US v. Stevens
| Citation | 176 L. Ed. 2d 435,130 S.Ct. 1577 |
| Decision Date | 06 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-769.,08-769. |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Robert J. STEVENS. |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
Neal K. Katyal, for Petitioner.
Patricia A. Millett, for Respondent.
Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Lisa B. Freeland, Michael J. Novara, Karen Sirianni Gerlach, Pittsburgh, PA, Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Washington, DC, Patricia A. Millett, Thomas C. Goldstein, Kevin R. Amer, Monica P. Sekhon, Faith E. Barter, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP, Washington, DC, Jeffrey L. Fisher, Stanford, CA, for Respondent.
Elena Kagan, Lanny A. Breuer, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Vicki S. Marani, Washington, D.C., for Petitioner.
Congress enacted 18 U.S.C.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lewis v. Alexander
......And to the extent the agency is pleading for a chance to interpret the statute more leniently than the statute's text might suggest, we question whether we can credit such an interpretation. As the Supreme Court said in United States v. Stevens, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1591, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010): “We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the Government promised to use it responsibly.” Second, the stipulated facts cite multiple attempts to enforce provisions of the statute. ......
-
American Civil Liberties Union v. Holder
......“To succeed in a typical facial attack,” litigants must “establish ‘that no set of circumstances exists under which [the law] would be valid.’ ” United States v. Stevens, ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1587, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) (citations omitted). While relaxed standards apply to First Amendment claims that a statute is overbroad, the majority correctly notes that Appellant has made no such claim here. Op. 254 n. 7; App. Br. 5. ......
-
Larson v. City
......( Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of U.S., Inc. (1984) 466 U.S. 485, 504 [104 S.Ct. 1949, 80 L.Ed.2d 502].)" ( Huntingdon Life Sciences, Inc. v. Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty USA, Inc. (2005) 129 Cal.App.4th 1228, 1249, 29 Cal.Rptr.3d 521; see also United States v. Stevens (2010) --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1584, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 ( Stevens ) [speech restrictions are constitutionally permitted " 'in a few limited areas,' " including obscenity, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct]; United States v. Williams (2008) 553 U.S. 285, 297-298, ......
-
Anderson v. City Of Hermosa Beach
...... Thus, although pure speech is entitled to First Amendment protection unless it falls within one of the “categories of speech .. fully outside the protection of the First Amendment,” United States v. Stevens, --- U.S. ----, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 1586, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010); see also Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571-72, 62 S.Ct. 766, 86 L.Ed. 1031 (1942), conduct intending to express an idea is constitutionally protected only if it is “sufficiently imbued with elements of communication ......
-
Stolen Valor and Freedom of Speech: An Analysis of How Federal Law Should Criminalize the Wearing of Unearned Military Awards
...conduct (such as crush and dogfighting videos), the Court held it to be unconstitutionally overbroad. 82 73. United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1587 (2010) (quoting Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449 n.6 (2008)) (internal quotation marks omitted). ......
-
The constitutionality of social cost.
...violent crimes than are other law-abiding citizens." (citations omitted)); Skoien, 614 F.3d at 641. (533.) United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1584 (2010) (finding that obscenity, defamation, incitement, and so on are among the few "well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech......
-
The Supreme Court and political speech in the 21st century: the implications of Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
...Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207, 1213 (2011) (ruling that picketing near funerals is First Amendment-protected); and United States v. Stevens, 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1582 (2010) (striking down law criminalizing animal cruelty videos). The tenth case upheld a commercial speech claim by striking down a Ver......
-
Table of cases
..., 664 F.3d 954 (5th Cir. 2011), §6:13 United States v. Squirrel , 588 F.3d 207, 215-16 (4th Cir. 2009), §3:29 United States v. Stevens , 130 S. Ct. 1577, 1591 (2010), §10:09 United States v. Straub , 538 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008), §15:06 A-10 Table of Cases Table of Cases Table of Cases Uni......