Opinion ID: 585461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Does the Act Flagrantly or Patently Violate Constitutional Prohibitions?

Text: 12 Lilburn's final challenge to the Act is that it flagrantly violates his First Amendment rights. This aspect of the exception applies only when a statute is ' flagrantly and patently violative of express constitutional prohibitions in every clause, sentence, and paragraph, and in whatever manner and against whomever an effort might be made to apply it. '  Partington, 880 F.2d at 128 (quoting Younger, 401 U.S. at 53-54 (quoting Watson v. Buck, 313 U.S. 387, 402 (1941))). Whatever may be the merit of Lilburn's First Amendment defense, there is no basis for a conclusion that the Act is so patently unconstitutional that it meets the test quoted above.