573 U.S. 464 (2014) Cited 529 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute was not a content-based restriction because "[w]hether petitioners violate[d] the [a]ct 'depend[ed]' not 'on what they say,' . . . but simply on where they say it" (quoting Holder v. Humanitarian L. Project, 561 U.S. 1, 27, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355 (2010))
529 U.S. 803 (2000) Cited 836 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that a statute was content based because it “applies only to channels primarily dedicated to sexually explicit adult programming or other programming that is indecent”
456 U.S. 228 (1982) Cited 667 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that setting aside an allegedly unlawful statutory provision that compels plaintiffs to register and report redresses the plaintiffs’ alleged injury of registering and reporting because, even though the plaintiffs could be compelled to register and report through another statutory provision, they will no longer be compelled to do so under the statutory provision at issue
45 C.F.R. § 147.131 Cited 73 times 9 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting third parties from directly or indirectly charging objecting organizations for the cost of contraceptive coverage and obligating the third parties to pay for the contraceptive care
In 26 C.F.R. § 1.6033–2(h), the Treasury Regulations provide a three (3) prong test to determine whether a group is an “integrated auxiliary” under section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) of the Internal Revenue Code.