Mary Serafine v. Tim Branaman

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 Texas State Board of Examiners of Psychologists violated a candidate’s First Amendment rights by forbidding her from using the title “psychologist” in her campaign
• explaining that a statute is overbroad under the First Amendment \if 'a substantial number of its applications are unconstitutional' \ (quoting United States v. Stevens , 559 U.S. 460 , 473, 130 S.Ct. 1577 , 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) )
• declining to address the overbreadth of a statute found invalid as applied to plaintiff
• “By electing not to press air as-applied challenge ... [plaintiff] clears the way for us to consider her over-breadth challenge.”
• “We decline to give [an overbroad statute] an additional extra-textual limiting construction in a frantic attempt to rescue it.”
• “[L]itigants are permitted to raise both as-applied and overbreadth challenges in First Amendment cases[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).