Dieter H.M. Troster v. Pennsylvania State Department of Corrections Joseph D. Lehman, Commissioner Frederick Rosemeyer, Superintendent Dieter Troster

How courts have described this case

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

• noting the difference between an observer's independent inference from an actor's behavior and an observer's receipt of a nonverbal message intentionally sent by the actor
• rejecting corrections officer's claim that regulation requiring wearing of an American flag patch violated First Amendment by compelling him to engage in expressive conduct
• rejecting corrections officer’s claim that regulation requiring wearing of an American flag patch violated First Amendment by compelling him to engage in expressive conduct
• noting the difference between an observer’s independent inference from an actor’s behavior and an observer’s ' receipt of a nonverbal message intentionally sent by the actor
• rejecting expressive-conduct claim where conduct did not “relay any message (ideological or otherwise) to anyone”
• describing cases where involuntary servitude had been recognized, such as in “labor camps, isolated religious sects, or forced confinement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).