Boardley v. United States Department of the Interior

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “a future as-applied challenge could argue” that a denial of a permit was “pretext for content-based discrimination”
• noting that a forum analysis—about national parks no less—is a “fact-intensive question which cannot be answered in the absence of evidentiary submissions”
• reversing a district court’s grant of summary judgment after engaging in an extensive factual and legal analysis of the government’s interests in 13 regulating speech
• endorsing undisputed argument that protecting national park property from damage was a substantial government interest
• finding significant governmental interests in protecting the national parks’ natural and cultural resources, protecting visitors, and avoiding interference with park activities
• striking down regulations re- quiring permits to engage in expressive activities in national parks as “overbroad and not narrowly tailored” because they imposed “substantial burdens on individuals and small groups—burdens which the government has failed to justify”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).