Legal Opinion
United States v. Frandsen
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Decided May 25, 2000No. 98-2174PublishedCited by 95 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CARNES, Circuit Judge:
This appeal presents us with the issue of the constitutionality of a federal regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 2.51 (reprinted in appendix), which requires persons to obtain a permit before making “public expressions of views” in national parks. Marvin Frandsen and Bryan Morris (“defendants”) were arrested and convicted for protesting without a permit at the Canaveral National Seashore (“the park”), a national park, in violation of 36 C.F.R. § 1.6. They challenged on its face the constitutionality of 36 C.F.R. § 2.51, which required them to obtain a permit prior to their protest.…
2Cases cited34 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Ward v. Rock Against RacismSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Perry Education Ass'n v. Perry Local Educators' Ass'nSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Washington v. GlucksbergSupreme Court of the United States · 1997
- Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. CaseySupreme Court of the United States · 1992
29 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by95 opinions
- Bloedorn v. GrubeCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2011
- Dennis Reeves Cooper v. Gordon A. DillonCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2005
- Larry Horton v. City of St. AugustineCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2001
- Granite State Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. City of ClearwaterCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2003
- Jim Barrett v. Walker County School DistrictCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · 2017
90 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.