6 canonical passages across 4 cases, quoted by 22 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 Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky Anchor | green | “capable of reasoned application.” | 7 |
| 2 | City of Richmond v. Confrere Club of Richmond, Virginia, Inc. | green | “higher education is a government objective (although not the exclusive province of government).” | 3 |
| 3 | Center for Investigative Repor v. SEPTA | green | “public issue' advertising, defined as advertising 'expressing or advocating an opinion, position, or viewpoint on matters of public debate about economic, political, religious or social issues.” | 3 |
| 4 | Center for Investigative Repor v. SEPTA | green | “set the outer limit of what a state may proscribe,” | 3 |
| 5 | Scott v. Henrich | green | “adopt 'objective, workable standards' to achieve its permissible ends.” | 3 |
| 6 | Scott v. Henrich | green | “political or political campaign advertising” | 3 |
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.