ÃÛÌÒÖ±²¥

In a 6–3 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled the City of Austin regulation against off-premise digital signs was content-neutral and thus protected under the First Amendment.

Amendments to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act created exemptions to a ban on robocalls, and the Supreme Court ruled those amendments violated the First Amendment.

Iancu v. Brunetti is a Supreme Court case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act and unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

The Supreme Court affirmed that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Can the U.S. government require U.S.-based NGOs to explicitly oppose prostitution and sex trafficking as a condition of receiving federal funding for global HIV/AIDS programs?

The Supreme Court reversed the Montana Supreme Court's decision that the broad free speech protections given to corporations in Citizens United v. FEC do not apply to Montana's campaign finance laws.

Does Vermont's mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo?

Does the First Amendment require strict scrutiny when a state compels the public release of identifying information about petition signers?

Does the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, as applied to attorneys, restrict commercial speech by requiring mandatory disclosures in advertisements, and thus violate First Amendment free speech rights?

The Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. 983(b)(1), withholds specified federal funds from institutions of higher education that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses and students that they provide to other employers. The question presented is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment's equal access condition on federal funding likely violates the First Amendment to the Constitution and in directing a preliminary injunction to be issued against its enforcement.

Did the 8th Circuit err in holding that the 1985 Beef Promotion & Research Act, and regulations promulgated there under which impose assessments on beef producers and importers to fund research, education, and promotional activities carried out by special administrative bodies created by Congress for the express purpose of furthering important governmental objectives under direct supervision of Secretary of Agriculture are unconstitutional and unenforceable?

Does a compelled generic advertising program for mushroom producers violate the commercial speech rights of a mushroom producer who does not wish to participate in the program?

Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.

Whether a federal law banning truthful, nonmisleading broadcast ads of private casino gaming violates commercial free-speech rights.

Whether the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture may constitutionally require handlers of California peaches, nectarines, and plums to fund generic advertising of those fruits.

Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit truthful, non-misleading price advertising regarding alcoholic beverages.

Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?

Whether the court-mandated inclusion of the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (GLIB) in Boston’s 1993 St. Patrick’s Day parade violated the First Amendment rights of the private group, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, that the city of Boston authorized to organize the parade.

Whether the Federal Alcohol Administration Act may constitutionally prohibit brewers from displaying the alcohol content of their beer on the beer's label.

Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from including in her advertising truthful references to the facts that she is a certified public accountant and a certified financial planner.

Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a broadcaster licensed in a state that bans lotteries from broadcasting lottery advertisements, even when the vast majority of the broadcaster's audience resides in a state that allows lotteries.

Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a certified public accountant from directly and personally soliciting non-clients.

Whether a city ordinance prohibiting the distribution of commercial flyers from news racks on city-owned property violates the First Amendment.

(1) Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from making statements to the press that he or she knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and, if so, (2) whether the State Bar of Nevada properly applied the rule in this case.

Whether a rule barring lawyers from advertising certification as a legal specialist violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.

Whether a Kentucky rule barring the mailing or delivery of written advertisements related to a "specific event . . . involving or relating to the addressee . . . as distinct from the general public" violated the First Amendment.

Whether a series of Ohio laws prohibiting advertising by lawyers about a specific legal problem, containing illustration, or omitting crucial information violated the First Amendment.

Whether a federal law prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives violates the First Amendment.

Whether a Missouri law limiting areas of information that can be advertised by lawyers violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Whether a state-issued ban on promotional advertising by public utility companies in order to conserve energy resources violates the First Amendment.

Whether an order of appellee New York Public Service Commission that prohibits the inclusion by appellant and other public utility companies in monthly bills of inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and thus is invalid.

Whether the 1st and 14th Amendments protect the right of individuals to solicit signatures for political petitions in privately owned shopping centers.

Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.

Whether the sanctioning of an ACLU lawyer for informng a woman through direct mail about legal assistance available from the ACLU violated speech and associational freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.

Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Whether the State of New Hampshire may constitutionally enforce criminal sanctions against persons who cover the motto "Live Free or Die" on passenger vehicle license plates because that motto is repugnant to their moral and religious beliefs.

Under the First Amendment as applied to the states, can a licensed pharmacist be disciplined for unprofessional conduct if he "publishes, advertises or promotes, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium, discount, rebate or credit terms . . . for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription"?

An advertisement carried in appellants newspaper led to his conviction for a violation of a Virginia statute that made it a misdemeanor, by the sale or circulation of any publication, to encourage or prompt the procuring of an abortion. The issue is whether the editor-appellant's First Amendment rights were unconstitutionally abridged by the statute.

Whether a Florida statute that afforded a right to reply to personal attacks on political candidates by newspapers violated the First Amendment.

Whether a broadcast licensee's general policy of not selling advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak out on issues they consider important violates the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment.

Whether a Los Angeles city ordinance forbidding distribution of anonymous handbills violated the First Amendment.

Did an Alabama law that required the NAACP to provide the names and addresses of all its members and agents in the state violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.

Whether an order issued by the Postmaster General that mail to Read Magazine be marked "fraudulent" and returned to sender violated the First Amendment

The Supreme Court ruled the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools.

Whether a Mississippi statute punishing speech "reasonably tending to create an attitude of stubborn refusal to salute, honor, and respect the flag and government of the United States" or "calculated to encourage disloyalty to the government of the United States" violates the First Amendment

Whether a Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a tax on sale of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Whether a local ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature of any kind, and in any way, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager violated the First Amendment.

Does a Nebraska statute criminalizing the use of the American flag on advertisements violate the Fourteenth Amendment?