Citation network
Alexander Vs. United States
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jan 12, 1993
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
-
Alexander v. UnitedSearch
-
States - 509 U.S. 544 (1993) October Term, 1992 Syllabus Alexander V. UnitedSearch
-
orders forbidding certain communications that are issued before the communications occur. See, e. g., Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
on suspicion of being obscene without a prior judicial obscenity determination, as occurred in, e. g., Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
were his assets ordered forfeited without the requisite procedural safeguards. 545 Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. IndianaSearch
-
U. S. 46 , distinguished. His claim is also inconsistent with Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
from the statutes at issue in this Court's overbreadth cases. Cf., e. g., Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. JewsforSearch
-
can be regulated or actually proscribed consistent with the Amendment, see, e. g., Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
through racketeering activity.l The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's forfeiture order. Alexander v. ThornburghSearch
-
Id., at 836 (quoting United States v. PrybaSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
different from the injunction prohibiting the publication of expressive material found to be a prior restraint in Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
of what constitutes a prior restraint is borne out by our cases, even those on which petitioner relies. In Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
involved a true restraint on future speech-a permanent injunction. So, too, did Organization for a Better Austin v. KeefeSearch
-
U. S. 415 (1971), and Vance v. UniversalSearch
-
future exhibition of films that have not yet been found to be obscene. 445 U. S., at 31lo See also New York Times Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
suspected of being obscene without a prior judicial determination that they were in fact so. See, e. g., Marcus v. SearchSearch
-
Quantity of Copies of Books v. KansasSearch
-
safeguards, another recurring theme in our prior restraint cases. Contrasting this case with Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. IndianaSearch
-
statute operated as an unconstitutional prior restraint in this case is also inconsistent with our decision in Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
of the principle of freedom of speech was held inconsistent with our First Amendment as long ago as Grosjean v. AmericanSearch
-
providing greater protection from prior restraints than from subsequent punishments, see Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. ConradSearch
-
which church censor. See generally T. Emerson, System of Freedom of Expression 504 (1970). Beginning with Near v. MinnesotaSearch
-
for prepublication review, but also injunctions against future speech issued by judges. See Pittsburgh Press Co. v. PittsburghSearch
-
to statutes that impose severe prison sentences and fines as punishment for obscenity offenses. See, e. g., Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
Smith v. UnitedSearch
-
if he himself has engaged in speech that could be regulated under a more narrowly drawn statute. See, e. g., Broadrick v. OklahomaSearch
-
City Council of Los Angeles v. TaxpayersSearch
-
different from the statutes at issue in our overbreadth cases. Cf., e. g., Board of Airport Comm'rs of Los Angeles v. JewsSearch
-
U. S., at 60 (quoting Smith v. CaliforniaSearch
-
have a far more powerful deterrent effect on protected speech than the prospect of any sort of forfeiture. Cf. Blanton v. NorthSearch
-
Tribune Co. v. MinnesotaSearch
-
can be regulated or actually proscribed consistent with the First Amendment, see, e. g., Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
Miller v. CaliforniaSearch
-
Austin v. UnitedSearch
-
accord, Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. KelcoSearch
-
regulated and punished, within proper limitations, without violating the First Amendment. See, e. g., New York v. FerberSearch
-
Roth v. UnitedSearch
-
stringent fines and jail terms as punishments for violations of the federal obscenity laws. See Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. IndianaSearch
-
Ginzburg v. UnitedSearch
-
or it would have been unnecessary for us to reserve the specific question four Terms ago in Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. IndianaSearch
-
Although in personam forfeiture statutes were well grounded in the English common law, see Calero-Toledo v. PearsonSearch
-
articles put to unlawful use, or in its broadest reach, to proceeds traceable to unlawful activity. See United States v. ParcelSearch
-
Russello v. UnitedSearch
-
methods of punishment. The Court says that, taken together, our decisions in Fort Wayne Books and Arcara v. CloudSearch
-
that is close to the proscribed line, speech which is entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. See Speiser v. RandallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial