Initiative v. King Cnty., 136 S. Ct. 1022 (2016). · Go Syfert
Initiative v. King Cnty., 136 S. Ct. 1022 (2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
96 citation events (96 in the last 25 years) across 18 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Scearce v. Ingram (vawd, 2023-09-19) · Strongest negative: Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (paed, 2018-11-28)
Treatment trajectory · 2016 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2016 2021 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth. (2×)
E.D. Pa. · 2018 · signal: but see · confidence high
Paul, Minn. , 505 U.S. 377 , 427, 112 S.Ct. 2538 , 120 L.Ed.2d 305 (1992) (identifying limited public and non-public forums as separate "geographic categories of speech"); but see AFDI v. King Cty., Wash. , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1022 , 1022, 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (Mem.) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (stating that a limited public forum is also called a non-public forum).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Scearce v. Ingram
W.D. Va. · 2023 · confidence medium
Initiative v. King Cnty., 136 S. Ct. 1022, 1022 (2016) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of cert.).
cited Cited as authority (rule) San Antonio Firefighters' Association, Local 624 v. The City of San Antonio, Texas
W.D. Tex. · 2019 · confidence medium
Initiative v. King Cty., Wash., 136 S. Ct. 1022, 1023 (2016)).
cited Cited "see" State v. Riley
Conn. App. Ct. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
See State v. Riley , 315 Conn. 637 , 663, 110 A.3d 1205 (2015), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1361 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Russell
Neb. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Casiano v. Commissioner of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 (2015), cert. denied --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (50-year sentence); State v. Ronquillo, 190 Wash.App. 765 , 361 P.3d 779 (2015) (mandatory release at age 68).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State v. Castillo (2×)
Conn. · 2018 · signal: see also · confidence low
That is, the defendant claims it is possible that "an unknown number of juvenile suspects ... may have been misled or deceived about the potential 'adult' consequences of giving a statement to the police." He additionally points to the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and this court recognizing limits on the maximum punishments that can be imposed on juveniles on the basis that "developments in psychology and brain science continue to show fundamental differences between juvenile and adult minds." Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48 , 68, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010) ; see a…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." State Ex Rel. Alden Morgan v. State of Louisiana
La. · 2016 · signal: see also · confidence low
Henry v. State, 175 So.3d 675, 680 (Fla.2015) (defendant sentenced for multiple offenses; ”[T]he specific sentence that a juvenile nonhomicide offender receives for committing a given offense is not dispositive as to whether the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment is implicated.”); see also Casiano v. Comm’r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52 , 115 A.3d 1031 , 1045-47 (2015), cert. denied sub nom., Semple v. Casiano, — U.S. —, 136 S.Ct. 1364 , 194 L.Ed.2d 376 (2016) (focus of Graham and Miller is "not on the label of a ‘life sentence’ ” but rather whether a juvenile offen…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AMERICAN FREEDOM DEFENSE INITIATIVE
v.
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 7, 2016.
136 S. Ct. 1022
The First Amendment prohibits the government from \abridging the freedom of speech.\" But the Court has struggled with how that guarantee applies when private speech occurs on government property. We have afforded private speech different levels of protection depending on the forum in which it occurs. See Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
This case offers an ideal opportunity to bring clarity to an important area of First Amendment law. In the decision below  |  555 U.S. 460

I see no sound reason to shy away from this First Amendment case. It raises an important constitutional question on which there is an acknowledged and well-developed division among the Courts of Appeals. One of this Court's most basic functions is to resolve this kind of question. I respectfully dissent from the denial of certiorari.

APPENDIX