Rossignol v. Voorhaar

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that sheriff's deputies engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they seized an issue of a newspaper that criticized the county sheriff's and his deputies' performance of their official duties
• holding that a sheriff's seizure of an election-day newspaper edition was perpetrated under the color of state law and thus constituted state action
• holding that sheriff’s deputies engaged in viewpoint discrimination when they seized an issue of a newspaper that criticized the county sheriff’s and his deputies’ performance of their official duties
• finding that the requisite nexus between defendants’ public office and their actions during the seizure arose initially out of their censorial motivation
• observing that the-First Amendment “protects both a speaker’s right to communicate information and ideas to a broad audience and the intended recipients’ right to receive that information and those ideas”
• explaining that “the deputies’ identities as state officers played a role at several points during the seizure” and noting the undoubted “effect of a police presence on a store owner or clerk”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).