Magarian is a well-known expert in free speech, the law of politics, and law and religion. He has written about a variety of topics in constitutional law, including free speech theory and doctrine, media regulation, regulation of political parties, the relationship between church and state, and substantive due process. His first book, Managed Speech: The Roberts Court’s First Amendment, was published in 2017 by Oxford University Press. His work also examines church and state, firearms regulation and regulations of the political process.
In light of the Jan. 6 mob attack on the U.S. Capitol building, many Democrats, and even some Republicans, have called for the use of the 25th Amendment to remove President Trump from office. What is that amendment and how does it work? Washington University in St. Louis law professor Greg Magarian explains.
When a group violently attacks a government institution, in an effort to change the lawful governmental order, it is insurrection, says a law expert on the U.S. Constitution at Washington University in St. Louis.
The U.S. Department of Justice has issued a list of “anarchist jurisdictions,” which it says have permitted violence and destruction of property to persist. If the Trump administration withholds federal funds from these jurisdictions based on the “anarchist” designation, that withholding of funds would violate the Constitution in at least two ways, says a Constitutional law expert at Washington University in St. Louis.
After President Donald Trump made unsubstantiated claims on Twitter about mail-in voting and Twitter responded by attaching a link to his tweets, Trump threatened to close down the social media giant. “The president appears to have no understanding of or concern for free speech,” says a constitutional law expert at Washington University in St. Louis.
Conservatives care deeply about installing judges who will advance their agenda. Trump appears to have one judicial criterion: Appointees must be as far right as possible.
Gregory P. Magarian examines more than 40 Supreme Court free-speech decisions and critiques the ways in which the court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts, has reshaped and degraded the law of expressive freedom.
