Professional Documents
Culture Documents
04-1152
IN THE
QUESTION PRESENTED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Speiser v. Randall,
357 U.S. 513 (1958) ....................................................... 18
United States v. O’Brien,
391 U.S. 367 (1968) ....................................................... 16
Va. State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Va. Citizens Consumer
Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976)................................... 6
W. Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette,
319 U.S. 624 (1943) ......................................................... 1
Wooley v. Maynard,
430 U.S. 705 (1977) ....................................................... 14
Other
Walter Dellinger,
The Indivisibility of Economic Rights and
Personal Liberty,
2003-2004 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 9 (2004) ......................... 21
Richard A. Epstein, The Constitutional Perils of
Moderation: The Case of the Boy Scouts,
74 S. Cal. L. Rev. 119 (2000)....................... 10, 11, 20, 21
Richard A. Epstein,
Unconstitutional Conditions, State Power, and
the Limits of Consent, 102 Harv. L. Rev. 4 (1988) .. 19, 20
Daniel A. Farber, Free Speech Without Romance:
Public Choice and the First Amendment,
105 Harv. L. Rev. 554 (1991)........................................... 6
1
2
Conditioning First Amendment protection on the clarity and
strength of expression is also patently inconsistent with this
Court’s First Amendment protection of the right not to speak at
all. See Section I.C, infra.
14
3
Wisely, petitioners do not argue that the Solomon Amendment
could actually withstand strict scrutiny and instead confine their
constitutional analysis to intermediate scrutiny under United
States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968). As the Third Circuit
correctly concluded, however, as in Dale, “O’Brien is
inapplicable” where the government action at issue “directly
and immediately affects associational rights.” FAIR, 390 F.3d
at 244; see also Dale, 530 U.S. at 659.
17
4
It is true that many of the respondent law schools have come
to embrace these constitutional principles at a late hour and, it
must be admitted, rather selectively. Even so, the consistency
of a party’s support for constitutional principle is not a
touchstone for enforcement of that party’s constitutional rights.
22
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit should be
affirmed.
Respectfully submitted,