No. 19-17
Alexander Collin Baker v. Clara Veseliza Baker
Tags: civil-rights domestic-violence-prevention-act due-process federal-supremacy first-amendment free-speech prior-restraint right-to-petition separation-of-powers strict-scrutiny vagueness vagueness-doctrine
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment DueProcess Copyright
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment DueProcess Copyright
Latest Conference:
2019-10-01
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Is the DVPA's severable residual clause definition of "abuse" unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad?
2. Is the "abuse" definition in conflict with the right to petition?
3. May a prior restraint issued under the DVPA be upheld without being subjected to strict scrutiny and narrow tailoring?
4. Do the controlling Nadkarni case and its progeny comprise an unconstitutional line of cases violating separation of powers and/or federal supremacy by carving out a "California family member" exception to the First Amendment?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the DVPA's residual clause definition of 'abuse' is unconstitutionally vague and/or overbroad
Docket Entries
2019-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2019-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-06-24
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due July 31, 2019)
Attorneys
Alexander Collin Baker
Alexander Collin Baker — Petitioner
National Coalition for Men