No. 22-497
Response RequestedResponse Waived
Tags: communications criminal-law criminal-statute electronic-communication first-amendment free-speech harassment-law intent overbreadth overbreadth-doctrine
Key Terms:
FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus Privacy
FirstAmendment HabeasCorpus Privacy
Latest Conference:
2023-01-20
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Is a law that criminalizes expressive speech immunized from any First Amendment scrutiny if it also criminalizes non-expressive conduct?
2. Is a law that punishes the repeated sending of electronic communications with intent and likely result to "harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend" another unconstitutionally overbroad?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Is a law that criminalizes expressive speech immunized from any First Amendment scrutiny if it also criminalizes non-expressive conduct?
Docket Entries
2023-02-14
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2023-02-03
Stipulation to the dismissal of the case under Rule 46.1 filed.
2023-01-27
Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
2023-01-06
Response Requested. (Due February 6, 2023)
2023-01-04
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/20/2023.
2022-12-20
Waiver of right of respondent Texas to respond filed.
2022-11-22
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 28, 2022)
Attorneys
Jasper Chen
Mark William Bennett — Bennett & Bennett, Petitioner
Lane Andrew Haygood — Bailey & Galyen, Petitioner
Texas
Judd Edward Stone II — Texas Attorney General's Office, Respondent
Patricia McLean — Harris County District Attorney's Office, Respondent