent and OriginalismLinda Greenhouse on The Supreme Court’s Challenge to Civil SocietyJames T. Kloppenberg on James Madison