X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
in a unanimous decision, the justices reversed a ruling by the Virginia Supreme Court that a state housing agency’s policy of authorizing the police to serve notice on any person lacking a “legitimate business or social purpose” for being on the premises and to arrest for trespassing any person who remains or returns after having been so notified was an unconstitutionally overbroad First Amendment violation. Virginia v. Hicks, No. 02-371. The court held that the state housing agency’s trespass policy did not violate the First Amendment’s overbreadth doctrine because neither the basis for the barment sanction nor its purpose, that of preventing future trespasses, implicates the First Amendment. The regulation didn’t prohibit a “substantial amount of protected speech in relation to its many legitimate applications. Both the notice-barment rule and the ‘legitimate business or social purpose’ rule apply to all persons . . . not just to those seeking to engage in expression,” the court explained. Scalia wrote the court’s opinion.

Want to continue reading?
Become a Free ALM Digital Reader.

Benefits of a Digital Membership:

  • Free access to 3 articles* every 30 days
  • Access to the entire ALM network of websites
  • Unlimited access to the ALM suite of newsletters
  • Build custom alerts on any search topic of your choosing
  • Search by a wide range of topics

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?

 
 

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.