Ruling by
William A. FletcherLower Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Challenged Berkeley ordinance was reasonably related to substantial governmental interest in public health and safety and its text was literally true, so it survived plaintiff's First Amendment challenge.
To continue reading, please subscribe.
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Already a subscriber?
Sign In
Enewsletter Sign-up
Related Content
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court
After remand, divided 9th Circuit panel allows warning labels on cell phones in Berkeley
Jul. 3, 2019
By Brian Cardile
By Brian Cardile
Government, Technology
Berkeley ends effort to require warnings for cellphones
Oct. 9, 2020
By Winston Cho
By Winston Cho
