Armstrong v. District of Columbia Public Library

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that library regulation prohibiting the entry of persons exhibiting an “objectionable appearance” was overbroad
• recognizing that “access to a public library [ ] is at the core of our First Amendment values”
• granting summary judgment against library under Section 1983 for adopting and enforcing policy that permitted banning library patrons based on appearance alone
• finding, that “the Board of Library Trustees has not been granted the authority to sue or defend' suits” because there was no explicit authorizing language in the statute
• striking for vagueness a regulation prohibiting “objectionable” appearance in a library
• striking down the District of Columbia Public Library’s appearance regulation, which allowed library personnel to refuse 9 entry to patrons with an “objectionable appearance,” because the regulation depended “only upon subjective interpretation of the term ‘objectionable’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).