IRAC Analysis on The Ranks - Essay Example

Case Analysis Issue: The issue in this case is to analyze how there was a violation of the right to free speech and rights under the First Amendment,as a result of which Jeff and Nicole Rank were able to settle their suit for $80,000.Rule:The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law….abridging the freedom of speech…or the right of the people peacefully to assemble….” Freedom of speech covers both written and verbal communications as well as symbolic speech.

The Fourteenth Amendment states that the privileges of American citizens are not to be abridged by any law or by the State. The overbreadth doctrine also allows people whose own speech or conduct is not prohibited to challenge limitations on free speech (such as those in picketing) on behalf of others who may refrain from doing so out of the fear of prosecution.Application:First and Fourteenth Amendments:The violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of speech is strong grounds for Jeff and Nicole Rank to protest against their arrest for wearing anti-Bush T-shirts.

The written message on T-shirts constitutes written, symbolic communication which will be included in the protected category. Moreover, there has also been a violation of their fourteenth amendment right because the State has curtailed their privilege to attend the rally with the right to free expression of their opinion through the message on their T-shirts. There are only a few instances where the first amendment right to freedom of speech can be curtailed. The federal Government could argue that the incidential suppression of the First Amendment freedom of Jeff and Nicole is no greater than what is necessary to further the Government’s interest, i.

e, in this case to prevent any disturbance erupting among the supporters of President Bush. However, they are unlikely to have any success with this argument, because Jeff and Nicole had worn the T-shirts for ten minutes at the rally without any indication of unrest among the crowd. The Bush advance manual:This manual also provides strong grounds in Jeff and Nicole’s favor because it clearly states that “any physical contact with demonstrators” is to be avoided. According to the manual, action is to be taken to minimize demonstrator effect only when it is likely to cause some disruption, which was not so in this case.

The Federal Government may try to argue that it was trying to prevent disruptive activity, but there was no sign of a potential disruption caused by Jeff and Nicole to the extent that it could be deemed necessary to restrain them, especially physically by placing handcuffs on them. Therefore the Government will not only fail in its argument, but the contents of the White House manual could itself be used against the Government to demonstrate the intent to suppress freedom of speech through its provisions.

The overbreadth doctrine:The strongest grounds the federal Government may have is to argue that the ACLU has no standing to file the suit on behalf of Jeff and Nicole. However, this aspect will be covered by the overbreadth doctrine which would allow a third party like the ACLU to challenge the restrictions on the right to free speech of Jeff and Nicole. Therefore, on this count also, Jeff and Nicole will succeed in their suit.Conclusion: On the basis of the above, it may be seen that the federal Government has a very weak case indeed and Jeff and Nicole stand to win on every count that can be raised.

The most important issue is the violation of their First Amendment rights and also their fourteenth amendment rights. The contents of the White House Manual themselves constitute a restriction on the free speech allowed under the First Amendment, but in Jeff and Nicole’s case, even the provisions of that manual have been further violated, which places the suit strongly in their favor. Lastly, the only grounds the federal Government could possibly have had to challenge the suit, i.e, the standing of the ACLU to file on behalf of Jeff and Nicole, is also negated by the application of the overbreadth doctrine.

As a result, the Government’s loss in the suit is inevitable and this is the reason why they chose to pay 80,000$ as settlement instead.