@AaronSimansky The prohibition of any advertisement or display of any contraceptives that seeks to suppress completely any information about the availability and price of contraceptives is unconstitutional.

@AaronSimansky Holding: It is unconstitutional to prohibit anyone other than a licensed pharmacist to distribute nonprescription contraceptives.

@Marnix @KJW_01294 @traders The answer for Carey v. Population Services International will be N/A'd and two new answers will be added for each of the two different holdings of the case.

@Marnix This case has two separate holdings one that says that limiting sale of nonprescription contraceptives is unconstitutional and a second that says that suppressing advertisments and information about contraceptives is unconstitutional. @traders How do you think I should resolve this conflict? Should I:

1. Make this question about the first holding and then create another answer for the second holding

2. Make this question about the second holding and then create another answer for the first holding

3. N/A this answer and make two new answers (one for the first holding and another for the second)

4. require that both holdings be overruled before this resolves to YES

Administration has announced its intention not to defend Humphrey's Executor (on constitutionality of independent agencies) https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/movawxboava/2025.02.12-OUT-Durbin-530D.pdf -- not all that surprising for them to be taking this position, but interesting to read bc it outlines their arguments.

Pressure here: https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-asked-overturn-gay-marriage-2022073

@AaronSimansky Holding: A publicly funded scholarship program which excluded students pursuing a "degree in theology" does not violate the constitution.

@AaronSimansky Consider adding Humphrey's Executor v. United States , 295 US 602, on the constitutionality of independent agencies, which will likely be challenged by the administration asserting a "unitary executive" theory in litigation arising from the recent firing of NRLB and EEOC members. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humphrey's_Executor_v._United_States

@AaronSimansky Holding: Denial of public education to students not legally admitted into the country violates the Equal Protection Clause.

I had created this one

@traders A related market can be found here:

@AaronSimansky Holding: Full constitutional protection of rights does not automatically extend to all places under American control. This means that inhabitants of unincorporated territories such as Puerto Rico—"even if they are U.S. citizens"—may lack some constitutional rights.

@AaronSimansky Holding: When a statement concerns a public figure it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel. Instead, the target of the statement must show that it was made with knowledge of or reckless disregard for its falsity.

@AaronSimansky The fact that the defendant/petitioner happened to be a newspaper was actually not relevant to the holding. The same actual malice standard would apply to a random individual yelling defamatory things about a public official from the steps of the courthouse.

Also worth noting that "actual malice" here is a technical legal term, it does not have its ordinary English meaning. It means that the defendant either knew the defamatory statement to be false when they made it, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

@AaronSimansky Holding: Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from people within 100 feet of a health care facility's entrance before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets to such people does not violate the First Amendment rights of the speaker.

@AaronSimansky Holding: The Texas statute making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause

@AaronSimansky Holding: Prosecutors may not use race as a factor in making peremptory challenges.

@AaronSimansky Holding: State senate districts must have roughly equal populations based on the principle of "one person, one vote".

@AaronSimansky Holding: Neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege.

@AaronSimansky Holding: The Recess Appointments Clause empowers the President to fill any existing vacancy during any recess—intra-session or inter-session—of sufficient length (presumptively a minimum of 10 days). The Senate is in session when it says that it is.

@AaronSimansky Holding: The Independent Counsel Act's restriction on the power of the Attorney General to remove an inferior officer only for good cause does not violate the Appointments Clause. The means of selecting the independent counsel (wherein the Chief Justice of the United States appoints a panel of three judges who choose the special prosecutor) did not violate the Appointments Clause.

@AaronSimansky Holding: Congress has the power to pass an act directing the seizure and disposition, within the control of the Executive Branch, of the papers and tapes of a former president.

@AaronSimansky Holding: Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

@AaronSimansky Holding: Any statute that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag is unconstitutional.

@AaronSimansky Holding: A lawsuit seeking an injunction against a state official did not violate the sovereign immunityof the state, because the state official was not acting on behalf of the state when he sought to enforce an unconstitutional law.