Minnesota Law Review

First Amendment and the Right to Lie: Regulating Knowingly False Campaign Speech After United States v. Alvarez

With the people relying more and more on political advertising to inform them about candidates and elections, it is imperative to try to stop or limit false speech about candidates and the election procedures. False speech undermines the integrity of elections. This has led some states to enact laws banning false campaign materials. The problem that arises with these types of statutes is the First Amendment right to free speech, especially political speech. Recently, the Supreme Court has given more protection to false speech by striking down the Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional because lies about military service are protected by the First Amendment. Even though the State has a compelling interest to protect the integrity of its elections, the Court has suggested little or no ban on political speech, even if false, would be found constitutional. This Note explores the different ways in which to strike an appropriate balance between the State’s interest in maintaining election integrity and a citizen’s right to free speech. Despite the constitutional barriers present, this Note analyzes different ways to protect election integrity without infringing on First Amendment rights.


:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1] The Court overturned the D.C. [...]