No. 21-5952
Robert Paul Rundo, Robert Boman, Tyler Laube, and Aaron Eason v. United States
Tags: 18-usc-2101 anti-riot-act brandenburg-v-ohio civil-rights constitutional-interpretation first-amendment free-speech interstate-commerce overt-act riot speech-restriction
Latest Conference:
2022-01-14
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether the Anti-Riot Act is facially unconstitutional, because it cannot be interpreted, faithful to its plain text and consistent with congressional intent, in a manner that comports with the First Amendment.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the Anti-Riot Act is facially unconstitutional
Docket Entries
2022-01-18
Petition DENIED.
2021-12-30
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/14/2022.
2021-12-27
Reply of petitioners Robert Paul Rundo; Robert Boman; Tyler Laube; Aaron Eason filed. (Distributed)
2021-12-13
Brief of respondent United States in opposition filed.
2021-11-05
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including December 13, 2021.
2021-11-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response from November 12, 2021 to December 13, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2021-10-25
Brief amicus curiae of the Free Expression Foundation, Inc. filed.
2021-10-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due November 12, 2021)
Attorneys
Robert Paul Rundo; Robert Boman; Tyler Laube; Aaron Eason
Brianna Fuller Mircheff — Office of the Federal Public Defender, Petitioner
The Free Expression Foundation, Inc.
Glen Keith Allen — Attorney At Law, Amicus
United States
Elizabeth B. Prelogar — Solicitor General, Respondent