32 Cited authorities

Ward v. Rock Against Racism
491 U.S. 781 (1989) Cited 2,854 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that the validity of a provision challenged on an as-applied basis "depends on the relation it bears to the overall problem the government seeks to correct, not on the extent to which it furthers the government's interests in an individual case"
Hill v. Colorado
530 U.S. 703 (2000) Cited 1,269 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding content neutral a ban on "picketing," "demonstrating," "protest, education, or counseling" even though it may require the government "to review the content of the statements made"
Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project
561 U.S. 1 (2010) Cited 853 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence
468 U.S. 288 (1984) Cited 1,442 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a ban on sleeping overnight in a park was a permissible "limitation on the manner of demonstrating"
Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co.
486 U.S. 750 (1988) Cited 1,024 times
Holding that a statute "placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency" is unconstitutional
Heffron v. Int'l Soc. for Krishna Consc
452 U.S. 640 (1981) Cited 957 times
Holding that written and oral dissemination of religious viewpoint are protected speech
United States v. Albertini
472 U.S. 675 (1985) Cited 554 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the validity of a regulation "does not turn on a judge's agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests"
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission
520 U.S. 180 (1997) Cited 326 times
Holding that "Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence," when it had before it evidence including some memory surveys
Coleman v. City of Mesa
230 Ariz. 352 (Ariz. 2012) Cited 437 times
Holding tattoos, even when comprised of only "standard designs or patterns," and the creative process of tattooing are subject to protection under the Arizona Constitution’s free speech guarantee
People v. Rosen
96 N.Y.2d 329 (N.Y. 2001) Cited 342 times 1 Legal Analyses
Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction

The People, Respondent,v.Ray Lam, Appellant.

32 Cited authorities

Holding that the validity of a provision challenged on an as-applied basis "depends on the relation it bears to the overall problem the government seeks to correct, not on the extent to which it furthers the government's interests in an individual case"

Holding content neutral a ban on "picketing," "demonstrating," "protest, education, or counseling" even though it may require the government "to review the content of the statements made"

Holding that the plaintiffs had standing because a statute criminalized knowingly providing material support or resources to a foreign terrorist organization, and the plaintiffs had provided support to groups designated as terrorist organizations and planned to provide similar support in the future

Holding that a ban on sleeping overnight in a park was a permissible "limitation on the manner of demonstrating"

Holding that a statute "placing unbridled discretion in the hands of a government official or agency" is unconstitutional

Holding that written and oral dissemination of religious viewpoint are protected speech

Holding that the validity of a regulation "does not turn on a judge's agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests"

Holding that "Congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence," when it had before it evidence including some memory surveys

Holding tattoos, even when comprised of only "standard designs or patterns," and the creative process of tattooing are subject to protection under the Arizona Constitution’s free speech guarantee

Finding no constitutional right to jury trial to establish facts of prior conviction