Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Boos Vs. Barry

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 22, 1988

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

68 entries 8 linked 60 unlinked
Show
  1. New York Times Co. Vs. Sullivan US Supreme Court · Mar 09, 1964
  2. United States Vs. Grace US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1983
  3. Hustler Magazine, Inc. Vs. Falwell US Supreme Court · Feb 24, 1988
  4. Gooding Vs. Wilson US Supreme Court · Mar 23, 1972
  5. Schneider Vs. Smith US Supreme Court · Jan 16, 1968
  6. Connick Vs. Myers US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1983
  7. Kolender Vs. Lawson US Supreme Court · May 02, 1983
  8. New York Vs. Ferber US Supreme Court · Jul 02, 1982
  9. U.S. 312 (1988) U.S. Supreme Court Boos v. Barry
    Search
  10. U.S. 312 (1988) Boos v. Barry
    Search
  11. law obligation to shield diplomats from speech that offends their dignity, the clause is content-neutral under Renton v. Playtime
    Search
  12. government or its policies. The display clause applies only to the display of signs, not to the spoken word. See Zaimi v. United
    Search
  13. common Page 485 U. S. 317 law defines as an assemblage of three or more people. District of Columbia v. Reed
    Search
  14. Cr. No. 2021-67 (D.C.Ct.Gen.Sess., May 11, 1967) (reprinted in App. in Kinoy v. District
    Search
  15. Hunter v. District
    Search
  16. Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment, relying upon an earlier Court of Appeals decision, Frend v. United
    Search
  17. First Amendment challenge. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed. Finzer v. Barry
    Search
  18. clause was a content-based restriction on speech. Relying, however, upon our decisions in Perry Education Assn. v. Perry
    Search
  19. Local Educators' Assn., 460 U. S. 37 , 460 U. S. 45 (1983), and Carey v. Brown
    Search
  20. and have consistently commented on the central importance of protecting speech on public issues. See, e.g., Connick v. Myers
    Search
  21. NAACP v. Claiborne
    Search
  22. This has led us to scrutinize carefully any restrictions on public issue picketing. See, e.g., United States v. Grace
    Search
  23. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
    Search
  24. Hague v. CIO
    Search
  25. based, a label with potential First Amendment ramifications of its own, see, e.g., City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers
    Search
  26. Schacht v. United
    Search
  27. Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public
    Search
  28. Page 485 U. S. 320 We most recently considered the definition of a content-neutral statute in Renton v. Playtime
    Search
  29. as those that 'are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.' Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia
    Search
  30. Perry Education Assn. v. Perry
    Search
  31. Cornelius v. NAACP
    Search
  32. ante at 485 U. S. 56 . See also e.g., New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  33. a less restrictive alternative is readily available. Cf. Wygant v. Jackson
    Search
  34. task is to ascertain whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct. Houston v. Hill
    Search
  35. Hoffman Estates v. Flipside
    Search
  36. we consider the actual text of the statute as well as any limiting constructions that have been developed. Kolender v. Lawson
    Search
  37. at 1472, n. 17. Second, the Court of Appeals followed the lead of several earlier decisions, see, e.g., United States v. Travers
    Search
  38. construction of a state statute unless such a construction is reasonable and readily apparent. See, e.g., Grayned v. Rockford
    Search
  39. was enacted by Congress, not by the District of Columbia Council. Cf. Whalen v. United
    Search
  40. the power to adopt Page 485 U. S. 331 narrowing constructions of federal legislation. See, e.g., New York v. Ferber
    Search
  41. United States v. Thirty-seven
    Search
  42. regulates the place and manner of certain demonstrations. Unlike a general breach of the peace statute, see, e.g., Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  43. it applies only within 500 feet of foreign embassies. Cf. Cox v. Louisiana
    Search
  44. and the congregation clause, petitioners raise an equal protection argument. Relying on Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley
    Search
  45. U. S. 92 (1972), and Carey v. Brown
    Search
  46. should be construed to avoid constitutional questions if such a construction is fairly possible. See, e.g., New York v. Ferber
    Search
  47. O'CONNOR's opinion. I also join Part II-A to the extent it concludes that, even under the analysis set forth in Renton v. Playtime
    Search
  48. U.S. Supreme Court Boos v. Barry
    Search
  49. Renton v. Playtime
    Search
  50. See Zaimi v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial