Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
Nine amicus briefs have been filed in Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kevin Hicks. Following are summaries of the points raised in them. • The federal government claims that Hicks was “not engaged in expressive activity” when he was cited for violating the trespass policy. • The city of Richmond and the Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority argue that the trespass policy at the Whitcomb Court housing project is permissible because it restricts conduct, not speech. • The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers argue that if Richmond wants to make the streets and sidewalks within Whitcomb Court private property, then it must alter the “form and function” of them. • The National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Association of Counties argue that Hicks should not be allowed a First Amendment claim because his actions did not fall within the “zones of interests” of protected expression. • The Richmond Tenants Organization, the Charlottesville Public Housing Association of Residents, Everywhere and Now Public Housing Residents Organizing Nationally Together, and the Massachusetts Union of Public Housing Tenants claim that the Richmond trespass policy violates the rights of the poor to “associate with and invite others into their homes.” • Fifteen states, including Florida, Ohio, and Texas, say an invalidation of the trespass policy on First Amendment grounds could make “government-owned property less safe for residents and for the public.” • The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York Inc. claims that trespassing policies like the one at Whitcomb Court “embolden public housing managers to act as censorial gatekeepers,” preventing Jehovah’s Witnesses from spreading their religious message. • The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based public interest group, argues that even if the streets and sidewalks in Whitcomb Court are deemed public property, the trespass policy should remain in effect in other areas of the project that remain private property. • The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression says barring access to the streets and sidewalks of Whitcomb Court may “severely curtail the ability of residents to receive vital information.” — Tom Schoenberg

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]


ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2020 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.