//  6/14/18  //  Quick Reactions

By Ilya Shapiro |  Cross-posted from CATO at Liberty

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that a Minnesota law banning “political” apparel at polling places violates the First Amendment. This was ultimately an easy case, as it should have been all along, and this decision was predictable after oral argument.

Obviously voters shouldn’t be allowed to harass, intimidate, misdirect, or otherwise interfere with other voters – and politicking or electioneering can be disruptive, so there’s nothing wrong with restricting that. But merely wearing a “political” hat or T-shirt doesn’t do any of those things, which are covered by other laws anyway. As Cato argued in our amicus brief, a complete ban on political expression should be met with the most searching judicial inquiry, regardless of the setting.

In this time when the freedom of speech is becoming an increasingly controversial idea, the Supreme Court did well to remind us that the First Amendment protects expression even and especially when Americans go to vote.


Court Affirms Government’s Interest in Protecting Voting Process

6/14/18  //  Commentary

By Adav Noti: In Minnesota Voters Alliance v Mansky, the Supreme Court avoided the pitfall of expanding its conceptually unsound campaign finance jurisprudence into a new area

Take Care

What About the Free Speech Clause Issue in Masterpiece?

6/13/18  //  Commentary

Robert Post of Yale Law considers the status of free speech objections to serving same-sex couples in light of the Court's opinion.

Robert Post

Yale Law School

A Brief and Obvious, But Nonetheless Necessary, Observation About Today's SCOTUS decision in the Ohio Voter Registration Case

6/11/18  //  Quick Reactions

I wouldn't accuse any of the justices of voting in voting rights cases based on a conscious calculation of what's best for the Republican or Democratic Party. But an inference of at least subconscious bias certainly fits the facts.

Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law School