Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
No. 11-954
====================
====================
====================
====================
=======
=======
=======
=======
=========
=========
=========
=========
====
====
====
====
==============
==============
==============
==============
 
I
N
T
HE
 
S
UPREME
C
OURT OF THE
U
NITED
S
TATES
 
B
ULLDOG
I
NVESTORS
G
ENERAL
P
 ARTNERSHIP
,
et al
.
 Petitioners
,v.S
ECRETARY OF THE
C
OMMONWEALTH OF
M
 ASSACHUSETTS
,Respondent
.On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to theSupreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
BRIEF
 AMICI CURIAE 
OF CATO INSTITUTE,COMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE,JOHN BERLAU, DEIRDRE BRENNAN, JAMESMcRITCHIE, ANTONY PAGE, AND ANDREW  WEINMAN IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS
 
I
LYA 
S
HAPIRO
H
 ANS
B
 ADER
 C
 ARL
G.
 
D
E
N
IGRIS
Counsel of Record
 C
 ATO
I
NSTITUTE
C
OMPETITIVE ENTERPRISE
1000
 
Mass. Ave, NW I
NSTITUTE
 Washington, D.C. 20001 1899 L St., NW, 12
th
Floor(202) 842-0200 Washington, D.C. 20036ishapiro@cato.org
 
(202) 331-2278hbader@cei.orgMarch 2012
Counsel for Amici Curiae
 
==============================
==============================
==============================
==============================
=======
=======
=======
=======
====
====
====
====
=============
=============
=============
=============
 
 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageINTEREST OF THE AMICI CURIAE ....................... 1
 
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................... 4
 
 ARGUMENT................................................................ 6
 
I. The State’s Claim That Its Speech BanComplements A Larger Federal RegulatoryScheme Ignores The Many Federal OfficialsWho Have Criticized Such Bans. ........................ 6
 
II. The State’s Interest In Circumventing FederalPreemption Is Not Legitimate, Let AloneSubstantial Enough To Justify RestrictingSpeech. ............................................................... 11
 
III. The State’s Expert Failed To Show The Directand Material Advancement Of GovernmentInterests Needed To Justify The Ban. .............. 14
 
IV. The State’s Alleged Interest In Disclosure Is A Pretext That Cannot Support Its SpeechRestriction. ........................................................ 17
 
 V. The First Amendment Prohibits ArbitraryRestrictions Based On The Identity Of TheSpeaker Or Its Audience. .................................. 18
 
 VI. The Court Below Ignored The SubstantialImpact Of The Challenged Rule OnNoncommercial Speech And That It Was NotNarrowly Tailored. ............................................ 20
 
 VII. A Ban On Truthful Speech Cannot Be Justified As An Incentive For Speakers To Register. ..... 24
 
CONCLUSION .......................................................... 26
 
 
 ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
 
Cases
 
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island
, 517 U.S. 484 (1996).......................................................................... 11, 23
 Basic Inc. v. Levinson
, 485 U.S. 224 (1988) ............. 25
 Bd. of Trustees v. Fox 
, 492 U.S. 469 (1989) .. 20, 21, 24
 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
, 131S.Ct. 2729 (2011)............................................ 1, 3, 15
Chamber of Commerce v. Brown
, 554 U.S. 60 (2008)................................................................................ 13
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah
, 508U.S. 520 (1993) ....................................................... 14
Colo. Christian Univ. v. Weaver
, 534 F.3d 1245 (10
th
 Cir. 2008) ................................................................ 18
 Dollan v. Tigard
, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) ...................... 13
Edenfield v. Fane
, 507 U.S. 761 (1993) .............. 15, 17
Florida Bar v. Went for It, Inc.
, 515 U.S. 618 (1995)................................................................................ 24
Golden State Transit v. Los Angeles
, 475 U.S. 608(1986) ...................................................................... 13
Grayned v. Rockford
, 408 U.S. 104 (1972) ................ 23
Greater New Orleans Broadcasting Ass’n v. UnitedStates
, 527 U.S. 173 (1999)........................ 20, 21, 25
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay Group of Boston
, 515U.S. 557 (1995) ....................................................... 22
Ingersoll-Rand v. McClendon
, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) . 14
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    42 p.
    Shelby County v. Holder
    Cato Institute
    129 Reads
    74 p.
    Ilagan v. Ungacta
    Cato Institute
    88 Reads
    41 p.
    Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
    Cato Institute
    86 Reads
    26 p.
    Lepak v. City of Irving
    Cato Institute
    89 Reads
    40 p.
    Kerr v. Hickenlooper
    Cato Institute
    75 Reads
    31 p.
    Kachalsky v. Cacace
    Cato Institute
    105 Reads
    17 p.
    Salinas v. Texas
    Cato Institute
    115 Reads
    35 p.
    Hollingsworth v. Perry
    Cato Institute
    82 Reads
    25 p.
    United States v. Windsor
    Cato Institute
    112 Reads
    23 p.
    Sekhar v. United States
    Cato Institute
    68 Reads
    19 p.
    City of Tombstone v. United States
    Cato Institute
    70 Reads
    20 p.
    Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States
    Cato Institute
    81 Reads
    19 p.
    Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society I...
    Cato Institute
    81 Reads
    30 p.
    United States v. Kebodeaux
    Cato Institute
    90 Reads
    37 p.
    Brandt v. United States
    Cato Institute
    158 Reads
    7 p.
    Infrastructure Investment: A State, Local, and Private Responsibility
    Cato Institute
    98 Reads
    52 p.
    Spending Beyond Our Means: How We Are Bankrupting Future Generations
    Cato Institute
    82 Reads
    27 p.
    The Use of Public Assistance Benefits by Citizens and Non-citizen ...
    Cato Institute
    98 Reads
    6 p.
    License to Drill: The Case for Modernizing America's Crude Oil and ...
    Cato Institute
    119 Reads
    4 p.
    The Challenges of Negotiating a Transatlantic Trade and Investment...
    Cato Institute
    132 Reads
    8 p.
    Poor Immigrants Use Public Benefits at a Lower Rate than Poor Nativ...
    Cato Institute
    84 Reads
    2 p.
    OECD Launches New Effort to Undermine Tax Competition
    Cato Institute
    88 Reads
    64 p.
    50 Vetoes: How States Can Stop the Obama Health Care Law
    Cato Institute
    77 Reads
    36 p.
    A Rational Response to the Privacy "Crisis"
    Cato Institute
    90 Reads
    28 p.
    China, America, and the Pivot to Asia
    Cato Institute
    84 Reads
    Notes
    Load more