American Civil Liberties Union v. Mukasey

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that under the law of the case doctrine, “when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• stating that “those conclusions [that did not depend on the factual record] remain binding on us now”
• noting that “[i]f a preliminary injunction appeal presents a question of law and the facts are established or of no controlling relevance, the panel may decide the merits of the claim”
• affirming permanent injunction indefinitely prohibiting the Attorney General from enforcing the Child Online Protection Act (COPA)
• affirming a district court’s conclusion that “COPA is not narrowly tailored because it is both overinclusive and underinclusive”
• affirming district court's conclusion that pornography restriction was not narrowly tailored where lower court had found that the statute was overinclusive

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).