Steve Gomez v. the State of Texas

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that Illinois’ political committee definition’s “limit of ‘on behalf of or in opposition to’ confines the realm of regulated activity to expenditures and contributions within the core area of genuinely campaign-related transactions”
• recognizing facial challenges to vague or overbroad statutes having a “substantial effect on constitutionally protected activity”
• stating that plaintiffs must show that they \face[ ] a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute's operation or enforcement\
• recognizing that the plaintiff may show only that she faces “a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s op- eration of enforcement” and that “the chilling of protected speech may thus alone qualify” as an injury in fact
• recognizing that the plaintiff may show only that she faces “a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s op- eration of enforcement” and that “the chilling of protected speech may thus alone qualify” as an injury in fact
• explaining that the vagueness doctrine prohibits the enforcement of laws that “fail[ ] to provide a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or [are] so standardless that [they] authorize[ ] or encourage[ ] seriously discriminatory enforcement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).