Kaytie Hobbs, Blog Chair, University of Cincinnati Law Review The Supreme Court is spending these hot June days handing down decision from its 2018 term. This blog post surveys a few of the more interesting holdings so far: Gamble v. United States[1] Held: Dual-sovereignty doctrine is upheld, allowing states and the federal government to prosecute... Continue Reading →
Ballot Access: Constitutionality of Residency Requirements for Ballot Initiative-Petition Circulators
Author: Maxel Moreland, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review The Sixth Circuit recently reviewed a case regarding an Ohio statute that required initiative-petition circulators to reside in the state of Ohio.[1] The district court declared the law unconstitutional, and the issue of a residency requirement for circulators was not challenged on appeal.[2] Although not... Continue Reading →
The First Amendment: Does the Government’s Intent Matter?
Author: Brooke Logsdon, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments on the political speech case, Heffernan v. City of Paterson.[1] The case involved Officer Heffernan, who was demoted from his position as a detective because his department believed that he was supporting the adverse mayoral candidate.[2] More specifically,... Continue Reading →
Tattoo Rights Inked Into The Constitution: Why Tattoos Are Protected Speech Under the First Amendment
Author: Jordie Bacon, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Tattoos often portray significant moments in a person’s life, mark rites of passage, show religious devotion, or express feelings towards others. Getting a tattoo allows someone to make “permanent that which is fleeting.”[1] Tattoos, which at one point were seen as a seedy tradition of... Continue Reading →
License to Tour? Charleston Tour Guides Challenge City’s Licensing Requirement
Author: Chris Gant, Contributing Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review It is not uncommon for laws to require an occupational license in order to work in a respective field. For example, jobs in medicine or law require passing examinations and certifications. Occupational licenses, however, become more controversial when they interfere with what may be a... Continue Reading →
Ohio’s School Voucher Program; Are Lawmakers Establishing a Religion or Just Doing Their Jobs?
Author: Matt Huffman, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review In 2014, Americans rated “education” as a top area of concern and as one of the most important problems facing the country.[1] Education is a social, political, and economic issue, and quality education is viewed as critical for both individual and societal success. While the... Continue Reading →
Shirvell v. Department of Attorney General: Pickering on the Wrong Person?
Author: Stephen Doyle, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review In Abrams v. U.S.,[1] Justice Holmes crafted the concept of the United States being an arena for political thought. Since Abrams was decided in 1919, the right of individuals to express their political thoughts has expanded to include almost all forms of speech.[2] However, in... Continue Reading →
Specialty License Plates as Government Speech: How the Supreme Court Is Likely to Resolve a Five-Way Circuit Split
Author: Rebecca Dussich, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Currently, all fifty states in the U.S. require vehicles to be registered and fitted with a unique license plate. Historically, these plates were generic and distinguishable only by the series of letters and numbers used to identify the owner of the vehicle. However, with time,... Continue Reading →
Restricting Content Without Restricting Content: Is Springfield’s Anti-Panhandling Ordinance Truly “Content-Neutral?”
Author: Collin L. Ryan, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Springfield, Illinois enacted an ordinance that prohibits panhandling within the city’s downtown historical district—an area that comprises “less than 2% of the City’s area but contain[s] its principal shopping, entertainment, and governmental areas, including the Statehouse and many state-government buildings.”[1] “The ordinance defines panhandling,... Continue Reading →
City of Indianapolis v. Annex Books: Has Renton’s “Reasonable Belief” Standard Become Unreasonable?
Author: Rebecca Dussich, Associate Member, University of Cincinnati Law Review Among the petitions reviewed during the Supreme Court’s September conference was a request[1] to reverse a Seventh Circuit decision, City of Indianapolis v. Annex Books, in which the court invalidated an Indianapolis ordinance that restricted the permissible hours of operation for “adult entertainment businesses.”[2] The... Continue Reading →