In Tam, SCOTUS held "Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend."
Chaplinsky was not mentioned by SCOTUS, but was mentioned by the Federal Circuit as justification for denying Tam's trademark application.
Can someone help me reconcile the conflicting rulings in
Matal v Tam (2017) & Chaplinsky v NH (1942)?
Both cases involved prohbitions on offensive words.
Chaplinsky's conviction was upheld under the "fighting words" doctrine.
I'm raising money for Brain Injury Awareness Month. Please share and donate if you can.
give.biausa.org/team/804242
Why did I think some were used during the '91 Gulf War?
Is the oppressive word "offensive"?
I've jumped out of airplanes hundreds of times without a parachute.
I didn't realize Ian filed a Petition for a writ of certiorari.
link to cert petition: web.archive.org/web/20260223...
Screenshot of table showing county jails that are used by U.S. Marshals and/or ICE
➡️ Check whether your local jail is used for U.S. Marshals detention and/or ICE detention as of February 5, 2026, here:
www.prisonpolicy.org/blog/2026/02...
We supposedly have a "nation of laws" BUT Chemerisky points out SCOTUS has held "police always have discretion as to how to enforce a law and prosecutors always have discretion as to whether to initiate a criminal action."
i.e. Laws can be - and are - randomly enforced by police & prosecutors!
In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Court concluded that there was no duty to provide protection even if state law required police to enforce restraining orders. Like DeShaney, the case had tragic facts. Jessica Gonzales obtained a restraining order limiting contact between her estranged husband and their three daughters. Colorado has a law requiring enforcement of restraining orders and the order itself included language mandating enforcement by the police. One night, Gonzales discovered that her three daughters were missing. She immediately suspected her husband had taken them and called the police. The police refused to help her. Five times that evening she contacted the police, including once by going to the station house, and each time they were unhelpful. Later that night, her husband killed the three girls and he died in a shootout with the police. Jessica Gonzales sued under the Due Process Clause for the failure of the police to enforce the restraining order. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, in an en banc decision, ruled in her favor and expressly distinguished DeShaney. The court explained that Gonzales’s claim was for procedural due process; the state law and the restraining order being written in mandatory language created a property interest and Gonzales was deprived of this property without due process of law. DeShaney, in contrast, was a substantive due process case.
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, with Justice Scalia writing for the majority, reversed. The Court reaffirmed that there is a property interest only if there is an entitlement. The Court said that a “benefit is not a protected entitlement if government officials may grant or deny it in their discretion.”55 The Court explained that police always have discretion as to how to enforce a law and prosecutors always have discretion as to whether to initiate a criminal action. Thus, the Court concluded that there is not a property interest for purposes of due process. Moreover, the Court noted that “it is by no means clear that an individual entitlement to enforcement of a restraining order could constitute a ‘property’ interest for purposes of the Due Process Clause. Such a right would not, of course, resemble any traditional conception of property.”56 The bottom line is that it does not matter whether the claim is called substantive or procedural due process, or whether the law is written in mandatory or discretionary terms. The government generally has no duty to provide protection from privately inflicted harms. Only if the government literally creates the danger or a person is in government custody is there any constitutional duty for the government to provide protection. State and local governments may create duties and remedies under their law, but they do not exist under the Constitution.
Excerpts from ConLaw II reading this week
Constitutional Law (7th Edition)/ Erwin Chemerinsky
It rarely stops Congress from acting. It often gives courts cause to strike down the law.
Why are there only 3 nominees for 37 judicial vacancies?
With alt text:
Avery "The ancient IOC emperor, anti-Semite and Nazi sympathiser bent on insulating the Games from the meddlesome tentacles of the real world" Brundage is to blame!
www.independent.co.uk/news/people/...
Further in the decision, the Court explained why the apportionment of 2 Senators per state is different than a state's allocation of 1 senator per county.
Couldn't this reasoning be construed as to invalidate the US Constitution's apportionment of 2 Senators per state?
I'm raising money for Brain Injury Awareness Month. Please share and donate if you can.
give.biausa.org/team/804242
tRump is erasing history
I am one of 28 SU Law students (and nearly 2700 legal academics, law students, and law school organizations) to sign onto this open letter to congress.
federalaccountabilitynow.org
I will never stop being amazed at how many grown adults in this country don't understand this!
Every American needs to watch this:
Can all political events have tiny lecterns with adorable children?
I understood "bluesy didn't even care" and "frat leader at ASU"
thank you for your service!
and the maxipad on their ears; and garbage bags
This is a good way to start the semester! My final paper examined Article I, Section 3 of the Washington Constitution jurisprudence regarding procedural due process.
