Supreme Court· 1/15/2002

Thomas v. Chicago Park District

Citations

534 U.S. 316
122 S. Ct. 775
151 L. Ed. 2d 783
2002 U.S. LEXIS 488

How courts have described this case

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

holding that while the challenged ordinance constituted a prior restraint, it was nevertheless constitutional because it contained adequate procedural safeguards and objective standards to guide the hand of the decisionmaker.
suggesting that a licensing scheme targeting only those businesses purveying sexually explicit speech is not content neutral
noting that even if an ordinance is facially valid, it vio- lates the constitution if applied in a content- or viewpoint- discriminatory fashion
approving of licensing standards that are “limited by [their] terms, or by nondiscriminatory practice, to [content- neutral] considerations . . . .”
approving a municipality’s use of permits that were designed, at least in part, “to assure financial accountability for damage caused by [an] event”
premising unbridled discretion doctrine on risk that “licensing official . . . will favor or disfavor speech based on its content”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Scalia

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

329 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

18 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Thomas v. Chicago Park District

3 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.