United States v. City of Arcata

How courts have described this case

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

• holding officials’ “promise of self-restraint does not affect our consideration of the ordinances’ validity” under preemption doctrine
• applying the nondiscrimination rule to ordinances that “specifically target and restrict the conduct of military recruiters” (emphasis added)
• finding standing where plaintiff was “target of the challenged government action” and the challenged action “require[d plaintiffs] to alter their conduct.”
• applying the nondiscrimination rule to ordinances that “specifically target and restrict the conduct of military recruiters” (emphasis added)
• invalidating local ordinances prohibiting military recruiters from contacting teenagers because the ordinances “s[ought] to directly regulate the conduct of agents of the federal government”
• invalidating local ordinances prohibiting military recruiters from contacting teenagers because the ordinances “s[ought] to directly regulate the conduct of agents of the federal government”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).