Key principle #1:
Congress has tpower to regulate interstate commerce. When states regulate interstate commerce in the absence of congressional regulation, one/two tests is used to determine if state law is constitutional. If law is discriminatory, it is usually unconstitutional under a strict scrutiny standard. If it is merely a “burden” on interstate commerce, it is more likely to be constitutional.
Key principle #2:
Key principle #3: state action is required in order to sue under the First, Fourteenth, or Fifteenth Amendment.
Key principle #4: the Equal Protection Clause has three standards to be aware of.
Key principle #5: Freedom of speech is heavily tested in Constitutional Law MEE questions! A few times,
freedom of speech has been tested in the context of a trespass or a criminal claim.
Start your essay as follows: “The First Amendment applies to the states through the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Remember, there must be a government regulation of private speech
Strict scrutiny
means that the government must show that the regulation is necessary to serve a
compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to that end. The government faces strict scrutiny if it
engages in content-based discrimination (forbidding communication about certain ideas) or viewpointbased
discrimination (forbidding communication about a certain viewpoint).
Unprotected speech: A law regulating unprotected speech needs to pass rational basis scrutiny.
The following categories of speech are not protected under the First Amendment:
Symbolic speech:
a law which regulates conduct and places an incidental burden on speech is
constitutional if the regulation is narrowly tailored to an important governmental interest and is
unrelated to the suppression of the speech
Some classes of speech are protected—just a little less:
§ Commercial speech: the law must meet the Central Hudson test, which states that (1) the
speech must be lawful and not misleading, (2) the statute must serve a substantial governmental
interest, (3) the statute must directly advance that interest, and (4) the statute must be narrowly
tailored.
§ Sexual or indecent speech: the law must serve a substantial governmental interest and leave
open reasonable alternative channels of communication.
§ Time-place-or-manner restriction: A restriction in a public forum—i.e., one historically
associated with free speech rights (e.g., streets, sidewalks, parks), or a designated public forum
(e.g., a school that opens its doors to after-school activities) must be content neutral, narrowly
tailored to serve an important governmental interest, and leave open alternative channels of
communication. A restriction in a nonpublic forum (e.g., airports, government workplaces, etc.)
must be viewpoint neutral and reasonably related to a legitimate governmental interest
Speech in public schools:
students have free speech rights; however, speech in schools may be regulated
so long as the regulations are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical (educational) concerns
Principles to keep in mind:
There is a presumption against a prior restraint (stopping speech before it
happens). If a law is overbroad (prohibits substantially more expression than necessary) or vague (a
reasonable person could not tell what is prohibited by the law), it is unconstitutional.
Rights of the press:
The press has no greater free speech rights than anyone else. The press may publish
information that is lawfully obtained and that is a matter of public concern.
Rights of corporations:
independent political expenditures by a for-profit corporation constitutes free
speech protected by the First Amendment
Key principle #6: Eminent domain. Neither the federal government nor the state may take private property for
public use without just compensation. This arises from the Fifth Amendment and is applied to the states through
the Fourteenth Amendment. A “public use” is defined broadly and may include giving land to a private party for
commercial development.
Key principle #7:
The Eleventh Amendment precludes a federal court from exercising jurisdiction over a suit by a
private party seeking to recover damages from the state. There are exceptions to this (e.g., if a federal statute
properly abrogates immunity).