Legal Opinion

Carroll v. Blinken

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided February 13, 1992No. 698, Docket 91-7877PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

IRVING R. KAUFMAN, Circuit Judge:

Thomas Jefferson recognized that “to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.” 1 At the same time, our nation’s universities preserve a longstanding tradition of tolerating and even encouraging the propagation of all sorts of disbelieved opinions. We are asked today, in a case that involves competing concerns of the First Amendment, to resolve the conflict that occurs when Jefferson’s “tyrannical” compulsion occurs in a collegiate setting. On the one hand, university students…

2Cases cited35 opinions

  1. New York Times Co. v. SullivanSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
  2. Elrod v. BurnsSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
  3. United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  4. Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  5. West Virginia State Board of Education v. BarnetteSupreme Court of the United States · 1943

30 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Washington Legal Foundation v. Massachusetts Bar FoundationCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
  2. Hays County Guardian v. Jerome K. SuppleCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1992
  3. Levin v. HarlestonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992
  4. Scott H. Southworth, Amy Schoepke, Keith Bannach v. Michael W. Grebe, Sheldon B. Lubar, Jonathan B. BarryCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1998
  5. Carroll v. BlinkenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1992

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API