There is an ongoing dust up involving the First Amendment, allegations of prohibited viewpoint discrimination and legislative immunity in the Texas Senate. Its fascinating stuff for political scientists, political practitioners, and journalists.
It started on Thursday, February 27, when a man testified at a Texas State Senate hearing wearing a t-shirt that said, F**K the POLICE, (but his shirt featured all the letters) and, to drive the sentiment home, accompanied by an image of a hand with the middle finger outstretched.
After learning about the hearing, Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick tweeted out:
Outraged to see this T-shirt at a Senate Hearing Thur.Future witnesses beware. No one will ever be allowed to wear such a vulgar shirt in a Senate hearing again-especially one that denigrates the brave men & women of law enforcement. Want to take me to court? Ok. Make my day.
Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick tweeted out his disapproval of people wearing vulgar shirts ... [+] while testifying before the Senate.
His tweet was met with a volley of criticism by First Amendment advocates who maintained that Lieutenant Governor Patrickand the Legislature in generaldoesnt have the right to abridge speech or pick and choose between types of speech.(Note to readers outside of Texas: the lieutenant governor in Texas is the most powerful lieutenant governor in the nation in that the person in that office actually runs the State Senate, not unlike how the Speaker of the House runs the House.)
Common in the citations to make their point was a U.S. Supreme Court decision from the Vietnam era. In Cohen v. California, the court ruled on the case of a 19-year-old man who was arrested for wearing a jacket that read, F**k the Draft, Stop the War, into a California courthouse. The court overturned his arrest and conviction on a 5-4 decision that determined that Californias law that prohibited the display of offensive messages was a violation of the freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment.
Cohen v. California, decided in 1971, was often cited as the case that would prevent viewpoint ... [+] discrimination in a legislative body - but it likely doesn't as legislative bodies aren't public spaces and they're immune from interference by other branches of government.
It is interesting to note that in the Cohen case, the appellant did wear his offensive jacket in the courthouse hallways but removed it upon entering a judges courtroom, folding it over his arm. He was only arrested after leaving the courtroom for having worn the jacket in the public hallways of the courthouse. Had the reverse been true, and the judge ordered him ejected from his courtroom for wearing the jacket, and he resisted, the ruling likely would have gone the other way.
Of course, judges to this day enforce rules of decorum in their courtroomslook at any jury summonsit will instruct the prospective juror on the acceptable attire and conduct in a courtroom.
First Amendment advocates will admit to this but are quick to add that judges should not engage in viewpoint discriminationthough many still do today.
Which brings up back to Lieutenant Governor Patricks tweet. Lets break it down to its chief components.
First, that the shirt in question was vulgar and has no place in a Senate hearing.
Second, that the shirt was especially offensive in that it denigrated the brave men & women of law enforcement.
Third, that if you dont like it, you can take the lieutenant governor to court.
To the first question, while most analysts would admit that, just as a judge can set rules for their courtroom, so to can a legislative body set rules for decorum in the deliberative portions of their chambers, such as the floor and in hearing rooms. These are seen as different than public places, for example, the rotunda in a state capitol building or a public sidewalk.
Even so, Ari Cohn formerly a director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a group that brings many successful free speech lawsuits against educational institutions, insisted that there is no decent enforceable legal definition of vulgar. So, even if the Texas Senate were to uniformly enforce a ban on offensive clothing, it wouldnt stand, presumably if any clothing with a message were allowed, even something as innocuous as a shirt that read Lake Travis High School.
Well return to this question in a moment.
The second issue is that the vulgar shirt in question was particularly offensive as it denigrated law enforcement officers. This is where the accusation of viewpoint discrimination focused. The lieutenant governor cannot, his critics claimed, pick and choose between messages he likes and those he doesnt likeeither take them all or ban them all.
And, lastly, if you dont like Lieutenant Governor Patricks actions, you can take him to court.
Butand heres the big questionis the Legislature in the course of its official business, subject to any restraint by the courts?
I would argue that, in its internal operations, the answer is an emphatic No!unless specifically proscribed by the Constitution or a state constitution.
First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Minnesota State Bd. for Community Colleges v. Knight in 1984 that there is no constitutional right to force officers of the State acting in an official policymaking capacity to listen to the views of the public. Secondly, in Curnin v. Town of Egremont, decided by the First Circuit Court of Appeals with the U.S. Supreme Court allowing the ruling to stand in 2008 (denying certiorari), that The First Amendment does not give non-legislators the right to speak at meetings of deliberating legislative bodies and that
The Supreme Court has never extended First Amendment forum analysis to a deliberating legislative body or to the body's rules about who may speak. While no Supreme Court case is directly on point, the Court has addressed the underlying issue of the public's ability to address government policymakers:
The Constitution does not grant to members of the public generally a right to be heard by public bodies making decisions of policy Policymaking organs in our system of government have never operated under a constitutional constraint requiring them to afford every interested member of the public an opportunity to present testimony before any policy is adopted Public officials at all levels of government daily make policy decisions based only on the advice they decide they need and choose to hear. To recognize a constitutional right to participate directly in government policymaking would work a revolution in existing government practices.
The court goes on to note that, Under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 6, there are constitutional separation of powers protections for Congress. Further, that The purpose of the Clause is to insure that the legislative function the Constitution allocates to Congress may be performed independently. That This immunity extends to injunctive relief. And finally, that, while, No explicit federal constitutional protections cover state or local legislative bodies. there are still federalism and separation of powers concerns, which have led to the adoption of similar immunities for state legislators, citing the Knight decision.
Turning to the Texas Constitution, we see in Article III, governing the Legislative Department, Section 15, that disrespectful or disorderly conduct by any person not a member in the presence of the a house conducting its business can result in imprisonment for up to 48 hours. Given that this action would not involve executive branch law enforcement or judicial branch court proceedings, its likely that such an imprisonment would not accrue to someones arrest record or criminal record as the violation would be unique to the Legislature.
Lastly, going to the heart of the matter of viewpoint discrimination, is it permissible, under the any rules of a legislative body, that a committee chairman might only accept testimony from all Democrats or all Republicans? Yes, of course. As the federal courts have noted, Public officials daily make policy decisions based only on the advice they decide they need and choose to hear.
Id argue that a hearing where ten Republicans testify with no Democrat witnesses is a far more egregious form of viewpoint discrimination than is banning an offensive shirt, yet, its perfectly acceptable, legal, and constitutional for a legislative body to decide to do so and theres nothing the courts can do about it. Its done in the U.S. Congress all the time. Its an internal matter of that legislative body. The legislative function must be performed independently. Anything less would admit to judicial supremacy. Dont like it? Win the majority and run the house as you will.
Of course, if the courts did try to meddle in the internal affairs of the Legislative branch, that branch has the tools to fight back: they can impeach and remove judges, if they muster the political will to do so. They can also use their budgetary powers in creative ways so as to concentrate the minds of an overambitious co-equal branch.
While such actions are constitutional, whether they should be done or not crosses into ethical behavior and considerations of political prudence. Just because a legislative majority can do something, doesnt mean that they should or that there might not be consequences come election time.
Bottom line: Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and other officers of the Texas Legislature are free to order the official and internal affairs of their respective legislative chambers as they wish, in accordance with the will of that body and free from interference of either the judicial or executive branches.
- Trump Executive Order Misreads Key Law Promoting Free Expression Online and Violates the First Amendment - EFF - May 29th, 2020
- Content Moderation, Section 230, and The First Amendment - AAF - American Action Forum - May 29th, 2020
- Times Union takes First Amendment and Journalist of the Year, 11 other awards in statewide contest - Times Union - May 29th, 2020
- First Amendment May Protect Use of Trademarks As Artistic Expression - JD Supra - May 29th, 2020
- Strictly Legal: Is Fox News entitled to First Amendment protection? - The Cincinnati Enquirer - May 29th, 2020
- Facebook Keeps Touting The First Amendment To Justify Its Content Policies - AdExchanger - May 29th, 2020
- Trump vs. Twitter | Editorials | gjsentinel.com - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel - May 29th, 2020
- Churches respond to COVID-19, First Amendment ruling - Morganton News Herald - May 29th, 2020
- 'The First Amendment is very clear': Sheriff's Office won't break up religious services for 'NY on PAUSE' violations - The Livingston County News - May 29th, 2020
- RCFP statement on Trump's social media executive order - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - May 29th, 2020
- WashU Expert: Trump attacks on Twitter betray free speech principles - Washington University in St. Louis Newsroom - May 29th, 2020
- Reexamining the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act | Morgan Lewis - Tech & Sourcing - JD Supra - May 29th, 2020
- Going to the dogs: the Ninth Circuit's erosion of trademark rights exclusive guest post - World Trademark Review - May 29th, 2020
- First Amendment Lawyer Dismisses Trumps Claim That Twitter Is Stifling Free Speech: He Doesnt Want Critics to Have a Chance to Respond - Mediaite - May 29th, 2020
- Liberals Have Rediscovered the 10th Amendment's Value During the Coronavirus Pandemic - Reason - May 29th, 2020
- Former DNC chair Donna Brazile claims 'theres no First Amendment right to lie. Her co-hosts on The Five erupt in mockery. - TheBlaze - May 29th, 2020
- Supreme Court: Clarence Thomas calls for shrinking the First Amendment - Vox.com - May 14th, 2020
- What words make up a true threat? Well, that depends - The Mercury - May 14th, 2020
- Onslow Sheriffs department will not interfere with indoor church services - Jacksonville Daily News - May 14th, 2020
- Religious freedom is under threat in the courtroom - UPI.com - May 14th, 2020
- Neuberger Demands That Carney Lift Restrictions On Worshipping Now - First State Update - May 14th, 2020
- The First Amendment To the Constitution of The United States of America - The Suburban Times - May 11th, 2020
- Exposing Russian information operations does not violate the First Amendment | TheHill - The Hill - May 11th, 2020
- The Supreme Court Could Use the First Amendment to Unleash a Robocall Nightmare - The Atlantic - May 11th, 2020
- Divorcing couples have First Amendment right to disparage each other on social media, SJC rules - The Boston Globe - May 11th, 2020
- The Price of the First Amendment "Is That We Must Put Up With a Good Deal of Rubbish" - Reason - May 11th, 2020
- Societe Generale: Availability of the first amendment to the 2020 Universal Registration Document - GlobeNewswire - May 11th, 2020
- Governors Can't Suspend the First Amendment - Daily Signal - May 11th, 2020
- Houston strip club allowed to open, but without dancers - KHOU.com - May 11th, 2020
- Lawsuit filed against Marco Island alleges first amendment violation - Marco News - May 4th, 2020
- First amendment rights should not be suppressed, even during pandemic The News Journal - The News Journal - May 4th, 2020
- Urgent Care Doctor Silenced By Youtube Says His First Amendment Rights Have Been Attacked - Sara A. Carter - May 4th, 2020
- 'ReOpen NC' Founder Has COVID-19, Says It Is Her First Amendment Right To Infect Others - Wonkette - May 4th, 2020
- A tale of two universities and one First Amendment - OneNewsNow - May 4th, 2020
- The Trump campaign's frivolous lawsuits are next-level threats to the First Amendment - Business Insider - Business Insider - April 18th, 2020
- New podcast: Who-da thunk it? Drive-in churches are First Amendment battlegrounds - GetReligion - April 18th, 2020
- Students Don't "Shed Their Freedom of Speech at the Schoolhouse Gate" - Reason - April 18th, 2020
- Teenager Who Shared Coronavirus Infection on Instagram Threatened With Arrest By Police, Lawsuit Says - Newsweek - April 18th, 2020
- Tea Party president says he was threatened with arrest for planning protest on Newton Green - New Jersey Herald - April 18th, 2020
- Legal expert: Trumps liberate Tweets incite insurrection and thats illegal - AlterNet - April 18th, 2020
- Lawmakers say Walz order is a violation of The First Amendment - KWLM (Willmar Radio) - April 18th, 2020
- With the public's need to know greater than ever, the D&C fights for info on outbreak - Democrat & Chronicle - April 18th, 2020
- Real-time updates: Drive-through coronavirus testing available in Grays Harbor County this weekend - KING5.com - April 18th, 2020
- COVID-19 Didn't Permit Government To Do Anything It Wants To Churches - The Federalist - April 18th, 2020
- First Amendment Win - Radio Ink - April 11th, 2020
- Knight First Amendment Institute Sues The CDC For Failing To Provide Details Of Its Media Gag Order - Techdirt - April 11th, 2020
- How The Constitution Gets Tested In Times Of Crisis, Like A Pandemic - Houston Public Media - April 11th, 2020
- Letter to the Editor - Is our First Amendment infringed by Governor's mandate - Bay Net - April 11th, 2020
- First Five: Religious communities can fight pandemic but not by gathering - McDowell News - April 11th, 2020
- Why the government can shut down church gatherings during pandemic | TheHill - The Hill - April 11th, 2020
- Federal officials fired by Trump face tough road in court | TheHill - The Hill - April 11th, 2020
- Constitution, church and social crises - Kemmerer Gazette - April 11th, 2020
- Danbury Pastor Goes Online To Battle Coronavirus, And Wins - Danbury, CT Patch - April 11th, 2020
- NWS: High wind watches issued for the area - Salina Post - April 11th, 2020
- 'Free Speech' Supporter Jerry Falwell Jr. Thinks It's Criminal To Report On His Dumb And Dangerous Response To The Pandemic - Techdirt - April 11th, 2020
- Rep. Ted Lieu responds to being called an 'agent of China' - NBC News - April 11th, 2020
- As Easter nears, see which of the 50 states are banning religious gatherings in response to the coronavirus - cleveland.com - April 11th, 2020
- Reporters Committee urges Congress to protect court access during COVID-19 - Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press - April 11th, 2020
- Religious freedom and the promise of Easter - AL.com - April 11th, 2020
- Lobbying frenzy connected to stimulus sparks backlash | TheHill - The Hill - March 26th, 2020
- Judge rules lawsuit alleging Trump threatened free press can move forward | TheHill - The Hill - March 26th, 2020
- Trumps Coronavirus Briefings Are a Ratings Hit. Should Networks Cover Them? - The New York Times - March 26th, 2020
- Relist Watch: 100 years of solitude - SCOTUSblog - March 26th, 2020
- Donald Trump Must Face First Amendment Suit for Revoking Press Badges - Hollywood Reporter - March 25th, 2020
- Robbins: Freedom of worship and the strange case of Warder Cresson - Vail Daily News - March 25th, 2020
- MuzzleWatch: Breaking down the legal attack against the BDS movement - Mondoweiss - March 25th, 2020
- Coronavirus in Arizona: Mayors, cities can't close parks, essentials without going through Governor Ducey - ABC15 Arizona - March 25th, 2020
- Misplaced outrage over who attends a White House press conference | TheHill - The Hill - March 25th, 2020
- Donald Trump Violated First Amendment by Blocking Critics on Twitter, Appeals Court Affirms - Variety - March 24th, 2020
- Sixteen Stormy Days: Tripurdaman Singh's account of the First Amendment to Indian Constitution makes for... - Firstpost - March 24th, 2020
- Keep Federal COVID-19 Package Focused on the Virus and Its Effects - Mackinac Center for Public Policy - March 24th, 2020
- WEHOville Asks John Duran to Stop Blocking It and WeHo Residents on Social Media - WEHOville - March 24th, 2020
- Letter: Government actions going too far on virus - Grand Forks Herald - March 24th, 2020
- First Amendment - Rights, U.S. Constitution & Freedoms ... - March 19th, 2020
- The First Amendment, a Philosophy Professor, and Pronouns - Daily Nous - March 19th, 2020
- Sunshine Week: It's always your right to know - The Highland County Press - March 19th, 2020
- Relist Watch in the Time of Cholera - SCOTUSblog - March 19th, 2020
- Obey the Law - Justia Verdict - March 19th, 2020
- Transparency is transforming | Columns - Weatherford Democrat - March 19th, 2020
- NIST shared dataset of tattoos thats been used to identify prisoners - Naked Security - March 19th, 2020