About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

78 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1031 (1983-1984)
Warren Court, the Burger Court and the First Amendment Overbreadth Doctrine

handle is hein.journals/illlr78 and id is 1043 raw text is: Copyright 1984 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. Northwestern University Law Review Vol. 78, No. 5 THE WARREN COURT, THE BURGER COURT AND THE FIRST AMENDMENT OVERBREADTH DOCTRINE Martin H Redish* There has been much discussion in the literature about the widely differing substantive principles and judicial styles of the Supreme Courts run by Chief Justices Warren and Burger.' To the casual-and perhaps cynical-observer, the Warren and the Burger Courts seemed equally willing to manipulate or abandon precedent and doctrine in order to achieve a particular type of result: in the case of the Warren Court, one that is liberal, protective of individual liberty, and likely to favor federal over state adjudication;2 in the case of the Burger Court, one that is conservative, more reflective of the interests of the government than the rights of the individual, and invariably favoring state over federal adjudication, even of federal constitutional or statu- tory rights.3 As with many stereotypes, there is certainly more than a grain of truth in both of these characterizations. At least in the area of freedom of expression, however, the situation is somewhat more complicated. Perhaps in this area more than any other, the Burger Court has evinced a relatively protectionist and libertarian attitude,4 which, though assur- edly not applied with unwavering consistency, occasionally even sur- passed the protectionist zeal of the Warren Court.5 * Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. This Article will appear as a chapter in the author's book, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS. The author would like to thank Mark Litvack of the class of 1983 and Yvette Ehr of the class of 1984 at Northwestern University School of Law for their valuable research assistance. I Compare Kalven, Uninhibited, Robust, and Wide-Open .4 Note on Free Speech and the Warren Court, 67 MICH. L. REV. 289 (1968) with Emerson, First Amendment Doctrine and the Burger Court, 68 CALIF. L. REV. 422 (1980). 2 See, e.g., Domborowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (1965); Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963): 3 See, e.g., National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976); Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976). 4 See, e.g., Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 55 (1980); National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973). 5 One example of the Burger Court's relative protectionism is in the area of commercial speech, where the Burger Court has provided a level of first amendment protection far beyond the nonexistent protection during the Warren years. See, e.g., Bates v. State Bar of Ariz., 433 U.S. 350 (1977); Virginia State Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 (1976). This is true even though the Burger Court's level of protection remains significantly below 1031

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most