Marcy v. Matanuska-Susitna Borough

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that “prospective violation[s] of . . . constitutional right[s] constitute[] irreparable injury for [equitable-relief] purposes” (internal quotation marks omitted)
• explaining that the “protection of fair notice” applies when the plaintiff’s interest in “a White House press pass . . . undoubtedly qualifies as a protected liberty interest” (citation omit- ted and cleaned up)
• upholding injunction against Press Secretary but not President when plaintiff did not rebut defendants’ contention that relief could not run against President
• concerning a “month-long loss of . . . White House access”
• “Forty years on [from Sherrill], today’s hard pass system is little changed . . . .”
• “The Constitution, however, does not permit [the government] to prioritize any policy goal over the Due Process Clause, and enforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).