§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 1,638 times   72 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 1,874 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 1,584 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that to survive strict scrutiny, a challenged action must be "justified by a compelling governmental interest and . . . narrowly tailored to advance that interest"

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

    515 U.S. 819 (1995)   Cited 1,350 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Establishment Clause does not bar disbursement of funds from student activity fees to religious organizations

  5. Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic

    547 U.S. 47 (2006)   Cited 859 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that nothing about having military recruiters on campus "suggests that law schools agree with any speech by recruiters"

  6. New York v. Ferber

    458 U.S. 747 (1982)   Cited 2,028 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding child pornography is not subject to First Amendment protections

  7. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum

    555 U.S. 460 (2009)   Cited 689 times   8 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"

  8. Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo

    456 U.S. 305 (1982)   Cited 1,804 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Federal Water Pollution Control Act did not mandate injunctions against its violation

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

    450 U.S. 707 (1981)   Cited 1,699 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 2,652 times
    Holding that appellants fined $5 plus costs had standing to assert an Establishment Clause challenge