Opinion ID: 216201
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: standard of review

Text: We review de novo a district court's dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). We assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts in the complaint, and draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs. Dias, 567 F.3d at 1178 (citation omitted). In First Amendment cases, we have an obligation to make an independent examination of the whole record in order to make sure that the judgment does not constitute a forbidden intrusion on the field of free expression. Thomas v. City of Blanchard, 548 F.3d 1317, 1322 (10th Cir.2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). However, [t]o survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, `to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Ashcroft v. Iqbal, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). In other words, the [f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level, and a complaint that merely offers labels and conclusions, or a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action, is insufficient. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955.