Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing 9 of 90 Results in First Amendment
Amicus Brief ICLE supports the petition for certiorari filed by the National Association of Broadcasters (“NAB”), et al. seeking this Court’s review of the order issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC.
This proceeding is fast becoming the Jarndyce v. Jarndyce of administrative law. For nearly two decades, a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit has blocked the FCC’s efforts to comply with its statutory obligation under the 1996 Act to review its media ownership rules periodically and repeal or modify any rules that are no longer necessary because of increased competition in local media markets.
The order in Prometheus IV is the most recent and extreme example of the Third Circuit panel’s improper interference with the FCC’s efforts to comply with this statutory obligation. In it, the panel vacated an FCC order that would have repealed or modified media ownership regulations that even the panel did not dispute are no longer needed to achieve their original purpose of promoting competition, localism, and diversity of viewpoints. See Prometheus IV, 939 F.3d at 584-588 (disputing the FCC’s analysis and conclusions as to female and minority ownership diversity, but not as to promotion of competition, localism or diversity of viewpoints).
The Third Circuit panel instead vacated the FCC’s order because two judges on the panel believed those regulations might serve another, altogether different objective—promoting minority and female ownership—that is nowhere mentioned in either the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., or the 1996 Act. See Prometheus IV, 939 F.3d at 584- 588. In so doing, the panel exceeded the limits of judicial review authorized by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., by substituting its judgment for that of the agency to which Congress had expressly delegated authority to determine whether these media ownership regulations were still both necessary and in the public interest, and by placing burdens on the agency beyond those established by Congress.
In overstepping these limits, the Third Circuit panel will further delay the elimination of regulations that are not only no longer necessary, but that are also limiting the ability of local newspapers and broadcasters to compete with increasingly important digital media platforms. These outdated regulations have already contributed to an “extinction-level crisis” in the newspaper industry, and the spread of that crisis to local broadcasters in smaller markets is imminent. Consequently, the panel’s order will cause serious and immediate injury to the public’s First Amendment interest in preserving a strong local free press. See Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 28 (1945) (a “free press is indispensable to the workings of our democratic society”) (Frankfurter, J., concurring).
TOTM Monday July 22, ICLE filed a regulatory comment arguing the leased access requirements enforced by the FCC are unconstitutional compelled speech that violate the First Amendment.
Monday July 22, ICLE filed a regulatory comment arguing the leased access requirements enforced by the FCC are unconstitutional compelled speech that violate the First Amendment.
Read the full piece here.
Regulatory Comments ICLE submitted comments to the FCC on the First Amendment implications of the leased access rules. Associate Director, Legal Research Ben Sperry argued the changes in the video marketplace towards competition undercut the justification for subjecting regulation of cable operators' speech to only intermediate scrutiny.
ICLE submitted comments to the FCC on the First Amendment implications of the leased access rules. Associate Director, Legal Research Ben Sperry argued the changes in the video marketplace towards competition undercut the justification for subjecting regulation of cable operators’ speech to only intermediate scrutiny. As a result, the leased access rules should be reviewed as compelled speech under strict scrutiny. The leased access rules are not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest and therefore would fail under the strict scrutiny standard.
Click here to read the full comments.
TOTM Despite the simplistic narrative tying President Trump’s vision of the world to conservatism, there is nothing conservative about his views on the First Amendment and how it applies to social media companies.
Yesterday was President Trump’s big “Social Media Summit” where he got together with a number of right-wing firebrands to decry the power of Big Tech to censor conservatives online. According to the Wall Street Journal…
Presentations & Interviews In the “News Roundup” of episode 269. A McLaughlin Group for Cybersecurity, Gus Hurwitz covers the Supreme Court’s ruling on when a forum is subject . . .
In the “News Roundup” of episode 269. A McLaughlin Group for Cybersecurity, Gus Hurwitz covers the Supreme Court’s ruling on when a forum is subject to First Amendment limits. The full episode is embedded below.
https://www.steptoe.com/podcasts/TheCyberlawPodcast-269.mp3
TOTM It is a truth universally acknowledged that unwanted telephone calls are among the most reviled annoyances known to man. But this does not mean that laws intended to prohibit these calls are themselves necessarily good. Indeed, in one sense we know intuitively that they are not good.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that unwanted telephone calls are among the most reviled annoyances known to man. But this does not mean that laws intended to prohibit these calls are themselves necessarily good. Indeed, in one sense we know intuitively that they are not good. These laws have proven wholly ineffective at curtailing the robocall menace — it is hard to call any law as ineffective as these “good”. And these laws can be bad in another sense: because they fail to curtail undesirable speech but may burden desirable speech, they raise potentially serious First Amendment concerns.
ICLE White Paper During the past decade, academics—predominantly scholars of behavioral law and economics—have increasingly turned to the claimed insights of behavioral economics in order to craft novel policy proposals in many fields, most significantly consumer credit regulation.
During the past decade, academics—predominantly scholars of behavioral law and economics—have increasingly turned to the claimed insights of behavioral economics in order to craft novel policy proposals in many fields, most significantly consumer credit regulation. Over the same period, these ideas have also gained traction with policymakers, resulting in a variety of legislative efforts, such as the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
In 2016 the issue reached the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari in Expressions Hair Design v. New York for the October 2016 term. The case, which centers on a decades-old New York state law that prohibits merchants from imposing surcharge fees for credit card purchases, represents the first major effort to ground constitutional law (here, First Amendment law) in the claims of behavioral economics.
In this article we examine the merits of that effort. Claims about the real-world application of behavioral economic theories should not be uncritically accepted— especially when advanced to challenge a state’s commercial regulation on constitutional grounds. And courts should be especially careful before relying on such claims where the available evidence fails to support them, where the underlying theories are so poorly developed that they have actually been employed elsewhere to support precisely opposite arguments, and where alternative theories grounded in more traditional economic reasoning are consistent with both the history of the challenged laws and the evidence of actual consumer behavior. The Petitioners in the case (five New York businesses) and their amici (scholars of both behavioral law and economics and First Amendment law) argue that New York’s ban on surcharge fees but not discounts for cash payments violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The argument relies on a claim derived from behavioral economics: namely, that a surcharge and a discount are mathematically equivalent, but that, because of behavioral biases, a price adjustment framed as a surcharge is more effective than one framed as a discount in inducing customers to pay with cash in lieu of credit. Because, Petitioners and amici claim, the only difference between the two is how they are labeled, the prohibition on surcharging is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech (and not a permissible regulation of conduct). Assessing the merits of the underlying economic arguments (but not the ultimate First Amendment claim), we conclude that, in this case, neither the behavioral economic
The Petitioners in the case (five New York businesses) and their amici (scholars of both behavioral law and economics and First Amendment law) argue that New York’s ban on surcharge fees but not discounts for cash payments violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. The argument relies on a claim derived from behavioral economics: namely, that a surcharge and a discount are mathematically equivalent, but that, because of behavioral biases, a price adjustment framed as a surcharge is more effective than one framed as a discount in inducing customers to pay with cash in lieu of credit. Because, Petitioners and amici claim, the only difference between the two is how they are labeled, the prohibition on surcharging is an impermissible restriction on commercial speech (and not a permissible regulation of conduct). Assessing the merits of the underlying economic arguments (but not the ultimate First Amendment claim), we conclude that, in this case, neither the behavioral economic
Assessing the merits of the underlying economic arguments (but not the ultimate First Amendment claim), we conclude that, in this case, neither the behavioral economic theory, nor the evidence adduced to support it, justifies the Petitioners’ claims. The indeterminacy of the behavioral economics underlying the claims makes for a behavioral law and economics “just-so story”—an unsupported hypothesis about the relative effect of surcharges and discounts on consumer behavior adduced to achieve a desired legal result, but that happens to lack any empirical support. And not only does the evidence not support the contention that consumer welfare is increased by permitting card surcharge fees, it strongly suggests that, in fact, consumer welfare would be harmed by such fees, as they expose consumers to potential opportunistic holdup and rent extraction.
As far as we know, this is the first time the Supreme Court has been expressly asked to consider arguments rooted in behavioral law and economics in reaching its decision. It should decline the offer.
TOTM I recently published a piece in the Hill welcoming the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Google v. Equustek. In this post I expand (at length) . . .
I recently published a piece in the Hill welcoming the Canadian Supreme Court’s decision in Google v. Equustek. In this post I expand (at length) upon my assessment of the case.
In its decision, the Court upheld injunctive relief against Google, directing the company to avoid indexing websites offering the infringing goods in question, regardless of the location of the sites (and even though Google itself was not a party in the case nor in any way held liable for the infringement). As a result, the Court’s ruling would affect Google’s conduct outside of Canada as well as within it.
Amicus Brief Petitioners base their First Amendment argument on two premises: first, that surcharges are “more effective” than discounts at altering consumer behavior; and second, that surcharges and discounts are economically equivalent except for their labels.
Petitioners base their First Amendment argument on two premises: first, that surcharges are “more effective” than discounts at altering consumer behavior; and second, that surcharges and discounts are economically equivalent except for their labels. Under this view, because the only difference between discounts and surcharges is how they are framed, it must be this framing that leads to the difference in consumers’ responses. To explain why Petitioners believe this is true—and, thus, to maintain their claim that New York’s surcharge prohibition is an impermissible restriction on speech—Petitioners and their amici rely on the behavioral economic concepts of “framing” and “loss aversion.” They claim that the State impermissibly wishes to prohibit surcharging because these cognitive biases render surcharge labels more effective than discount labels in altering consumers’ preferred form of payment.
Petitioners’ premises are wrong. There is no sound evidence that the asserted behavioral theories are at work here, or that credit-card surcharging— much less the mere label used to describe the practice—more greatly affects consumers’ chosen method of payment than cash discounting. In fact, some of the studies on which Petitioners and their amici rely suggest the opposite. The Court should not rely, in the absence of sound supporting evidence, on a malleable theory that can be used to support contradictory positions.
Moreover, surcharges and discounts differ in material ways beyond the words used to describe them. Surcharging—but not discounting—enables merchants to engage in certain pricing and sales practices that explain both consumers’ different responses to them, as well as the State’s interest in regulating them differently. And while petitioners lack empirical support for the behavioral claims at the heart of their First Amendment argument, the evidence from countries that permit surcharging reveals that merchants often use surcharges to engage in these types of pricing practices. This Court should thus reject Petitioners’ invitation to base constitutional doctrine on a behavioral hypothesis unsupported by any sound empirical evidence—especially where, as here, that result could potentially expose consumers to the type of conduct that the State’s law seeks to prevent.
