The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has Cowboys owner Jerry Jones saying that any players who protest during the anthem will be disciplined and not allowed to play. The NAACP has denounced the policy as “unconstitutional.” While one can certainly disagree on the merits over the protests, teh NAACP is wrong on the constitutionality of such a policy. An employer can clearly bar political protests during work hours. Moreover, the First Amendment is primarily directed to limiting government interference or regulation of speech. While a public university qualifies as a state actor, it does not necessarily mean that protests are protected. Even on college fields, school are giving considerable leeway in setting such rules, including the recent dismissal of a college quarterback for kneeling.
Continue reading “NAACP Denounces Demand For Players To Stand At NFL Games As “Unconstitutional””
Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the proposals for new gun control measures in the wake of the Las Vegas massacre. As I discuss below, there are some obvious possible measures that could pass constitutional muster like banning bump stocks (which allow semi-automatic weapons to perform more like automatic weapons) and conversion kits. However, these proposals would not have prevented the massacre. There are many “work arounds” for semi-automatic weapons and Paddock would have likely passed any enhanced background checks. Nevertheless, 
I 
I have received a fair amount of criticism for 
For years, civil libertarians have warned that Great Britain has been in a free fall from the criminalization of speech to the expansion of the surveillance state. Now the government is pursuing a law that would 
It has long been the U.S. policy to ignore human rights violations of some of our closest allies as part of a realpolitik. However, that means that our citizens give billions to countries who deny their very humanity and criminalize their very being. A case in point is Egypt. Egyptian authorities previously arrested seven people for simply flying a rainbow flag. Now, 
This afternoon I have the honor of speaking to the District conference in Washington state. The program in Spokane will feature speakers like the Honorable Chief Judge Thomas Rice of the Eastern District of Washington and the Honorable Judge Richard Tallman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as well as Washington Attorney General Robert Fergusan. I will be speaking on Executive Privilege and the new controversies raised by the Trump Administration from immigration to sanctuary cities to war powers.
Below is my column in The Hill Newspaper on the termination of the second travel ban and issuance of the new order by the Trump Administration. As discussed in the column, the Supreme Court went ahead and removed the immigration cases from the schedule for oral argument while agreeing with the Administration to order briefings on whether the cases are now moot. It is hard to see how the cases are not moot in whole or substantial part. The Court tends to take off ramps to avoid constitutional decisions, particularly in the area of the separation of powers. It will hard not to take this obvious off ramp.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit delivered another stinging rebuke of universities and their denial of basic due process protections to students in sexual assault cases. I have been a 
We have long discussed the crushing sexism faced by women in Saudi Arabia under its medieval Sharia legal system. One of the most glaring inequalities was the ban on women driving — a rule that 
I just returned from a terrific event at 
Today, I will have a debate with Berkeley Professor and former Bush Administration lawyer John Yoo at Christopher Newport University’s Center for American Studies (CAS). The debate will cover 
Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the recent demand by Special Counsel Robert Mueller of material in over a dozen different areas. The most intriguing is likely to be the two documents referenced by Trump personal counsel Ty Cobb in an overheard conversation at a popular D.C. restaurant. The conversation has many in the Beltway scratching their heads and a few smirking. Cobb is an experienced lawyer who sees this investigation as unlikely to produce any compelling basis for a criminal charge. Conversely, White House Counsel Don McGahn is properly concerned with the danger of establishing precedent in the area of executive privilege that could undermine future presidents. Cobb is a bit too experienced in this town to make such an amateurish mistake as discussing loudly an internal fight over the documents in McGahn’s safe — a previously undisclosed dispute. It would certainly be intriguing if the reporter was told to have lunch at BLT and bring his notebook (Technically Cobb did not leak anything in being overheard). It would have been a truly Machiavellian move against McGahn. However, there is no evidence supporting such a theory. Ifthat were the case, the reporter’s story would be highly misleading since he clearly conveyed that this was a pure coincidence and a surprise. Moreover, such an arrangement would be unethical in my view even if Cobb thought it in the best interest of the President. These remain documents under a claim of privilege and presumably there was a decision not to make the disclosure. I am inclined to give Cobb the benefit of the doubt, though that means assuming that he committed a rather rookie error.
Saudi Sheikh Saad al-Hajari has