Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 1127

529ORD Unit: $PT3

[10-09-01 14:52:06] PGT: ORDPP (Prelim. Print)

1138

OCTOBER TERM, 1999

May 22, 2000

529 U. S.

No. 99–9241. Stevenson v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 205 F. 3d 1326.

No. 99–9242. Godwin v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 202 F. 3d 969.

No. 99–9243. Dehaney v. United States. C. A. 2d Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 205 F. 3d 1325.

No. 99–9246. Geers v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir. Cer-

tiorari denied.

No. 99–9254. Fuller v. United States. C. A. 7th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 197 F. 3d 271.

No. 99–9261. Coleman v. United States. C. A. 11th Cir.

Certiorari denied.

No. 99–9262. Alexander v. Flowers, Warden. C. A. 10th

Cir. Certiorari denied. Reported below: 208 F. 3d 225.

No. 99–9270. McSwain v. United States. C. A. 10th Cir.

Certiorari denied. Reported below: 197 F. 3d 472.

No. 99–781. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., et al. v.
Aguilar et al. Sup. Ct. Cal. Certiorari denied. Reported
below: 21 Cal. 4th 121, 980 P. 2d 846.

Justice Thomas, dissenting.
“Any system of prior restraints of expression comes to this
Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional va-
lidity.” Bantam Books, Inc. v. Sullivan, 372 U. S. 58, 70 (1963).
The presumption is by no means rebutted here. For one, the
unprecedented injunction entered by the courts below, which bars
petitioner John Lawrence from uttering in the workplace any of
a judicially drawn list of words deemed offensive to Latino em-
ployees, very likely suppresses fully protected speech. But even
if some types of harassing speech in the workplace do not enjoy
First Amendment protection, there has been no showing that a
prior restraint, rather than the less severe remedy of money dam-
ages for any future violations, is necessary to regulate Lawrence’s
speech. Further, the injunction here is not narrowly tailored, as
it applies even to isolated remarks and to remarks outside the
hearing of respondents or any Latino employee. For these rea-
sons, I respectfully dissent from the Court’s denial of certiorari.