When we last reviewed the general state of First Amendment jurisprudence, we concluded that on the United States Supreme Court there was “a slim, but solid, First Amendment majority.” Our basis for that conclusion was last term’s decision in Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc., 140 S. Ct. 2335 (2020),
Can a court decision be simultaneously depressing and exhilarating? You might be surprised how often that happens. In United States v. Facteau, 2020 WL 5517573, (D. Mass. Sept. 14, 2020), the court upheld criminalization of off-label promotion, but did so in a way that might signal the end of an era in which pharmaceutical
We’ve been watching the evolution of the Supreme Court’s thinking on First Amendment review of “speaker” and “content” specific prior restraints since we first noticed that emerging doctrine in the pharmaceutical detailing case, Sorrell v. IMS Health, Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011). In Sorrell, however, it was unclear how much (if any) more
Today we’re updating our readers on new developments this month relating to three of our prior posts.
First, back in March we reported on an “Advocate’s General’s opinion” in a case before the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”). See the original post for details, but the plaintiff was asserting the radical claim that EU
How many of us entered law school dreaming of following the paths of Brandeis, Marshall, etc. in the field of constitutional law? How many of us now can go weeks, or even months, without reading a Supreme Court case? Paying off student loans led many of us to work for law firms where there was
On March 5, FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb abruptly announced his resignation, effective in a month. Since then, it has been announced that Dr. Ned Sharpless, currently head of the National Cancer Institute, will replace Dr. Gottlieb on an “acting” basis. This is disturbing generally, as Dr. Gottlieb has stood out as a demonstrably
Our recent post about the First Amendment decision in American Beverage Ass’n v. City & County of San Francisco, ___ F.3d ___, 2019 WL 387114 (9th Cir. Jan. 31, 2019) (en banc) (“ABevA”), holding unconstitutional a purported product “safety warning” was more than enough to set the old First Amendment juices flowing.
It is easy to articulate the core principle behind the First Amendment right to free speech: The government can’t restrict what you say or make you say what the government wants without a good reason. Ah, but how good a reason and what kind of reason? That is where it gets more complicated. How do
Not too long ago we read a non-drug/device decision, Hale v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 2018 WL 3241971 (S.D. Ill. July 3, 2018), which left us shaking our heads. How this suit could not be a blatant First Amendment violation is beyond us.
But that’s not really the point of this post.
Gather round brothers and sisters, and hear the word of the Texas Court of Appeals. Today’s sermon addresses the intersection of religion and regulation. Take out your hymnal, and turn to Hawkins v. State, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 7863 (Texas Ct. App., 14th Dist. Sept. 27, 2018). Consider the case of Mr. Hawkins, hereinafter