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.
8 canonical passages across 7 cases, quoted by 394 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 Alexander v. United States.
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Alexander v. United States Anchor | green | “the term prior restraint is used to describe administrative and judicial orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur.” | 122 |
| 2 | City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co. | 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.” | 95 |
| 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.” | 67 |
| 4 | 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…” | 37 |
| 5 | Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad | green | “public officials the power to deny use of a forum in advance of actual expression.” | 35 |
| 6 | 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.” | 20 |
| 7 | Samuel C. Balderman, M.D. v. United States Veterans Administration and Veterans Administration Medical Center | green | “res judicata ... prevents the subsequent litigation of any ground of recovery that was available in the prior action, whether or not it was actually litigated or determined.” | 13 |
| 8 | Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc. | green | “strong presumption of severability.” | 5 |
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.