Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
13 canonical passages across 10 cases, quoted by 182 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side: they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. Anchor | green | “when a licensing statute allegedly vests unbridled discretion in a government official over whether to permit or deny expressive activity, one who is subject to the law may challenge it facially without the necessity of first applying for, and being denied, a license.” | 36 |
| 2 | Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham | green | “a law subjecting the exercise of first amendment freedoms to the prior restraint of a license, without narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority, is unconstitutional.” | 32 |
| 3 | City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. | green | “a facial challenge lies whenever a licensing law gives a government official or agency substantial power to discriminate based on the content or viewpoint of speech by suppressing disfavored speech or disliked speakers.” | 23 |
| 4 | Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham | green | “narrow, objective, and definite standards to guide the licensing authority.” | 18 |
| 5 | Bay Area Peace Navy v. United States | green | “an alternative is not ample if the speaker is not permitted to reach the intended audience.” | 14 |
| 6 | Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad | green | “a free society prefers to punish the few who abuse rights of speech after they break the law than to throttle them and all others beforehand.” | 13 |
| 7 | United States v. Grace | green | “the government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited.” | 11 |
| 8 | Freedman v. Maryland | green | “in the area of freedom of expression it is well established that one has standing to challenge a statute on the ground that it delegates overly broad licensing discretion to an administrative office, whether or not his conduct could be proscribed by a properly drawn statute, and…” | 9 |
| 9 | Ronald Newsom Hasan Sharif Eddie J. McMillan and Donald Wolverton v. Steve Norris, Commissioner Michael Dutton, Warden and David Hindman | green | “even minimal infringement upon first amendment values constitutes irreparable injury sufficient to justify injunctive relief.” | 9 |
| 10 | Alan L. Baldwin and George Q. Cannon, Jr. v. Redwood City, Alan L. Baldwin and George Q. Cannon, Jr. v. Redwood City | green | “unrelated to suppression of expression,” | 6 |
| 11 | Scott H. Southworth and Benjamin Thompson v. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System | green | “the prohibition against unbridled discretion is a component of the viewpoint-neutrality requirement.” | 4 |
| 12 | Robert MacDonald v. Chicago Park District | green | “the possibility is too great that it will be exercised in order to suppress disfavored speech.” | 2 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment: for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.