Harold Hodge v. Pamela Talkin

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the statute’s second clause “does not ‘fail[] to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited’” (alteration in original
• concluding that Supreme Court plaza was not converted into designated public forum based on inconsistent enforcement of prohibition on assembly and display
• concluding that overbreadth challenge was “analytically identical” to plaintiff’s challenge to the reasonableness of the restriction on his speech and declining to separately evaluate the issue
• concluding that statute restricting expressive assemblages at Supreme Court plaza reasonably served government’s interest in avoiding even the “appearance of a Court subject to political pressure” (emphasis in original)
• observing that “the Supreme Court plaza’s status as a nonpublic forum is unaffected by the public’s unrestricted access to the plaza at virtually any time”
• observing that “the Supreme Court plaza’s status as a nonpublic forum is unaffected by the public’s unrestricted access to the plaza at virtually any time”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).