Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword or section
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
FIRE Amicus Brief to the Ninth Circuit in 'Lopez v. Candaele,' January 13, 2010

FIRE Amicus Brief to the Ninth Circuit in 'Lopez v. Candaele,' January 13, 2010

Ratings: (0)|Views: 2,306|Likes:
Published by FIRE
FIRE Amicus Brief to the Ninth Circuit in 'Lopez v. Candaele,' January 13, 2010
FIRE Amicus Brief to the Ninth Circuit in 'Lopez v. Candaele,' January 13, 2010

More info:

Published by: FIRE on Jan 14, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/22/2011

pdf

 
Docket No. 09-56238
 In the
United States Court of Appeals
 for the
 
Ninth Circuit
 
JONATHAN LOPEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.KELLY G. CANDAELE, et al.,
 Defendants-Appellants,
and JOHN MATTESON,in his individual and official capacities as Professor of Speechat Los Angeles City College,
 Defendant.
_______________________________________
 Appeal from a Decision of the United States District Court for the Central District of California, No. 09-cv-00995
·
 Honorable George H. King
BRIEF
 AMICUS CURIAE
OF THEFOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN EDUCATIONIN SUPPORT OF APPELLEE
T
IMOTHY
M.
 
S
MITH
,
 
E
SQ
.MCKINLEY & SMITH, APC8880 Cal Center DriveSuite 250Sacramento, California 95826(916) 363-1333 Telephone(916) 363-1133 Facsimile
 Attorney for Amicus Curiae
W
ILLIAM
C
REELEY
,
 
E
SQ
.FOUNDATION FOR INDIVIDUALRIGHTS IN EDUCATION601 Walnut StreetSuite 510Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106(215) 717-3473 Telephone(212) 058-2031 Facsimile
Co-counsel for Amicus Curiae
C
OUNSEL
P
RESS
·
 
(800) 3-APPEAL
 
P
RINTED
O
N
R
ECYCLED
P
APER
 
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.1, counsel for
amicus
certify that (1)
amicus
does not have any parent corporations, and (2)no publicly
 
held companies hold 10% or more of the stock or ownershipinterest in
amicus
.
 
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT ............................................. iTABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... ivINTEREST OF
 AMICUS CURIAE 
.............................................................. 1SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................... 2ARGUMENT............................................................................................... 4I. LACCD’s Policy Prohibits Constitutionally Protected Expression ..... 4A. The Supreme Court and the Department of Education HaveAnnounced a Clear Standard Regarding Student-on-StudentHarassment ..................................................................................... 4B. LACCD’S Policy Disregards This Standard and Is Void forOverbreadth .................................................................................... 7II. LACCD’s Arguments for Reversal Are Without Merit ..................11A. LACCD’s Argument Ignores the Crucial Importance of the FirstAmendment at Public Colleges and Universities ...........................11B. The District Court Properly Relied on the Third Circuit’s Decisionin
 DeJohn v. Temple University
.....................................................14C. There Are Profound Differences in the Nature and Purpose of theEducational and Workplace Settings..............................................17D. The District Court Properly Recognized that State Law Does NotCure the District’s Former Sexual Harassment Policy’sConstitutional Defects ...................................................................21

Activity (2)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->