D.C. Circuit· 6/21/2011

Mahoney v. Doe

Citations

642 F.3d 1112
395 U.S. App. D.C. 291
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 12478
2011 WL 2451014

How courts have described this case

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

noting that although plaintiffs could not chalk, they could still spread religious message through picketing
finding that chalk art qualified as speech in a public forum—a closed road akin to a sidewalk—when “the defacement at issue is temporary and can be cured”
noting that the statute at issue criminalized conduct that is “clearly 21 expressive,” including “painting, drawing, or writing,” as well as conduct “like 1 vandalizing or physically damaging property” which is “primarily destructive and 2 only secondarily expressive”
rejecting plaintiff’s argument that RLUIPA overruled Henderson I by amending RFRA’s definition of “exercise of religion”
the plaintiff had ample alternative means of spreading his religious message besides chalking the sidewalk in front of the White House
Defacement Ordinance “is indisputably content neutral” because it bans activities “without reference to the message the speaker wishes to convey”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Henderson, Brown, Kavanaugh

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

50 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

31 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.