88 New York opinions name it 11 courts 1959–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Branzburg v. Hayesgreen2 sentences1991Neither the Federal nor State Constitutions condone an unlawful trespass. "[N]ews people do not stand in any favored position with respect to newsgathering activity * * * [They] have no special First Amendment immunity or special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others (see Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ; Pell v Procunier, 417 US 817 ; Houchins v KQED, 438 US 1 ; Zemel v Rusk, 381 US 1 ; Lewis, A Preferred Position for Journalism?, 7 Hofstra L Rev 595; Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv L Rev 1505; First Amendment as Immunizing Newsman fr 1984(See, e.g., Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665, 707-708 [upholding testimonial subpoenas to reporters in the face of a First Amendment challenge, but noting that judicial control of the Grand Jury process is available if that process were misused to harass the press].) Thus, where the Grand Jury uses its subpoena power not for the purpose of a general criminal investigation, but to gather evidence for a civil enforcement proceeding (Matter of Grand Jury Subpoenas, April, 1978, at Baltimore, 581 F2d 1103), or to gather evidence for cases in which indictments have already been issued (e.g., United St | 2 | 5 |
United States v. O'Briengreen2 sentences2014Even so, in O’Brien , the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Warren, rejected the First Amendment claim, holding that the governmental interest in assuring the availability of draft cards was sufficient to justify O’Brien’s conviction ( 391 US at 382 ). 2014Even so, in O’Brien , the Court, in an opinion by Chief Justice Warren, rejected the First Amendment claim, holding that the governmental interest in assuring the availability of draft cards was sufficient to justify O’Brien’s conviction ( 391 US at 382 ). | 2 | 4 |
United States v. Williamsgreen2 sentences2025A First Amendment analysis begins with an examination of the text of the challenged legislation since "it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers" ( United States v Williams, 553 US 285, 293 [2008], accord Bd. Of Trustees v Vil. 2025A First Amendment analysis begins with an examination of the text of the challenged legislation since "it is impossible to determine whether a statute reaches too far without first knowing what the statute covers" ( United States v Williams, 553 US 285, 293 [2008], accord Bd. Of Trustees v Vil. | 2 | 2 |
Susan Campbell, Etc. v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, Etc., Joseph Delcarpio, Etc. v. St. Tammany Parish School Board, Etc.green2 sentences2025Tammany Parish School Bd ., 64 F3d 184, 189 [5th Cir 1995] [even though Pico's "plurality opinion does not constitute binding precedent, it may properly serve as guidance" in library book removal cases]; C.K. v Wentzville R-IV School Dist ., 619 F Supp 3d 906, 913-915 [ED Missouri 2022] [ Pico lacks binding precedential value in library book removal case]); cf. Arce v. Douglas , 793 F3d 968, 983 [9th Cir 2015] [ Pico plurality opinion cited with approval in the context of a First Amendment challenge to legislation eliminating a Mexican American Studies program in an Arizona high school]). 2025Tammany Parish School Bd ., 64 F3d 184, 189 [5th Cir 1995] [even though Pico's "plurality opinion does not constitute binding precedent, it may properly serve as guidance" in library book removal cases]; C.K. v Wentzville R-IV School Dist ., 619 F Supp 3d 906, 913-915 [ED Missouri 2022] [ Pico lacks binding precedential value in library book removal case]); cf. Arce v. Douglas , 793 F3d 968, 983 [9th Cir 2015] [ Pico plurality opinion cited with approval in the context of a First Amendment challenge to legislation eliminating a Mexican American Studies program in an Arizona high school]). | 2 | 2 |
O'Connor v. Sobolgreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting 2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting | 2 | 2 |
Malverne Union Free School District v. Sobolgreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting 2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting | 2 | 2 |
Board of Ed., Island Trees Union Free School Dist. No. 26 v. Picogreen2 sentences2025The New York courts, too, have limited their reliance on Pico for the general proposition that school authorities have wide discretion in the management of school affairs, but must exercise it "'in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment'" ( Ware , 75 NY2d at 122 , quoting Pico , 457 US at 864 ; see generally id. [relying on Pico in allowing Free Exercise challenge to Commissioner's regulations mandating AIDS instruction for primary and secondary school students to proceed]; see Matter of Bernstein [Norwich City Sch. 2025The New York courts, too, have limited their reliance on Pico for the general proposition that school authorities have wide discretion in the management of school affairs, but must exercise it "'in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment'" ( Ware , 75 NY2d at 122 , quoting Pico , 457 US at 864 ; see generally id. [relying on Pico in allowing Free Exercise challenge to Commissioner's regulations mandating AIDS instruction for primary and secondary school students to proceed]; see Matter of Bernstein [Norwich City Sch. | 2 | 2 |
In re the Arbitration between Bernstein & Norwich City School District Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting 2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting | 2 | 2 |
Maya Arce v. John Huppenthalgreen2 sentences2025Tammany Parish School Bd ., 64 F3d 184, 189 [5th Cir 1995] [even though Pico's "plurality opinion does not constitute binding precedent, it may properly serve as guidance" in library book removal cases]; C.K. v Wentzville R-IV School Dist ., 619 F Supp 3d 906, 913-915 [ED Missouri 2022] [ Pico lacks binding precedential value in library book removal case]); cf. Arce v. Douglas , 793 F3d 968, 983 [9th Cir 2015] [ Pico plurality opinion cited with approval in the context of a First Amendment challenge to legislation eliminating a Mexican American Studies program in an Arizona high school]). 2025Tammany Parish School Bd ., 64 F3d 184, 189 [5th Cir 1995] [even though Pico's "plurality opinion does not constitute binding precedent, it may properly serve as guidance" in library book removal cases]; C.K. v Wentzville R-IV School Dist ., 619 F Supp 3d 906, 913-915 [ED Missouri 2022] [ Pico lacks binding precedential value in library book removal case]); cf. Arce v. Douglas , 793 F3d 968, 983 [9th Cir 2015] [ Pico plurality opinion cited with approval in the context of a First Amendment challenge to legislation eliminating a Mexican American Studies program in an Arizona high school]). | 2 | 2 |
Perry v. Schwarzeneggergreen2 sentences2024Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights ( see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman , 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" ( Perry v Schwarzenegger , 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US 2024Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights ( see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman , 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" ( Perry v Schwarzenegger , 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US | 2 | 2 |
Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v. Schneidermangreen2 sentences2024Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights ( see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman , 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" ( Perry v Schwarzenegger , 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US 2024Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights ( see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman , 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" ( Perry v Schwarzenegger , 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US | 2 | 2 |
Ward v. Rock Against Racismgreen2 sentences2008It is well settled that for purposes of First Amendment analysis, the Constitution protects more than written or spoken words as mediums of expression, and instead includes “pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings” (Kaplan v California, 413 US 115, 119 [1973]), as well as music (Ward v Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781 [1989]), theater (Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v Conrad, 420 US 546 [1975]), and DVD recordings (People v Fucile, NYLJ, May 13, 2004, at 19, col 1 [Crim Ct, NY County]). 2007Rather, plaintiffs’ objections to these particulars represent nothing more than irrelevant disagreement with the City over the extent to which the underlying government interests should be promoted (Rock Against Racism, 491 US at 800 [“The validity of time, place, or manner regulations does not turn on a judge’s agreement with the responsible decisionmaker concerning the most appropriate method for promoting significant government interests or the degree to which those interests should be promoted” (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)]; see also Graff, 9 F3d at 1320 [plurality op] [ | 1 | 3 |
City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc.green2 sentences2017We applied the United States Supreme Court’s burden-shifting framework established in Los Angeles v Alameda Books, Inc. ( 535 US 425 [2002]), which set out what a municipality must prove in order to sustain a zoning ordinance that regulates adult businesses in the face of a First Amendment challenge. 2017We applied the United States Supreme Court’s burden-shifting framework established in Los Angeles v Alameda Books, Inc. ( 535 US 425 [2002]), which set out what a municipality must prove in order to sustain a zoning ordinance that regulates adult businesses in the face of a First Amendment challenge. | 1 | 2 |
New York Times Co. v. Sullivangreen2 sentences2014Bose Corp. v Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 US 485 [1984]; New York Times Co. v Sullivan, 376 US 254, 284-285 [1964]; Brasslett v Cota, 761 F2d 827 [1st Cir 1985]). 1975First Amendment privilege set forth originally in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 376 U. S. 254 ). {Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, p. 342.) Special Term’s determination that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence of the defendants’ “ actual malice ” under the New York Times Go. standard was warranted on the papers presented. | 1 | 2 |
| Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.green | 1 | 2 |
| Gannett Co. v. DePasqualegreen | 1 | 2 |
| Broadrick v. Oklahomagreen | 1 | 2 |
| Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalitiongreen | 1 | 1 |
| Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Kahanagreen | 1 | 1 |
| New York v. Ferbergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Reyes v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Board of Trustees of The Vil. of Groton v. Pirrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Expressions Hair Design v. Schneidermangreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Turnergreen | 1 | 1 |
| City of Erie v. Pap's A. M.green | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. Selskygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jones v. Department of Correctional Servicesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| People v. Shackgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Partygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jerry Rubin v. City of Santa Monica Maria M. Stewart, City Clerk Does 1-5, Inclusive, Bill Jones, Secretary of Stategreen | 1 | 1 |
| Gasbarre v. City of Rochestergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Strattongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Footmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| Grant v. Cuomogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Garrison S. Johnson v. State of California James H. Gomez, Director, Department of Corrections James Rowlandgreen | 1 | 1 |
| MFY Legal Services, Inc. v. Dudleygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kaplan v. Californiagreen | 1 | 1 |
| Hamilton v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Long v. Goordgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| Horn v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Juan Valdez v. Mark A. Rosenbaum Al Terrault Julie Latuska Bill Parker George Gore Debbie Miller Allen Coopergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Ware v. Valley Stream High School District
green
2 sentences2025The New York courts, too, have limited their reliance on Pico for the general proposition that school authorities have wide discretion in the management of school affairs, but must exercise it "'in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment'" ( Ware , 75 NY2d at 122 , quoting Pico , 457 US at 864 ; see generally id. [relying on Pico in allowing Free Exercise challenge to Commissioner's regulations mandating AIDS instruction for primary and secondary school students to proceed]; see Matter of Bernstein [Norwich City Sch. 2025The New York courts, too, have limited their reliance on Pico for the general proposition that school authorities have wide discretion in the management of school affairs, but must exercise it "'in a manner that comports with the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment'" ( Ware , 75 NY2d at 122 , quoting Pico , 457 US at 864 ; see generally id. [relying on Pico in allowing Free Exercise challenge to Commissioner's regulations mandating AIDS instruction for primary and secondary school students to proceed]; see Matter of Bernstein [Norwich City Sch. | 2 | 2025–2025 |
O'Connor v. Sobol
green
2 sentences2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting 2025Bd. of Educ.] , 282 AD2d 70, 74 [3d Dept 2001] [citing Pico in upholding disciplinary determination where teacher had been warned about age-appropriate sexual content of materials], lv dismissed 96 NY2d 937 [2001]; Matter of Malverne Union Free School Dist. v Sobol , 181 AD2d 371, 375 [3d Dept 1992] [upholding Commissioner's decision finding that the board unreasonably intruded on teacher's academic freedom, though not reaching First Amendment issue], appeal discontinued and withdrawn 80 NY2d 972 [1992]; Matter of O'Connor v Sobol , 173 AD2d 74, 78, 79 [3d Dept 1991] [citing Pico and rejecting | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Moody v. NetChoice, LLC
green
2 sentences2025In Moody , the Supreme Court determined that content- moderation algorithms result in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment ( see 603 US at 744 ). 2025In Moody , the Supreme Court determined that content- moderation algorithms result in expressive activity protected by the First Amendment ( see 603 US at 744 ). | 2 | 2025–2025 |
Abrams v. New York Foundation for the Homeless
green
2 sentences2024Asserting a First Amendment privilege does not presumptively shield a charitable organization from OAG scrutiny ( see Abrams v New York Found. for the Homeless , 190 AD2d 578 [1st Dept 1993], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 954 [1993]). 2024Asserting a First Amendment privilege does not presumptively shield a charitable organization from OAG scrutiny ( see Abrams v New York Found. for the Homeless , 190 AD2d 578 [1st Dept 1993], lv dismissed 81 NY2d 954 [1993]). | 2 | 2024–2024 |
Davis v. Hobbs
neutral
2 sentences2024Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights ( see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman , 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" ( Perry v Schwarzenegger , 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US 2024Respondent is required to make some showing that producing the information would impermissibly infringe on its First Amendment rights ( see Matter of Evergreen Assn., Inc. v Schneiderman , 153 AD3d 87, 100 [2d Dept 2017]), such as by showing that the enforcement of the discovery requests will result in "harassment, membership withdrawal, or discouragement of new members" or other consequences that "suggest an impact on, or chilling of, [its] members' associational rights" ( Perry v Schwarzenegger , 591 F3d 1147, 1160-1161 [9th Cir 2010] [internal quotation marks omitted], cert dismissed 559 US | 2 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. National Treasury Employees Union
green
2 sentences2018On appeal to this Court, petitioners assert both federal and state constitutional claims (Pets' SSM Ltr, at 4-5), but note that "most courts simply conduct the First Amendment analysis and dispense with all free speech claims accordingly" ( id. at 6 n. 3). 2018On appeal to this Court, petitioners assert both federal and state constitutional claims (Pets' SSM Ltr, at 4-5), but note that "most courts simply conduct the First Amendment analysis and dispense with all free speech claims accordingly" ( id. at 6 n. 3). | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad
green
2 sentences2008It is well settled that for purposes of First Amendment analysis, the Constitution protects more than written or spoken words as mediums of expression, and instead includes “pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings” (Kaplan v California, 413 US 115, 119 [1973]), as well as music (Ward v Rock Against Racism, 491 US 781 [1989]), theater (Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v Conrad, 420 US 546 [1975]), and DVD recordings (People v Fucile, NYLJ, May 13, 2004, at 19, col 1 [Crim Ct, NY County]). 1975Both cases predate all of the "Salem I” and "Salem II” decisions as well as current pronouncements by the Supreme Court on First Amendment protection in Southeastern Promotions v Conrad (supra), concerning the musical "Hair”, and Erznoznik v City of Jacksonville (supra), relating to an ordinance prohibiting the showing of nude scenes visible from the street by outdoor drive-in theatres. | 2 | 1975–2008 |
People v. Garcia
green
2 sentences2004(People v Garcia, 75 NY2d 973 [1990].) The court concludes that defendant’s ineffective assistance claim must fail because he has not established that his First Amendment claim has colorable merit. 2004To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, defendant must demonstrate the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations for counsel's failure to pursue a colorable constitutional claim. ( People v Garcia , 75 NY2d 973 [1990].) The court concludes that defendant's ineffective assistance claim must fail because he has not established that his First Amendment claim has colorable merit. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Wisconsin v. Mitchell
green
2 sentences2004In Wisconsin v Mitchell ( 508 US 476 [1993]), the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal statute may, without violating the First Amendment, impose an enhanced penalty when defendant intentionally selects the victim because of his race. 2004In Wisconsin v Mitchell ( 508 US 476 [1993]), the United States Supreme Court held that a criminal statute may, without violating the First Amendment, impose an enhanced penalty when defendant intentionally selects the victim because of his race. | 2 | 2004–2004 |
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Comm. (Ohio)
green
2 sentences2001As NAACP and Brown (supra) illustrate, the key to a successful First Amendment challenge to a disclosure requirement is undisputed evidence that establishes, as a matter of law, the requisite nexus between compelled disclosure of the identities of individuals and resulting recriminations from either Government officials or private parties (Federal Election Commn. v Hall-Tyner Election Campaign Comm., 678 F2d 416 [2d Cir 1982]). 1988When a First Amendment claim is presented, the government may not enforce a subpoena of this type unless it is substantially related to a compelling governmental interest (Brown v Socialist Workers ’74 Campaign Comm., 459 US 87, 91-92 ; Buckley v Valeo, 424 US 1, 64 ; see also, Communist Party v Control Bd., 367 US 1, 92-103 ). | 2 | 1988–2001 |
People v. Wilson
neutral
2 sentences1991Integrity v Congel, 142 Misc 2d 9 [Sup Ct 1988, Glen, J.], mod 156 AD2d 274 [1st Dept 1989], supra.) As both the Supreme Court and the First Department held in that case, the proper procedure is for the witness to assert the First Amendment privilege during questioning, not to refuse to appear altogether. * CONCLUSION Accordingly, the cross motion is granted arid the application of petitioner is denied. 1991Integrity v Congel, 142 Misc 2d 9 [Sup Ct 1988, Glen, J.], mod 156 AD2d 274 [1st Dept 1989], supra.) As both the Supreme Court and the First Department held in that case, the proper procedure is for the witness to assert the First Amendment privilege during questioning, not to refuse to appear altogether. * CONCLUSION Accordingly, the cross motion is granted arid the application of petitioner is denied. | 2 | 1991–1997 |
People v. Cook
green
2 sentences1992(People v Cook, supra, at 115 .) The court determines that plaintiffs lack standing to challenge Local Law No. 67 on the grounds that its enforcement will result in decreased fees and State tax revenues from cigarette vending machines. 1982We therefore need not determine whether the ordinance is overbroad, a concept related to, but analytically distinct fropi, that of vagueness (see Tribe, American Constitutional Law, § 12-26, p 716), nor need we employ the vagueness doctrine as a “buffer zone of added protection at the peripheries of * * * Bill of Rights freedoms” (Note, Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U of Pa L Rev, 67, 75), thereby more carefully scrutinizing the allegedly vague ordinance than if no First Amendment claim were involved (Ashton v Kentucky, 384 US 195, 200 ; People v Cook, 34 NY2d 100, 115 | 2 | 1982–1992 |
Miller v. California
green
2 sentences1992(E.g., Texas v Johnson, 491 US 397 [1989], supra; Lewis v City of New Orleans, 415 US 130, 134 [1974] [Powell, J., concurring]; Hess v Indiana, supra; Miller v California, 413 US 15 [1973]; Cohen v California, 403 US 15 [1971]; see, Tribe, American Constitutional Law, at 850 [2d ed 1988]; see also, Garner v Louisiana, 368 US 157 [1961].) Thus, whether particular speech constitutes "fighting words” cannot be determined outside of the context in which the speech occurs. 1980In Ginsberg v New York (supra, at p 640), the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a statute which forbade the sale of obscene literature to minors, stating that "The State also has an independent interest in the well-being of its youth.” However flexible the Supreme Court may be in its efforts to define obscenity (see, e.g., Roth v United States, 354 US 476, 485 ; Memoirs v Massachusetts, 383 US 413, 418 ; Redrup v New York, 386 US 767, 770-771 ; Miller v California, 413 US 15 ), it is significant that even with a First Amendment issue at stake, it remains steadfast in recognizing th | 2 | 1980–1992 |
Le Mistral, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System
green
2 sentences1991"As observed by the Second Circuit in Galella v Onassis (487 F2d 986, 995-996): 'Crimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected * * * There is no threat to a free press in requiring its agents to act within the law.’ (See, also, Le Mistral, Inc. v Columbia Broadcasting System, 61 AD2d 491 , opp dsmd 46 NY2d 940 .)” (Anderson v WROC-TV, 109 Misc 2d, supra, at 907-908; see also, Dietemann v Time, Inc., 449 F2d 245.) Compelling the press to respect a promise made and relied upon, and to be responsible for that commitment, does no more than compel the press to act as any other resp 1981As observed by the Second Circuit in Galella v Onassis (487 F2d 986, 995-996): “Crimes and torts committed in news gathering are not protected *** There is no threat to a free press in requiring its agents to act within the law.” (See, also, Le Mistral, Inc. v Columbia Broadcasting System, 61 AD2d 491 , app dsmd 46 NY2d 940 .) Thus, lawful restrictions may be imposed upon the free exercise of other First Amendment rights where the exercise of such rights is sought by unauthorized entry onto private property (see Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v Metropolitan Life Ins. | 2 | 1981–1991 |
Zemel v. Rusk
green
2 sentences1991Neither the Federal nor State Constitutions condone an unlawful trespass. "[N]ews people do not stand in any favored position with respect to newsgathering activity * * * [They] have no special First Amendment immunity or special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others (see Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ; Pell v Procunier, 417 US 817 ; Houchins v KQED, 438 US 1 ; Zemel v Rusk, 381 US 1 ; Lewis, A Preferred Position for Journalism?, 7 Hofstra L Rev 595; Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv L Rev 1505; First Amendment as Immunizing Newsman fr 1981News people have no special First Amendment immunity or special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others (see Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ; Pell v Procunier, 417 US 817 ; Houchins v KQED, 438 US 1 ; Zemel v Rusk, 381 US 1 ; Lewis, A Preferred Position for Journalism?, 7 Hofstra L Rev 595; Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv L Rev 1505; First Amendment as Immunizing Newsman from Liability for Tortious Conduct while Gathering News, Ann. 28 ALR Fed 904). | 2 | 1981–1991 |
| Houchins v. KQED, Inc. green | 2 | 1981–1991 |
Pell v. Procunier
green
2 sentences1991Neither the Federal nor State Constitutions condone an unlawful trespass. "[N]ews people do not stand in any favored position with respect to newsgathering activity * * * [They] have no special First Amendment immunity or special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others (see Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ; Pell v Procunier, 417 US 817 ; Houchins v KQED, 438 US 1 ; Zemel v Rusk, 381 US 1 ; Lewis, A Preferred Position for Journalism?, 7 Hofstra L Rev 595; Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv L Rev 1505; First Amendment as Immunizing Newsman fr 1981News people have no special First Amendment immunity or special privilege to invade the rights and liberties of others (see Branzburg v Hayes, 408 US 665 ; Pell v Procunier, 417 US 817 ; Houchins v KQED, 438 US 1 ; Zemel v Rusk, 381 US 1 ; Lewis, A Preferred Position for Journalism?, 7 Hofstra L Rev 595; Note, The Rights of the Public and the Press to Gather Information, 87 Harv L Rev 1505; First Amendment as Immunizing Newsman from Liability for Tortious Conduct while Gathering News, Ann. 28 ALR Fed 904). | 2 | 1981–1991 |
| Buckley v. Valeo green | 2 | 1988–1990 |
| United States v. James Griggs Raines green | 2 | 1974–1978 |
| Matter of Bilicki v. Syracuse Univ. green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| People v. Bayard green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| The Contributor v. City of Brentwood green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| People v. Perkins green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Michael Caruso v. Yamhill County, an Oregon Municipal Corporation, by and Through Its County Commissioner, and State of Oregon, Intervenor-Appellant green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| People Theatres of New York, Inc. v. City of New York green | 1 | 2011–2011 |
| MATTER OF GUPTILL HOLDING CORP. v. Williams green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Katie Arsberry v. State of Illinois green | 1 | 2009–2009 |
| Bery v. City Of New York green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| In Re Ali green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Boy Scouts of America v. Dale green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Forum For Academic And Institutional Rights v. Rumsfeld green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Brown v. Hartlage green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.