| Popis: |
This essay, for a symposium on the centennial of the Supreme Court’s decision in Abrams v. United States, suggests that celebration of the Abrams dissent as the origin of the modern First Amendment rests on a misconception. In the months after Abrams was decided, hardly anyone imagined the dissent as a harbinger of aggressive First Amendment review of convictions for seditious activity, let alone judicial invalidation of democratically enacted laws. Instead, the opinion exacerbated progressive concerns about juror bias, disproportionate sentencing, and weak or vindictive judges. Advocates invoked Abrams as a cautionary tale about the susceptibility of illiberal laws to misapplication and abuse, and they held out treatment of the defendants as evidence of longstanding complaints about police brutality and inhumane prison conditions in a period of profound economic inequality, labor unrest, hostility to immigration, and the uncertainty of a global pandemic. They did not, however, cast the opinion as a justification for judicial review. On the contrary, the Abrams dissent generated support for progressive efforts to limit the power of the courts. |
