§Why CasetextPricing

Central Rabbinical Congress of the USA & Canada et al v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene et al

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 11 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction.. Document

45 Cited authorities

  1. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm'n

    558 U.S. 310 (2010)   Cited 1,545 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Holding that disclaimer and disclosure requirements are subject to exacting scrutiny

  2. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey

    505 U.S. 833 (1992)   Cited 1,846 times   29 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a spousal notification provision was unconstitutional

  3. Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah

    508 U.S. 520 (1993)   Cited 1,485 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that strict scrutiny can be satisfied "only in rare cases," and laws which are "underinclusive" as written or applied cannot be upheld

  4. Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of University of Virginia

    515 U.S. 819 (1995)   Cited 1,271 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Establishment Clause does not bar disbursement of funds from student activity fees to religious organizations

  5. New York v. Ferber

    458 U.S. 747 (1982)   Cited 1,960 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding child pornography is not subject to First Amendment protections

  6. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic

    547 U.S. 47 (2006)   Cited 771 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nothing about having military recruiters on campus "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters"

  7. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo

    456 U.S. 305 (1982)   Cited 1,738 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation

  8. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

    555 U.S. 460 (2009)   Cited 637 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a government adopted donated monument because it "took ownership of that monument and put it on permanent display in a park that it owns and manages"

  9. Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Ind. Emp't Sec. Div.

    450 U.S. 707 (1981)   Cited 1,560 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or [another member of his faith] more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith," because "[c]ourts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation"

  10. McGowan v. Maryland

    366 U.S. 420 (1961)   Cited 2,630 times
    Holding that appellants fined $5 plus costs had standing to assert an Establishment Clause challenge