Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011). · Go Syfert
Search
Sonnier v. Crain, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Doe v. City of Albuquerque (ca10, 2012-01-20)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Doe v. City of Albuquerque
10th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
Dist. v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290, 301, 313-16 , 120 S.Ct. 2266 , 147 L.Ed.2d 295 (2000) (applying the test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , 91 S.Ct. 2105 , 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971), in concluding that school district’s policy of permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violated the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause); United States v. Playboy Entm’t Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 806-07, 813 , 120 S.Ct. 1878 , 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000) (applying strict scrutiny in striking down a statute requiring cable television operators who provided adult-oriented programmi…
discussed Cited "see" Doe v. Abbott
N.D. Tex. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
Compl., 54 (prayer for relief); see Sonnier v. Crain , 613 F.3d 436 , 459 (5th Cir. 2010), withdrawn in part , 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011) (Dennis, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ("The facial/as-applied distinction merely goes to the breadth of the remedy employed because a facial challenge is an argument for the facial invalidation of a law, whereas an as-applied challenge is an argument for the narrower remedy of as-applied invalidation.")).
discussed Cited "see" Keister v. Bell
N.D. Ala. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436, 445 (5th Cir. 2010), opinion withdrawn in part on reh’g, 634 F.3d 778 (5th Cir. 2011) (finding that a public university’s speech policy was narrowly tailored when it employed a seven-day notice requirement). 11 Further, as in Bloedom, there is no indication that the ban on outside, non-sponsored speakers is viewpoint-based.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Jeremy SONNIER
v.
John CRAIN, Dr., in his official capacity as Interim President of Southeastern Louisiana University Jim McHodgkins, Individually and in his official capacity as Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs at Southeastern Louisiana University Thomas Carmichael, Individually and in his official capacity as Police Officer for University Police Department at Southeastern Louisiana University
No. 09-30186.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 23, 2011.
634 F.3d 778
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3494
2011 WL 635873
Nathan W. Kellum, Jonathan Andrew Scruggs (argued), Alliance Defense Fund, Memphis, TN, for Sonnier., Linda Law Clark (argued), Dianne M. Irvine, DeCuir, Clark & Adams, L.L.P., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.
Davis, Dennis, Garwood.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Lead Opinion

PER CURIAM:

We withdraw our earlier order denying panel rehearing and substitute the following:

The motion for panel rehearing is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as outlined below.

We withdraw Section IV of the opinion of the panel majority with the exception of[*779] Section IV(D). We also withdraw the Conclusion of that opinion. For reasons assigned in Section IV(D) of the panel majority opinion (the section of the opinion dealing with the regulation of security fees that may be imposed on the speaker), we conclude that the district court erred in refusing to declare that section of the regulation facially invalid. To that extent only we vacate the order of the district court.

With respect to the balance of the regulation, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction at this early stage of the litigation and without the benefit of any context facts on which to base its order. Thus, the district court’s order in all other respects denying the preliminary injunction is AFFIRMED and the case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings.

Concurrence in Part

DENNIS, Circuit Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

For the reasons given in my previous partial dissents in this case, I continue to believe that the panel majority has erred in affirming the district court’s failure to consider and decide the plaintiffs as-applied challenge, and also in failing to apply the correct principles of law to his facial challenge (except as to the security fee provision, which we agree is unconstitutional). Sonnier v. Crain, 613 F.3d 436, 449-79 (5th Cir.2010) (Dennis, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Sonnier v. Crain, 2011 WL 452085, *2-6 (5th Cir.2011) (Dennis, J., dissenting from the denial of panel rehearing). Therefore, I continue to respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.