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.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 65 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 United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. Anchor | green | “if a less restrictive alternative would serve the government's purpose, the legislature must use that alternative.” | 37 |
| 2 | United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. | green | “when a plausible, less restrictive alternative is offered to a content-based speech restriction, it is the government's obligation to prove that the alternative will be ineffective to achieve its goals.” | 22 |
| 3 | Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union | green | “least restrictive means among available, effective alternatives.” | 6 |
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.