My speech to the Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School
I recently spoke to the Federalist Society at the University of Michigan Law School about PLF’s cert petition in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky. In Mansky, we ask the Supreme Court to review a political apparel ban at polling places across Minnesota. The ban encompasses all sorts of apparel, from t-shirts that feature the logo of the Chamber of Commerce to those that feature the logo of the AFL-CIO. In function, the ban create a speech-free zone at the polling place, and speech-free zones are inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The petition has been relisted by the Court twice, showing that it is under strong consideration by the justices. You can read a transcript of the speech here.
In addition, I spoke to students at a seminar on civil rights advocacy. I told the students about PLF’s rich history, from its early Supreme Court victory in Nollan to more recent wins in cases like Sackett and Hawkes. The way to best serve our history, however, is to pave the way for an even better future. We’re doing just that. We currently have eight petitions filed with the Supreme Court. Those cases could set precedent of nationwide importance, from restoring constitutional limits on federal power to protecting property rights by giving property owners their day in federal court.
Our Supreme Court victories are just a part of our success. Just this week, we got California to rescind the state’s onerous “certificate of authenticity” requirement for the sale of autographed books. At the same time, we’re continuing our fight, on behalf of a family-owned dairy, to invalidate Wisconsin’s protectionist butter grading law. I hope I convinced some of the students in Civil Rights Advocacy to think about a career as a civil rights advocate. If so, they’d do well to consider Pacific Legal Foundation.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›