FEATURED ARTICLE

The Government Brand

Mary-Rose Papandrea

In Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., the Supreme Court held that Texas could deny the Sons of Confederate Veterans a specialty license plate because the public found the group’s Confederate flag logo offensive. The Court held that Texas was entitled to ban Confederate flags because all speech appearing on specialty license plates constitutes government speech immune to the usual restrictions of the First Amendment. This Article dissects Walker and its larger significance for the government speech doctrine. This case takes the Court’s growing deference to institutional government actors and puts it on steroids. The Article examines the dangerous implications of Walker in a wide variety of contexts, from the speech rights of public school students and government employees, to advertisements on public transportation, and to new means of communication.

FEATURED NOTE

Standing up for Legislators: Reevaluating Legislator Standing in the Wake of Kerr v. Hickenlooper

William D. Gohl

Should legislators be permitted to sue to exercise their powers when another branch of government infringes on them unconstitutionally, or the body they represent unconstitutionally limits them? This Note argues that, at least in certain circumstances, they should. Following the Tenth Circuit’s recent treatment of the issue in its Kerr v. Hickenlooper decisions, this Note proposes a redefinition of the legislator standing doctrine under which legislators can sue to remedy unconstitutional infringement of specific, enumerated powers. In doing so, this Note argues that prudential concerns that have historically barred legislators from suing should be disregarded, not only because the Supreme Court signaled as much in Lexmark, but also because these concerns are normatively ill considered. Rather, tying legislators’ injuries in fact to enumerated powers better aligns standing for legislators with standing for everyone else, while helping ensure courts are not stuck hearing suits they cannot and should not hear.

NULR Online

OCT 23, 2016

Protection for Families: New Standards Developing in Asylum Law

Jillian Blake

Fear of persecution based on one’s family ties has long been considered a basis for asylum in the United States. Recently, however, the scope of that protection has come under dispute and, as a result, may be expanding. In this Essay, Blake argues for a more expansive interpretation of these asylum claims, recognizing family-based persecution even when persecutors have multiple motives for targeting their victim.