Secondary Effects and Public Morality

Autores
Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J
Año de publicación
2017
Idioma
inglés
Tipo de recurso
artículo
Estado
versión publicada
Descripción
The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability.
Fil: Legarre, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. University of Notre Dame-Indiana; Estados Unidos. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina "Santa María de los Buenos Aires"; Argentina
Fil: Mitchell, Gregory J. Notre Dame Law School; Estados Unidos
Materia
Secondary Effects
Public Morality-Natural Law
Supreme Court
Nivel de accesibilidad
acceso abierto
Condiciones de uso
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
Repositorio
CONICET Digital (CONICET)
Institución
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
OAI Identificador
oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79911

id CONICETDig_c588ddc4a39d32db5727316f357eb394
oai_identifier_str oai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79911
network_acronym_str CONICETDig
repository_id_str 3498
network_name_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
spelling Secondary Effects and Public MoralityLegarre, SantiagoMitchell, Gregory JSecondary EffectsPublic Morality-Natural LawSupreme Courthttps://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.4https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability.Fil: Legarre, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. University of Notre Dame-Indiana; Estados Unidos. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina "Santa María de los Buenos Aires"; ArgentinaFil: Mitchell, Gregory J. Notre Dame Law School; Estados UnidosHarvard Law School2017-04info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionhttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501info:ar-repo/semantics/articuloapplication/pdfapplication/pdfhttp://hdl.handle.net/11336/79911Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J; Secondary Effects and Public Morality; Harvard Law School; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 40; 1; 4-2017; 320-3580193-4872CONICET DigitalCONICETenginfo:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2972229info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas2025-09-03T09:55:05Zoai:ri.conicet.gov.ar:11336/79911instacron:CONICETInstitucionalhttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/Organismo científico-tecnológicoNo correspondehttp://ri.conicet.gov.ar/oai/requestdasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.arArgentinaNo correspondeNo correspondeNo correspondeopendoar:34982025-09-03 09:55:05.89CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicasfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Secondary Effects and Public Morality
title Secondary Effects and Public Morality
spellingShingle Secondary Effects and Public Morality
Legarre, Santiago
Secondary Effects
Public Morality-Natural Law
Supreme Court
title_short Secondary Effects and Public Morality
title_full Secondary Effects and Public Morality
title_fullStr Secondary Effects and Public Morality
title_full_unstemmed Secondary Effects and Public Morality
title_sort Secondary Effects and Public Morality
dc.creator.none.fl_str_mv Legarre, Santiago
Mitchell, Gregory J
author Legarre, Santiago
author_facet Legarre, Santiago
Mitchell, Gregory J
author_role author
author2 Mitchell, Gregory J
author2_role author
dc.subject.none.fl_str_mv Secondary Effects
Public Morality-Natural Law
Supreme Court
topic Secondary Effects
Public Morality-Natural Law
Supreme Court
purl_subject.fl_str_mv https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5.4
https://purl.org/becyt/ford/5
dc.description.none.fl_txt_mv The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability.
Fil: Legarre, Santiago. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. University of Notre Dame-Indiana; Estados Unidos. Pontificia Universidad Católica Argentina "Santa María de los Buenos Aires"; Argentina
Fil: Mitchell, Gregory J. Notre Dame Law School; Estados Unidos
description The police power consists of the authority of the state to regulate in the interests of public health, safety, and morals. As American society continues to grow more diverse and pluralistic, courts and commentators have raised concerns that the last of these, public morality, cannot serve as an acceptable justification for regulatory action. Indeed, if appeals to public morality cannot be evaluated on an objective basis, then regulators might invoke them to conceal unlawful motives. The ability of moral reasoning to provide a legitimate basis for regulation is thrown into doubt. In this Article, we examine a peculiar line of Supreme Court cases in the free speech context that bring the problem into focus. In the so-called secondary effects cases, the Justices gradually moved away from accepting public morality arguments in support of state restrictions on adult businesses. In place of public morality, the Court began to retrain its focus on the social ills attendant to the activity in question, or what it termed the ?secondary effects? of such conduct. Rather than decide whether the regulated activity is immoral, and thus within the legitimate regulatory sweep of the police power as traditionally conceived, the Court instead looked to whether the state could show that its restriction reduced deleterious secondary effects associated with the activity. This development might have appeared desirable insofar as it would permit courts to rest their rulings on objective facts rather than wrestle with matters of opinion and moral sentiment. To the contrary, we argue, secondary effects arguments rely on moral reasoning –whether articulated or not– to the same extent as public morality arguments. The Court?s attempt in the secondary effects cases to avoid engaging in moral reasoning in reality demonstrates its indispensability.
publishDate 2017
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2017-04
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:ar-repo/semantics/articulo
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.none.fl_str_mv http://hdl.handle.net/11336/79911
Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J; Secondary Effects and Public Morality; Harvard Law School; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 40; 1; 4-2017; 320-358
0193-4872
CONICET Digital
CONICET
url http://hdl.handle.net/11336/79911
identifier_str_mv Legarre, Santiago; Mitchell, Gregory J; Secondary Effects and Public Morality; Harvard Law School; Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy; 40; 1; 4-2017; 320-358
0193-4872
CONICET Digital
CONICET
dc.language.none.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/url/https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2972229
dc.rights.none.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/ar/
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Harvard Law School
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Harvard Law School
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv reponame:CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname:Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
reponame_str CONICET Digital (CONICET)
collection CONICET Digital (CONICET)
instname_str Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.name.fl_str_mv CONICET Digital (CONICET) - Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
repository.mail.fl_str_mv dasensio@conicet.gov.ar; lcarlino@conicet.gov.ar
_version_ 1842269323706499072
score 13.13397