Edwards v. District of Columbia

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that to prevail on as-applied free-speech challenge, plaintiff must show statute is unconstitutional as applied to her particular expressive activity
• finding a law that lacked narrow tailoring was not unique to the challengers and invalidating it both facially and as-applied
• declining to credit other circuits’ opinions where they “g[i]ve cursory treatment to[] significant legal issues” (citations omitted)
• declining to credit other circuits’ opinions where they “g[i]ve cursory treatment to[ ]significant legal issues” (citations omitted)
• assuming, in a post-McCullen decision, the “validity of [D.C.’s] argument that [its tour guide] regulations [were] content-neutral”
• finding “no evidence ill-informed' guides are indeed a problem for the District’s tourism industry,” and that the government failed to address why mar ket incentives were insufficient to protect consumers

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).