State v. Economic Freedom Fund
Indiana Supreme Court
1DissentSullivan, Justice
Like Special Judge Kenneth G. Todd, I believe that application of the live-operator requirement in the present case imposes a material burden on political speech in violation of Art. I, § 9, of the Indiana Constitution.1 And I further believe that appli*808cation of this requirement violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. I therefore respectfully dissent.
I
In Price v. State, we held that Art. I, § 9, of the Indiana Constitution enshrines political speech as a core value — one of a cluster of essential values within our Bill of Rights that the Legislature may not “materially…
2Cases cited50 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Cantwell v. ConnecticutSupreme Court of the United States · 1940
- United States v. O'BrienSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
45 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.