Turley to Speak at University of Maryland Law School Symposium on the Supreme Court

I have the pleasure of speaking this morning at the University of Maryland Law School as part of the Law Review’s annual symposium on constitutional law. To the Law Review’s great credit, the students sought to bring together a wide range of views on the evolution of constitutional law in a well-balanced selection of academics. I will be on the first panel at 10:15 at the law school. That is the first of three panels and there will be a keynote address by the Honorable Judge Greenaway of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

I will be presenting a paper on the evolution of the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the conflict between free exercise and free speech claims on one hand and neutral, “generally applicable” laws like anti-discrimination laws. The paper, which will be published as a law review article, is entitled “The Unfinished Masterpiece: Speech Compulsion and the Evolving Jurisprudence over Religious Speech.”  The paper explores the different lines of cases under the religion clauses and the free speech clause in addressing conflicts with discrimination law. I have long argued that these conflicts should be viewed as free speech cases.

The Supreme Court could now be on a path to do precisely that in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The result could prove a realignment of jurisprudence that shifts these conflicts under free speech tests where they belong. It would in essence finish the work that was left undone in the earlier decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

In its decision in 303 Creative, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) ruled that artist Lorie Smith had to create websites for same-sex marriage despite her religious objections to such unions. It further held that she could be sanctioned for posting her opposing views on her own site. It is only the latest case to go before the United States Supreme Court on the collision of anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment. However, this has the makings of a major new decision on free speech.

14 thoughts on “Turley to Speak at University of Maryland Law School Symposium on the Supreme Court”

    1. Okay.
      Let us pull that thread.
      Not only their own cake, but their own bread.
      And their own bacon. Ground beef. Chicken. Eggs.
      Carrots. Kale. Potatoes.
      Dang. Next thing you know, we are all farmers and mostly independent of the government, in command of our own destiny.
      BTW, I have raised, slaughter and processed over 20 hogs. Same goes for chickens and ducks. Same goes for potatoes, carrots, and more than a few other veggies.

    2. But don’t you use my kid under threat for 10 k a year….that’s when we part company! Compulsory ed laws and in my state turned 17! They got nothing to say about that skipping….which means yonder is actually unconstitutionalkly….conspiring to defeat kids constitutional rights! Where is the aclu? Where is the spl c or eji when the test is on sehs…the most at 44 percent. Disparate.

      1. And if Alex did it..he cleaned up fast….And we take nothing from the text that says “he’s going to die”…… Normally such a text and be a true threat. But here even though ppl diied….that was explained some how as not a threat! ? Yet other pole who say such things are a true threat? How? Just asking? And remembering diane layne….mr Jordan and Mr steward. All arrested and never really charged but killed in custody. That is missing had so reasons to lue….last he be killed in custody. His paranoia isn’t cabined to sc….it’s everywhere.

        1. Lest we forget the honorable sledinger…who once upon a time out elmore sheriff in jail….then dies suddenly…..when he got too close to investigating inside at al! sesigner was a hero sheriff. Who died suddenly when he caught wind of inscoe. But the fbi so t look! Why not wray?

          1. Never forget Diane layne…mr Stewart and Mr Jordan and the others…And never forget the district court who gave absolute immunity! The feds who gave immunity!

          1. When they were suppose to isolating bc their kids were quarantined…they closed on a one sided shifty deal. Took the vets word….from years earlier. He got civic and buried. No matter had he seen it all that would a killed him anyway. And they broke so many rules least was 1006 form on ag land…never mind Steve is still finding arrow heads. Kma.

  1. Professor Turley, please be sure to make it clear that the Constitution is immutable, constitutional amendments that are “not injurious” notwithstanding, has no possibility of evolution, and that its “manifest tenor” holds dominion to this day.

    Let it be known that the Constitution, as are the Ten Commandments, is imperishable and was written to stand in perpetuity for the benefit of free citizens.

    Please reiterate the fact that the singular American failure has been and continues to be the judicial branch, with emphasis on the Supreme Court, which has no power to amend, to legislate, to modify legislation, or to modify legislation through “interpretation,” the acts of which constitute high-criminal and actionable abuse of power, dereliction of duty, usurpation of power, subversion, sedition, insurrection et al.

    For general edification, you should make it clear that Karl Marx’s “RECONSTRUCTION Amendments” were improperly ratified with a gun to America’s head, under the duress of brutal post-war military duress and oppression (excluded from the Article 5 process of amendment), remain illegitimate to this day, and were forcibly imposed for the benefit of an unconstitutional, foreign, standing army left on U.S. soil by the tyrant Lincoln who was derelict by his deliberate failure to enforce extant immigration law in 1863 which clearly denied entry and required compassionate repatriation of specific and particular persons.

    Please review Article 1, Section 8, which provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense and infrastructure, aka general (all, the whole) Welfare.

    Please review Article 1, Section 8, which provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY the value of money, commerce among States to preclude bias, and land and naval Forces.

    Please review the absolute 5th Amendment right to private property, understanding that if private property is not absolute, there is no private property, and all property is public.

    “…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”

    “…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what they forbid.”

    “[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”

    – Alexander Hamilton

    “[Private property is] that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual.”

    – James Madison

  2. I hope we are able to see that incrementalism is dead. The Supreme Court is supposed to settle an issue since it is the highest court in the land. It needs to be clear and concise (as much as you can with legal decisions) about what it is deciding and try to draw some conclusions to prevent future interminable lawsuits. I know Justice Roberts likes the incremental effect but it only seems to be a justice full employment act by generating even more lawsuits trying to test the areas not covered or not clear. This is clearly compelled speech and needs to be struck down blatantly. Clearly a website creator is not threatening anyone’s life by saying and acting not to support their lifestyle. It would be different if the website creator said I won’t sell my house to you because you are gay or in a same sex marriage or if they were denied a mortgage because they were gay. There are different rules obviously in different circumstances and the Supreme Court should decide the question at hand and then try to set parameters for such ongoing actions in other circumstances in the future. Of course this also presupposes that people are prone to support reasonable standards, which is not a given anymore.
    As a physician in life threatening illnesses I have no such leeway but other people in different circumstances do.
    The Colorado Civil Rights Commission seems to have a problem with not recognizing when they have overstepped their bounds. I guess it will take a stronger slap this time. Maybe if they rule for the website designer then they will also award all legal fees to be recovered by the same designer. Possibly a state commission that starts having to pay multiple fee recoveries by people they sue might become more selective in the cases they start . Maybe the state will change their commission to something more reasonable. Money talks.

  3. “(The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit upheld Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) ruled that artist Lorie Smith had to create websites for same-sex marriage despite her religious objections to such unions.” (JT)

    Compelling a person to support ideas he disagrees with is the essence of tyranny.

    “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Leave a Reply