Opinion ID: 795700
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Constitutional Challenges Identified

Text: 19 A statute may unconstitutionally restrict speech in one of two primary ways. First, a statute may restrict speech based on the content of that speech. Such content-based restrictions are, almost always, unconstitutional: [T]he First Amendment, subject only to narrow and well-understood exceptions, does not countenance governmental control over the content of messages expressed by private individuals. Turner Broad. Sys., Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 641, 114 S.Ct. 2445, 129 L.Ed.2d 497 (1994). Second, a statute may restrict speech incidentally, that is, the statute itself may not aim to restrict speech though, through its operation, it may do so — such statutes are generally referred to as content neutral. Laws that govern the time, place, or manner of protected speech are content neutral and valid provided that they are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and that they leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information. Clark v. Cmty. for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984) (collecting cases); see also Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 791, 109 S.Ct. 2746, 105 L.Ed.2d 661 (1989) (The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality, in speech cases generally and in time, place, or manner cases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.). The parties agree that New York's Mass Gathering Law and the implementing provisions of the Sanitary Code are content-neutral, time-place-manner restrictions. 20 Just as there are two classifications of statutes for First Amendment free speech purposes, there are two ways to challenge a statute on First Amendment free speech grounds. A facial challenge to a statute considers only the text of the statute itself, not its application to the particular circumstances of an individual. See City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Pub. Co., 486 U.S. 750, 770 n. 11, 108 S.Ct. 2138, 100 L.Ed.2d 771 (1988). An as-applied challenge, on the other hand, requires an analysis of the facts of a particular case to determine whether the application of a statute, even one constitutional on its face, deprived the individual to whom it was applied of a protected right. See, e.g., Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. FEC, ___ U.S. ___, 126 S.Ct. 1016, 163 L.Ed.2d 990 (2006) (holding that McConnell v. Federal Election Comm'n, 540 U.S. 93, 124 S.Ct. 619, 157 L.Ed.2d 491 (2003), which held the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), § 203, facially constitutional, did not foreclose subsequent as-applied challenges). As noted, Field Day attacks the Mass Gathering Law and the Sanitary Code both facially and as applied.