Anthony Kennedy: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 120:

=== Free speech ===

On May 30, 2006, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Garcetti v. Ceballos]]'' relating to whether the First Amendment protects statements by public officials pursuant to their duties from employer discipline.<ref>{{cite web |last=Ellis |first=Elizabeth | url=https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/practice/law-reviews/ilr/pdf/vol41p187.pdf | title=GARCETTI V. CEBALLOS: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES LEFT TO DECIDE “YOUR"YOUR CONSCIENCE OR YOUR JOB”JOB" | website=[[Indiana Law Review]] }}</ref> Kennedy utilized past precedents in ''[[Pickering v. Board of Education]]'' to determine whether or not an employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern or in the capacity of his office.<ref>{{cite web |last=Roosevelt III |first=Kermit | url=https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1047&context=jcl | title=Not as Bad as You Think: Why Garcetti v. Ceballos Makes Sense | website=University of Pennsylvania Law School Penn Law: Legal Scholarship Repository | date=2012 }}</ref> Upon the identification that speech was said in an official capacity, Kennedy determined that a government entity, in its role as an employer, had the discretion to impose speech restrictions so long as they had the potential to affect its operations.<ref>{{cite web |last=Coffield |first=Tim | url=https://coffieldlaw.com/garcetti-v-ceballos-private-citizen-speech-public-employment-and-the-first-amendment/ | title=Garcetti v. Ceballos: Private Citizen Speech, Public Employment, and the First Amendment | website=Coffield Law |date=September 22, 2020 }}</ref> Kennedy emphasized this point by writing: "when public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline".<ref>{{cite web |last=Hudson Jr. |first=David | url=https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/garcetti-v-ceballos/ | title=Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) | website=Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University }}</ref>

On June 28, 2012, Kennedy wrote the plurality opinion in ''[[United States v. Alvarez]]'' declaring the [[Stolen Valor Act of 2005|Stolen Valor Act]] unconstitutional.<ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.rcfp.org/supreme-court-rules-stolen-valor-act-unconstitutional/ | title=Supreme Court rules Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional | website=Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press | date=June 28, 2012 }}</ref> In doing so, Kennedy determined the Act supported a content-based restriction on speech - that being a nondefamatory falsehood of having received a [[Military awards and decorations|military decoration or medal]] - and that the government failed to provide a direct causal link between the restriction and a potential injury.<ref>{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Bruce | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2012/6/supreme-court-decides-united-states-v-alvarez | title=Supreme Court Decides United States v. Alvarez | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 28, 2012 }}</ref> Additionally, Kennedy wrote that such a restriction failed to meet the standards of [[strict scrutiny]], with the law acting to "[seek] to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings".<ref>{{cite web |last=Singh |first=Tejinder | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2012/06/opinion-recap-stolen-valor-act-violates-the-first-amendment/ | title=Opinion analysis: Stolen Valor Act violates the First Amendment | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 28, 2012 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Douek |first1=Evelyn |last2=Lakier |first2=Genevieve | url=https://knightcolumbia.org/blog/rereading-alvarez | title=Rereading Alvarez It turns out the government can regulate lies … sometimes | website=Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University | date=May 18, 2022 }}</ref>

It turns out the government can regulate lies … sometimes | website=Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University | date=May 18, 2022 }}</ref>

On June 19, 2017, Kennedy wrote the majority opinion in ''[[Packingham v. North Carolina]]'' ruling that a prohibition of [[sex offenders]] from social media is a violation of the First Amendment.<ref>{{cite web |last=Hudson Jr. |first=David | url=https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/packingham-v-north-carolina/ | title=Packingham v. North Carolina (2017) | website=Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University }}</ref> Kennedy noted that, while the restriction was tailored to suit a government interest in preventing child [[sex abuse]], the law did not pass strict scrutiny nor was it narrowly tailored for that purpose.<ref>{{cite webnews |last=Post |first=David | url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/07/03/supreme-court-unanimously-overturns-north-carolinas-ban-on-social-media-use-by-sex-offenders/ | title=Supreme Court unanimously overturns North Carolina’sCarolina's ban on social-media use by sex offenders | websitenewspaper=[[The Washington Post]] | date=July 3, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite webmagazine |last=Lapowsky |first=Issie | url=https://www.wired.com/story/free-speech-facebook-supreme-court/ | title=The Supreme Court Just Protected Your Right to Facebook | websitemagazine=[[Wired (magazine)|Wired]] | date=June 19, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Jones |first=Bruce | url=https://www.faegredrinker.com/en/insights/publications/2017/6/supreme-court-decides-packingham-v-north-carolina-no-151194 | title=Supreme Court Decides Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194. | website=[[Faegre Drinker]] | date=June 19, 2017 }}</ref> The barring of a substantial amount of online expression was therefore unrelated to its stated goal and acted "to foreclose access to social media altogether [and] to prevent the user from engaging in the legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights".<ref>{{cite web |last=Howe |first=Amy | url=https://www.scotusblog.com/2017/06/opinion-analysis-court-invalidates-ban-social-media-sex-offenders/ | title=Opinion analysis: Court invalidates ban on social media for sex offenders | website=[[SCOTUSblog]] | date=June 19, 2017 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last=Grossman |first=Perry | url=https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/03/packingham-v-north-carolina-is-a-first-amendment-test-case-in-the-age-of-trump.html | title=First, They Came for the Sex Offenders … | website=[[Slate (magazine)|Slate]] | date=March 1, 2017 }}</ref>

=== Capital punishment ===

Line 243 ⟶ 242:

Mary Kennedy was a third grade teacher at the [[Sacramento City Unified School District|Golden Empire Elementary School]] in Sacramento.<ref name=GregMarriageNYT>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/10/style/weddings-victoria-reese-gregory-kennedy.html|title=Weddings; Victoria Reese, Gregory Kennedy|date=September 10, 1995|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=November 13, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181113025646/https://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/10/style/weddings-victoria-reese-gregory-kennedy.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

Justin Kennedy worked for [[Goldman Sachs]], and then for [[Deutsche Bank]] from 1997 to 2009; he became its global head of real estate capital markets. During his time at Deutsche Bank he helped Donald Trump secure a $640 million loan for a Chicago real estate project.<ref name=NYT2017-07-19>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny.html|title=Big German Bank, Key to Trump's Finances, Faces New Scrutiny|date=July 19, 2017|newspaper=The New York Times|last1=Protess|first1=Ben|last2=Silver-Greenberg|first2=Jessica|last3=Drucker|first3=Jesse|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=July 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170720003726/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/19/business/big-german-bank-key-to-trumps-finances-faces-new-scrutiny.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=NYT2018-06-28>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html|title=Inside the White House's Quiet Campaign to Create a Supreme Court Opening|date=June 28, 2018|newspaper=The New York Times|last1=Haberman|firstfirst1=Maggie|last2=Liptak|first2=Adam|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=November 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181112135511/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/28/us/politics/trump-anthony-kennedy-retirement.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last1=Enrich|first1=David|last2=Buettner|first2=Russ|last3=McIntire|first3=Mike|last4=Craig|first4=Susanne|date=2020-10-27|title=How Trump Maneuvered His Way Out of Trouble in Chicago|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/business/trump-chicago-taxes.html|access-date=2020-12-23|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=December 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201222233500/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/27/business/trump-chicago-taxes.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Enrich|first=David|title=Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction|publisher=Custom House|year=2020|isbn=978-0062878816|location=|pages=}}</ref>

Gregory attended [[Stanford Law School]] and was a president of the Stanford [[Federalist Society]].<ref name=Politico2017-04-06>{{cite news|url=https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925|title=Trump's hidden back channel to Justice Kennedy: Their kids|date=April 7, 2017|work=[[Politico]]|last=Goldmacher|first=Shane|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=January 5, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190105232558/https://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/donald-trump-supreme-court-236925|url-status=live}}</ref> He was an associate at [[Sullivan & Cromwell]] in the 1990s, later worked at [[UBS]], and, since October 2016, is the chief operating officer at the investment bank Disruptive Technology Advisers, which works closely with [[Dropbox (service)|Dropbox]], [[23andMe]], and [[Peter Thiel]]'s [[Palantir Technologies]].<ref name=GregMarriageNYT/><ref name=NYT2016-10-18>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/dealbook/disruptive-technology-advisers-hires-two-veterans-of-finance.html|title=Disruptive Technology Advisers Hires Two Veterans of Finance|date=October 18, 2016|newspaper=The New York Times|last=de la Merced|first=Michael J.|access-date=November 12, 2018|archive-date=December 24, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181224073852/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/business/dealbook/disruptive-technology-advisers-hires-two-veterans-of-finance.html|url-status=live}}</ref>