Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
2Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Locke v. Shore, Cato Legal Briefs

Locke v. Shore, Cato Legal Briefs

Ratings: (0)|Views: 263 |Likes:
Published by Cato Institute

More info:

Published by: Cato Institute on Oct 21, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/10/2013

pdf

text

original

 
No. 11-348I
N
T
HE
Supreme Court of the United States
EVA 
 
LOCKE,
ET AL
.,
 Petitioners,
v.
JOYCE
 
SHORE,
ET AL
.,
Respondents.
On Petition for a Writ of CertiorariTo The United States Court of AppealsFor the Eleventh CircuitBRIEF OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION ANDCATO INSTITUTEIN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
T
IMOTHY 
S
 ANDEFUR
 P
 ACIFIC
L
EGAL
F
OUNDATION
 930 G St.Sacramento, CA 95814Telephone: (916) 419-7111tsandefur@pacificlegal.orgI
LYA 
S
HAPIRO
 P
 AUL
J
OSSEY 
 C
 ATO
I
NSTITUTE
 1000 Mass. Ave., N.W.Washington, D.C. 20001Telephone: (202) 842-0200ishapiro@cato.orgT
HOMAS
G.
 
H
UNGAR
 
Counsel of Record
T
U
-Q
UYEN
P
HAM
 R
 YAN
C
 ARD
 G
IBSON
,
 
D
UNN
&
 
C
RUTCHER
 LLP1050 Connecticut Ave., N.W.Washington,
 
D.C.
 
20036Telephone:
 
(202)
 
955-8500
 
thungar@gibsondunn.com
Counsel for Amici Curiae
 
i
QUESTION PRESENTED
Whether the First Amendment imposes anydegree of scrutiny on governmental licensing of “direct, personalized speech with clients.”
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTSPageQUESTION PRESENTED ....................................... i
 
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES................................... iv
 
INTEREST OF
 AMICI CURIAE 
............................. 1
 
STATEMENT ............................................................. 2
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .................................. 2
 
 ARGUMENT .............................................................. 4
 
I.
 
The Decision Below Contradicts ThisCourt’s Holding in
United States v.Stevens
By Creating a Broad, NewCategory of Unprotected Speech. ................... 5
 
 A.
 
The Practice of Interior Design Is Artistic Expression, and ThusNot “Historically Unprotected.” ................ 5
 
B.
 
There Is No Historical Basis ForExempting “Direct, PersonalizedSpeech With Clients” FromFirst Amendment Scrutiny…. ..................... 7
 
II.
 
The Decision Below Contravenes ThisCourt’s Precedents By PermittingOverbroad, Content-Based PriorRestraints on Speech Without Any First Amendment Scrutiny .................... 11
 
 A.
 
The Decision Below Violates ThisCourt’s Requirement of NarrowlyTailored Restrictions of Expression. ...... 12
 

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->