Arizona Right to Life Political Action Committee v. Betsy Bayless Janet Napolitano, in Her Official Capacity as the Arizona Attorney General

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a right-to-life political action committee, whose primary purpose was to present political advertising, had standing to challenge a state election statute that placed limitations on political advertising within ten days before an election
• holding that a right-to-life political action committee, whose primary purpose was to present political advertising, had standing to challenge a state election statute that placed limitations on political advertising within ten days before an election
• holding a state statute restricting only expenditures which expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate to be a content-based restriction
• holding a state statute restricting only expenditures which expressly advocate election or defeat of a candidate to be a content-based restriction
• holding that the plaintiff had standing to challenge a statute because the state had given no indication that the law would not be enforced and the plaintiff “faced a reasonable risk that it would be subject to civil penalties for violation of the statute”
• finding that the plaintiff was forced to modify its behavior to comply with a state statute regulating speech, which was sufficient to establish the injury-in-fact requirement of standing

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).