Legal Opinion · Dissent

Roulette v. City of Seattle

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided March 18, 1996No. 94-35354Published

1DissentPregerson, Circuit Judge

Two aspects of the majority opinion are troublesome. First, the majority requires plaintiffs mounting a First Amendment challenge to show that the challenged ordinance restricts conduct that is “integral to, or commonly associated with, expression.” Maj. at 305. Second, the majority fails to analyze Seattle’s sidewalk ordinance under traditional time, place, and manner standards.

I

Seattle’s sidewalk ordinance bans lying or sitting on sidewalks in the city’s business areas between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. SMC § 15.48.040(A).1 The sidewalk ordinance thus makes it illegal for people…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  2. Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
  3. Olmstead v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1928
  4. Haguer v. Committee for Industrial OrganizationSupreme Court of the United States · 1939
  5. Members of the City Council of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for VincentSupreme Court of the United States · 1984

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API