The city of Pittsburgh passed a ordinance that created both a 15-foot buffer zone and a 100-foot bubble zone around hospitals and abortion clinics. A pro-life protester challenged the ordinance under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment and Pennsylvania’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In a complicated ruling, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the combination of the two zones was unconstitutional, while ruling against the protester on some other arguments.
As explained by the court:
“When defendant Department of Civil Service announced that it would recognize the parties to a same-sex marriage as spouses if their marriage were valid in the jurisdiction where it was solemnized, thereby allowing such spouses of state employees access to the benefits provided under the New York State Health Insurance Program . . . plaintiffs commenced this action as individual taxpayers seeking a declaration that the Department’s recognition of such marriages is illegal, unconstitutional and results in the unlawful disbursement of public funds.”
There are two arguments being addressed: First, the City of Zachary is squelching free speech and the Court below appropriately issued a preliminary injunction, enjoining this violation of Mr. Netherland’s constitutional rights. Second, the District Court correctly noted that the protestors in Ovadal were protesting on a pedestrian overpass and the police were called because the signs were causing traffic problems. The District Court reasoned that there was a significant difference between holding a sign on an overpass, and speaking on an open easement.
The California Legislature has the duty under Article IX, section 1 under the California Constitution to use “all suitable means” to promote education “which is essential to the preservation of the rights and liberties of the people.” However, trampling a parent’s Free Exercise Rights is not a suitable means. Thus to interpret the statute in such a way as to severely restrict Christian parents’ rights to home-school their children violates the constitutional mandate.
Following a period of national attention, the Washington Board of Pharmacy issued a regulation that effectively excluded a right of conscience for pharmacists who could not fill Plan B prescriptions because of their religious convictions. One of the arguments that Appellees presented in their Motion for Preliminary Injunction was that the Board was denying pharmacists the same fundamental right that other health care professionals enjoyed in contravention of the two statutes, and that denial was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The District Court erred because a Heckler’s Veto can not be employed to foreclose Freedom of Speech. In addition, the District Court erred because school administrators are diluting Nuxoll’s message by restricting his chosen message, and because school officials are compelling speech by refusing to allow Nuxoll to express any message which is not tolerant of homosexuality. Finally, the District Court erred because it misconstrued several of this court’s precedents.
The District Court erred in treating numerous “ultimate” facts and sociological judgments as findings of fact. This court should reverse the District Court because the fundamental right to marry only includes opposite-sex marriage. The District Court also erred in Citing Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Lawrence.
The District Court should be reversed in the following instances: First, Congress’s primary purpose was reducing the military forces and encouraging early retirement; Second, the Secretary of Defense acted Ultra Vires in promulgating the regulation of organizations that former service personnel could work.
The District Court erred when it held that Mr. Byrne withdrew his facial challenge to the statute and regulations at the preliminary injunction stage. Second, Amicus expands upon Mr. Byrne’s discussion regarding the statute’s viewpoint discrimination. Amicus’s argument is compatible with, but different from, Mr. Byrne’s argument concerning viewpoint discrimination.