United States v. David Bronstein
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion for the Court filed by
Circuit Judge BROWN.
As we recently said, “[f]or more than sixty-five years, a federal statute has restricted the public’s conduct of expressive activity within the building and grounds of the Supreme Court.” Hodge v. Talkin, 799 F.3d 1145, 1149 (D.C. Cir. 2015). The statute at issue in Hodge — a fraternal twin of the one at issue here, see, e.g., S. Rep. No. 81-719, at 1828 (1949) — was challenged under the Constitution’s void-for-vagueness doctrine. We rejected that claim. See 799 F.3d at 1171-73. Now, we consider whether portions of its statutory sibling are…
2Cases cited24 opinions
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Johnson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 2015
- Grayned v. City of RockfordSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Roth v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
19 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by75 opinions
- Federal Express Corporation v. U.S. Department of CommerceCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2022
- Milwaukee District Council 48 v. Milwaukee CountyWisconsin Supreme Court · 2019
- United States v. Rodney ClassCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- Daryl Agnew v. Government of the District of ColumbiaCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2019
- State v. MattesonNebraska Supreme Court · 2023
70 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.