Thomas v. Chicago Park District

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).