Search for: "Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky"
Results 1 - 20
of 98
Sort by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
22 Apr 2024, 5:00 am
Inst. v. [read post]
11 Apr 2024, 4:05 pm
Rather, much government property is a "nonpublic forum"—a place where some members of the public are invited, but which is "'… not by tradition or designation a forum for public communication'" (Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
12 Jan 2024, 4:05 am
Supreme Court's decision in Minnesota Voters Alliance v.] [read post]
12 Jun 2023, 6:15 am
I think that WiFi access provided by government bodies, such as public universities, government-owned airports, and the like, is a "limited public forum" in which speech restrictions are constitutional only if they are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable; and a "conform to reasonable expectations of propriety" proviso is too vague to be reasonable (see Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
3 Nov 2022, 9:10 am
" Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
22 Sep 2022, 5:01 am
Public Disclosure Commission v. 119 Vote No! [read post]
25 Jul 2022, 5:01 am
Isaacks, 146 S.W.3d 144 (Tex. 2004). [5] See, e.g., Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
18 Jul 2022, 5:55 am
"[4] Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
20 May 2022, 2:29 pm
In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
24 Jan 2022, 10:41 am
City of Shaker Heights (1974) and Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
30 Apr 2021, 1:31 pm
In the 2018 case Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
25 Nov 2020, 8:28 am
" And as the Supreme Court "ha[s] said time and again," "'the public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers.'" Judge Tigar went on to say that the regulation was also not a "reasonable" restriction because "it fails to provide an 'objective, workable standard[]' and so is not 'capable of reasoned application'": In Minnesota… [read post]
18 Nov 2020, 12:05 pm
Several cases also dealt with First Amendment issues surrounding elections in the vein of Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 10:39 am
It's possible that the school might avoid this objection by delineating much more precisely just what counts; but I doubt that it will be any more successful in this than the Minnesota election authorities in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
23 Oct 2020, 10:39 am
It's possible that the school might avoid this objection by delineating much more precisely just what counts; but I doubt that it will be any more successful in this than the Minnesota election authorities in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
[Eugene Volokh] Excluding Transit Ads That "Contain Political Messages" Violates the First Amendment
14 Sep 2020, 12:21 pm
" And, as in Minnesota Voters Alliance, today's Third Circuit decision in Center for Investigative Reporting v. [read post]
11 Jun 2020, 10:26 am
The court found that the rule’s blanket ban on “political” content fails the Supreme Court’s “objective, workable standards” test, as articulated in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
19 Sep 2019, 9:56 am
The Court said so unanimously in Matal v. [read post]
22 May 2019, 7:59 am
" Here is the abstract: On its face, Minnesota Voters Alliance v. [read post]
3 Oct 2018, 12:50 pm
Minnesota Voters Alliance, and the compatibility of the California Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care, and Transparency Act with the First Amendment in NIFLA v. [read post]
