first amendment — Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Faith-Based Arbitration: First Amendment Freedom or Major Concern?

The right to freely exercise religion, listed as one of the first rights in the First Amendment, is undoubtedly a bedrock principle of American constitutional law. What happens, then, if a group of individuals were to willingly execute a contract restricting themselves to a certain set of religious rules? A case recently appealed to the Supreme Court, Church of Scientology International v. Bixler (2022), dealt with this very question. The Respondents were a group of women, including Chrissie Carnell Bixler and two Jane Doe’s, who sued for alleged sexual assault by a church member, Daniel Masterson. However, the women originally signed a contract agreeing to resolve any disputes by arbitration within their church and its rules of procedure. Later, they left the faith, and were sued by the Church in order to bind them to the agreement. The Church claimed that the arbitration agreement is an enforceable contract—requiring them to abide by Scientology rules, regardless of faith. The California Court of Appeal, however, sided with the Respondents to not enforce the arbitration agreement, on the grounds that their change in beliefs would free them of their contractual obligations under the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. [1]

Factory Farms v.s. Whistleblowers: Agricultural Gag Laws that Hide Animal Cruelty

Upon opening Iowa Select Farms’ main website, viewers are greeted by a heartwarming image of light shining through a cornstock field, with the words “Producing Pork Responsibly” centered in an elegant font atop the greenery. [1] When the rare curious consumer scrolls down, Iowa Select Farms assures them, “We believe in doing the right thing every day, operating with character and integrity and being stewards of our resources.” However, like other U.S. factory farms, their definition of “character and integrity” is vastly different from that of those reading their mission statement. To Iowa Select Farms, “Producing Pork Responsibly” means sanctioned tail cuttings, castrations without anesthesia, and smashing piglets against concrete floors. [2] Meatpacking in the U.S. accounted for $1.02 trillion in economic output and generated $256 billion in wages in 2016. [3] Further, due to the cultural fixation on and societal expectation of a meat-eating diet, the U.S. has developed a heavy reliance on factory farms, with an approximated 99% of livestock living at factory farms. [4]

Nicole BuiciucOctober 4, 2022first amendment, animal rights, free speech, whistleblowers, factory farms

The Role of the Judiciary in American Elections

Although the 2018 Midterm Elections were held on November 6, not every race was called by the end of the night. Some elections had results that were too close to call, mechanical and technological issues with voting machines, or provisional ballots left uncounted. In the gubernatorial race in Georgia, the certification of election results was delayed by a federal judge after concerns about the state’s voter registration system and the counting of provisional ballots was brought to the court’s attention.

Jodi LessnerJanuary 7, 2019elections, first amendment, supreme court, voting rightsComment

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s Failure to Establish Legal Precedent Allows Discrimination Against the LGBTQIA+ Community

Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a 2012 case from Lakewood, Colorado that pits First Amendment rights to speech and religion against anti-discrimination legislation. This case originates with a baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to create a wedding cake for a gay couple. Phillips told the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage and because Colorado, at the time, did not recognize same-sex marriages.

Jake DunnSeptember 5, 2018LGBT, supreme court, first amendment, anti-discrimination, civil rightsComment

Should Facebook be Accessible to Sex Offenders? A First Amendment Analysis

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.”[1] The Supreme Court has typically interpreted the term “speech” to incorporate a broad range of expressions, including the use of Internet.[2] However, the increasing use of the Internet and social media sites has led to debate as to what constitutes free speech in the digital age and if digital platforms should be made accessible to the entire public. Currently, Facebook’s accessibility to the public has been contested in relation to the right of sex offenders to use the site, as limiting their access conflicts with freedom of speech protected under the First Amendment.