People v. Faust-Gadsden

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 NEA may make content-based judgments in awarding grants as such judgments \are a consequence of the nature of arts funding\
• holding that the NEA may make content-based judgments in awarding grants as such judgments \are a consequence of the nature of arts funding\
• holding that the NEA may consider content in awarding grants as such judgments \are a consequence of the nature of arts funding\
• holding that facial invalidation is manifestly strong medicine to be employed sparingly and only as a last resort
• holding that the National Endowment for the Arts may decide who to subsidize based on aesthetic value of artworks because a subsidy is not a regulation on who can speak
• holding that the National Endowment for the Arts may decide who to subsidize based on aesthetic value of artworks because a subsidy is not a regulation on who can speak

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).