Legal Document

519 U.S. 357117 S.Ct. 855137 L.Ed.2d 1 Paul SCHENCK and Dwight Saunders, Petitioners,v.PRO-CHOICE NETWORK OF WESTERN NEW YORK, et al. No. 95-1065. Supreme Court of the United States Argued Oct. 16, 1996. Decided Feb. 19, 1997. Syllabus * Respondents, upstate New York abortion doctors clinics an organization dedicated to maintaining access services, filed a complaint in District seeking enjoin petitioners, other individuals, three organizations from engaging blockades illegal conduct at clinics. The record shows that, before was filed, were subjected numerous large-scale which protesters marched, stood, knelt, sat, or lay clinic parking lot driveways doorways, blocking hindering cars entering lots, patients employees In addition, smaller groups consistently attempted stop disrupt operations by, among things, milling around doorways driveway entrances, trespassing onto crowding cars, surrounding, crowding, jostling, grabbing, pushing, shoving, yelling spitting women their escorts. On sidewalks outside clinics, called "sidewalk counselors'' used similar methods attempting dissuade headed toward having abortions. local police unable respond effectively protests due, part, fact that defendants harassed them verbally by mail. issued temporary restraining order (TRO), later, after sidewalk counseling continued, preliminary injunction. As relevant here, injunction provisions banned "demonstrating within fifteen feet . doorway entrances [clinic] facilities'' ("fixed buffer zones''), "within any person vehicle leaving such ("floating zones''). Another provision allowed two counselors inside zones, but required "cease desist'' if counselee so requested. its accompanying opinion, Court, inter alia, rejected petitioners' assertion violated First Amendment right free speech. en banc Appeals affirmed. Held: imposing "fixed zone'' limitations are constitutional, "floating violate Amendment. Pp. ___-___. (a) Because Madsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 753, 114 2516, 129 593, bears many similarities this case because parties' arguments depend on application reviews decision. Madsen, said "standard time, place, manner analysis is not sufficiently rigorous'' for evaluating content-neutral injunctions restrict speech, held, instead, test "whether challenged burden no more speech than necessary serve significant government interest.'' Id., 765, S.Ct., 2519. (b) Petitioners' argument governmental interests support issue rejected. Given factual similarity between concludes underlying there-ensuring public safety order, promoting flow traffic streets sidewalks, protecting property rights, woman's freedom seek pregnancy-related U.S., 767-768, 2526-also underlie combination certainly enough justify appropriately tailored secure unimpeded physical (c) floating zones struck down they interests. Such people prevent defendants-except tolerated targeted individual-from communicating message normal conversational distance handing out leaflets sidewalks. This broad prohibition, both type restricted nature location. Leafletting commenting matters concern classic forms lie heart Amendment, areas most protected prototypical example traditional forum. See, e.g., Boos Barry, 485 312, 322, 108 1157, 1164, 99 333. Although abusive sometimes makes prohibition limited parts permissible, see, supra, 769-770, 2527-2528, need decide whether involved would ever separation zone measured individuals protesters, since "floats'' renders it unsustainable record. Protesters who wish communicate individual remain as close possible (while acceptable distance) must move moves, 15 separation. But be difficult accomplish at, one respondent bordered 17-foot-wide sidewalk. lack certainty how compliance with leads substantial risk much will burdened terms prohibits. There may well ways effect desired yet provide (so injunction's burdened). strikes people, does address constitutionality respecting those zones. vehicles also fail test. simply line curb effort chant, shout, hold signs peacefully. Nothing Court's opinion contradicts commonsense notion injunction-e.g., keeps away off streets-would sufficient ensure drivers confused about enter able gain lots safely easily. (d) fixed driveways, upheld. That these can exit demonstrated evidence showing TRO issued, purposefully blocked hindered exiting driving up lots; followed crowded (and beyond) then tended stay shouting had managed get inside; defendants' harassment made far certain quickly counteract threatened employees. Deference due reasonable assessment proper access. See 2526-2528. various against zones-that other, unchallenged clinics; should first have tried "non-speech-restrictive'' injunction; there extraordinary pervasive lawlessness here; term "demonstrating'' vague-are Also contention limiting exception connection violates limitation assessed light entire enhance rights. Moreover, content based allows patient terminate protester's speak when disagrees being conveyed. Counselors espouse 15-foot zone, condition result own previous intimidation patients. 67 F.3d 377 (C.A.2 1995), affirmed reversed remanded. REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered unanimous respect Parts I II-A, Part II-C, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, SOUTER, THOMAS, GINSBURG, JJ., joined, II-B II-D, BREYER, joined. J., concurring part dissenting KENNEDY part. Jay Sekulow, Virgina Beach, VA, petitioners. Lucinda M. Finley, Buffalo, NY, respondents. Walter Dellinger, Washington, DC, amicus curiae special leave Court. Chief Justice REHNQUIST question presented places restrictions demonstrations We uphold bubble'' limitations, hereinafter described, 2 Respondents include four medical (two larger hospital complexes) Rochester Buffalo York. These health care providers perform abortions services facilities. eighth Pro-Choice Network Western York, not-for-profit corporation family planning services. 3 September 24, 1990, respondents fifty organizations-Operation Rescue, Project Rescue Life Rochester. alleged engaged facilities where performed. —(For convenience, we refer "clinics'' throughout.) federal six state causes action: conspiracy deprive equal protection laws, violation Rev.Stat. §1980, 42 U.S.C. §1985(3); discrimination N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §40-c (McKinney 1992) Exec. §296 1993); trespass; tortious interference business; harassment; false imprisonment; intentional infliction emotional harm. large blockade planned 28, requested court (TRO) it. sought permanent damages. 4 Before march, stand, kneel, sit, doorways. patients, doctors, nurses, 5 addition blockades, operations. trespassed even entered themselves. Those trespassers remained milled block hinder threw themselves top hoods turn into driveways. Other handed literature talked clinics-especially believed arriving abortions-in persuade immoral. Sometimes aggressive techniques, varying levels belligerence: getting very faces; shoving Male female volunteers escort past elbowed, grabbed, spit on. escorts pushed back. Some others exiting. 6 methods. walk alongside talking attempt abortion. Unfortunately, continued did positively counselors, peaceful efforts persuasion often devolved "in your face'' yelling, grabbing. Men accompanied became upset restrained (not always successfully) fighting counselors. 7 found been "unable effectively'' protests, number reasons: constant, overwhelming resources; arrived, dispersed returned later; prosecution arrested reluctant cooperate fear making identity public; convicted deterred returning engage unlawful conduct. officers mail, including deputy chief. testified "those invoke[d] legal process against'' protesters. This, chief, "made him do his job.'' N. Y., 799 F.Supp. 1417, 1426-1427 (W.D.N.Y.1992). id., 1431 (" [T]here has uncontradicted activities intended, fact, choose abortion''). 8 27, days day scheduled blockade, TRO. parties stipulated might force until decision respondents' motion pertinent enjoined physically blockading abusing tortiously harassing anyone person'' "buffer "a conversation nonthreatening nature'' clinic. If indicated want counseling, however, counseling.1 9 At first, complied TRO, holding demonstration rather blockade. Subsequently, "physical blockades'' could enjoined, conducted issuance 17 months later. Defendants, labeled "constructive blockades,'' counseling. Constructive consisted picketing staff clinics.'' 1424. included protest elements described above, attempts intimidate impede congregating around, purpose constructive same blockades: "to clinic.'' Ibid. Clinic volunteer quieter, calmer, during month prior intensity thereafter, occasional elbowing, buildings continue 10 Alleging five (including petitioner Schenck) breached separate occasions late October 1990 through December contempt citations. A fifth citation 1991 incident Schenck another defendant. Throughout 1992, held 27 hearings proceedings, opinions concluding incidents justified finding civil contempt.2 11 February hearing 12 additional testimony, injunction, here. set forth margin.3 largely tracked changes. First, while broadly either side edge of, front clarified provision, specifying once retreat boundaries FC21S"1. Enjoined means from: 13 FC21S" on, sitting in, blocking, impeding, obstructing to, ingress egress facility, including, performed York; 14 demonstrating facilities, except form known persons specified paragraph shall allowed; abusing, touching, leaving, working using facility performed; provided, consisting non-threatening each group counsel prohibited. provided accept listen counseled wants leave, away, absolute event all cease desist thereafter governed pertaining facility. further defined herein limit Police Department maintain reasonably rules regulations particular site; 16 mechanical loudspeaker sound amplification device excessively loud injures, disturbs, endangers employee performed, nor make sounds interfere rights Order; (e) attempting, inducing, directing, aiding, abetting manner, take actions paragraphs above.'' F.Supp., 1440-1441. 18 stated inquiry established (i) irreparably harmed granted (ii) likely succeed merits. irreparable harm requirement met, denied [the clinics] cannot compensated merely money Injunctive relief alone assure [the] 1428. least claims. relying State National Organization Women Terry, 886 F.2d 1339 1989), cert. denied, 495 947, 110 2206, 109 532 (1990), constituted class under §1985(3), constitutional travel infringed defendants, §1985(3). Second, women's §1985(3) "clearly §40-c.''4 1431. Finally, "overwhelming repeatedly upon clinics'] trespass future,'' shown likelihood success claim. 1432. Having already claims, chose state-law 1432, n. 11. 19 analyzing applied our standard "time, analysis,'' asking neutral, narrowly interest, (iii) left open ample alternative channels communication information. 1432 (citing Frisby Schultz, 487 474, 481, 2495, 2500-2501, 101 420 (1988)). neutral "it restricts volume, location, timing intimidating expressive speech.'' 1433. served interests-public safety, ensuring safely, interstate sacrificed interest rights.5 20 narrow tailoring, explained "around impeded, determine readily located.'' 1434. added benefit "prevent[ing] invading personal space.'' provision-allowing requiring asked alone-as "an exception'' accommodate fully rights.'' "necessary protect approaching alone.'' 1435. communication, still "picket, carry signs, pray, sing chant full view going 1437. 21 After Bray Alexandria Clinic, 506 263, 269, 113 759, 122 34 (1993), "women abortion'' Bray, dismissed claim, file amended cause action. 828 1018, 1025 (W.D.N.Y.1993). decided exercise pendent jurisdiction over remaining action (the claims), regardless ultimate disposition deciding, noted "the grounded only claims claim claim] well.'' 1026, 4. judicial economy, fairness suggested keep case, expanded resources involvement ongoing. 1028-1029 motions 1991, criminal charges brought 1993). 22 Petitioners, appealed Second Circuit. While appeal, 593 (1994), antiabortion —(We discuss greater depth infra.) "our comes 2525. 23 Applying panel split 359 (1994). heard banc, divided vote. (1995). Each garnered majority court. Judge Oakes' lead joined eight judges, reasons closely track reasoning 388-392. Winter, nine primarily ground protesters' all, "reasonable response'' 396, 398. certiorari. 516 ----, 116 1260, 134 209 (1996). II 24 Petitioners challenge aspects injunction: entrances; forces indicates desire counseled. review determination case. 25 Florida enjoining interfering Six impeded street approached hand occupants. face evidence, broader defendant ""physically intimidating, harassing, assaulting''' clinic; ""congregating, picketing, patrolling, portion right-of-way private [36] Clinic'''; ""seeking Clinic''' 300 clinic, unless ""indicates communicate'''; noise displaying image seen 759-760, 2522. 26 determining restraint 762-764, 2522-2523, interest,'' concluded interests: privacy whose psychological well-being "captive'' circumstance. 2526. "quite injunction'' way 768, some interests, not. upheld 36-foot street, "as trial few options clinic: allowing valid option conduct, stand obviously impractical. "some deference given court's familiarity facts background dispute heightened review.'' 2527 Milk Wagon Drivers Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 287, 294, 61 552, 555, 85 L.Ed. 836 (1941)) 28 300-foot no-approach stating 29 uninvited approaches contact Absent independently proscribable (i.e., "fighting words' threats), infused violence indistinguishable threat harm, see Drivers, 292-293 [61 554-555], stand. "As general matter, debate citizens tolerate insulting, outrageous, adequate breathing space freedoms Amendment.' [312, 333 (1988)] (internal quotation marks omitted). "consent' invalidates provision; burdens 774, 2529. 30 now apply ask interest.6 B 31 argue goes follows: seven complaint, standing recent claim; banning trespass, nothing else; thus, overbroad. 32 factually incorrect. point. issuing satisfied law law. doing so, necessarily implicitly well, construe statute And mean uses language courts course (or narrowly) counterpart. event, statutes noticeably different. 4, supra. Thus, dismissal act confirmed comment post-Bray 33 petitioners contend longer valid, reject, erred independent matter Brief 32. clearly crafted remedy violations. An nonetheless challenge, focus solely asserted complaint. assessing looks inquires order. 2525-2526; 294-295, 555-556. Both here supported interest. permissible 2525-2526. Here, cited justifying injunction-certainly conclusion, dangerous situation created interaction fights did) develop. Even though plaintiffs neither pleaded "threat safety.'' Indeed, strange concept, plaintiff customarily alleges violations "public safety'' expresses enforced laws otherwise. listed anywhere preclude argument.7 35 conclude -ensuring services,8 ibid. -also C 36 strike walking (1988); Grace, 461 171, 180, 103 1702, 1708-1709, 75 736 (1983). hand, us hampered enforcement, tendency conversations devolve violent situations, permissible. II-D infra; 2526-2527. sort two. "floats,'' sustained 37 Since floats, incoming outgoing individual, instance, GYN Womenservices 17-feet wide. walks straight outer edges presumably behind backwards. faced problem watching heading opposite targeted. With pick drop off, quite protester wishes know injunction.9 is, someone message-certainly injunction-will hazardous injunction.10 burdened), 38 likewise vehicles. injunction-which (as do) streets, instance-would contrast, therefore D 39 entrances. trying so. lots. Based conduct-both issued-the entitled back Similarly, counselors-both TRO-followed inside. found, entrance, doorways.11 quibble too great small goal access, defer clear. 2526-2527 [S]ome review''). 40 pointing bans trespassing, excessive noise, "blocking, impeding to'' They provisions, ban peaceful, nonobstructive way.'' 47. argument, ignores stationary, what done before: aggressively follow crowd door refuse move, mill progress cars. ability problem, prophylactic measure appropriate. Cf. Burson Freeman, 504 191, 206-207, 112 1846, 1855-1856, 119 (1992) (upholding 100-foot "no-campaign polling places: "Intimidation fall short serving State's compelling "deal blatant specific attempts' elections. enforcement generally barred [under law] vicinity polls avoid appearance coercion electoral process, acts go undetected. undetected less drive voter remedial taken'' (citations omitted)). access'' insufficient itself solve restriction demonstrations. 41 invalid impose "speech-restrictive'' TRO) without Madsen. failure initial taken consideration'' later 770, 2527. subsequent automatically invalid. "consideration'' present, fails. several refuted. unlike "no lawlessness,'' 45, unnecessary. convinces indeed extraordinary, keeping vague. When read whole, Grayned City Rockford, 408 104, 110, 92 2294, 2299-2300, 222 (1972), believe "of ordinary intelligence'' led litigation place) opportunity prohibited,'' 108, 2298-2299. 43 limits contrary doubt reason provision-"to alone''-accurately reflects jurisprudence area. designed basis generalized alone'' quoting ""[a]s Amendment.''' earlier noted, 11, light.12 44 amici attack based, reasons, patient's disagreement directed enjoined. " [m]any counselors' ha[d] occasion harassment, persist staff.'' 1425. patients.13 45 *** 46 judgment remanded proceedings consistent opinion. 47 It ordered. 48 whom THOMAS join, 49 Instead today postulates pronounces never-determined adequate. settled practice governing appellate injunctions, committed factfinding, predictive policy entity court, SEC Chenery Corp., 318 80, 63 454, 87 626 (1943). judiciary prerogative never of: power render decrees concerns grievance subject lawsuit. dissent. 50 important today's tucked seeming detail "cease-and-desist'' discussion penultimate analysis: unwelcome entrance Ante, __-__. [v. (1994)], "[a]s (like Appeals) unwanted validity taking belief account. erroneous remediable shaped impossible reverse central point framed necessary,'' 2525, legitimate 51 buffer'' grounds, apparently tied different feature provision. said, impeded.'' 1434 second, "clear zones' dual purpose: obstruction excluded crowds permitting zone. —(Allowing common Mine Workers Bagwell, 821, 823, 2552, 2555, 642 necessary, 2525.) second "targeted hear them, "personal space'' streets-or, next 52 cease-and-desist conceal supposed alone, unobstructed provision: 53 [N]o injunction] facility.'' 1440 (preliminary 1(c)) (emphasis added). 54 imagine dependent rejects streets. explanation dependency starkly clear: 55 "Th[e] desist' alone. 56 [Defendants] counseling' occurs sidewalk, forced just audience unwilling argument. 57 ..... 58 adduced signal message. -[W]omen plaintiffs' cannot, practical escape 59 [T]he advances values marketplace ideas listeners autonomy determinations competing ideas. Once message, her choice. '' 1435-1436 60 thought "right devote pages reports subject, ibid., discussed extenso, 377, 391-393 1995); 395-397. magic essential element irrelevant simple approving instead (in discretion) issue-viz., __, asserts carefully selected words) demonstrations.'' ---- again: feasible shield unprotected area clear protesters.'' (lest guarded terminology accidental), third time: "Based defendants'] doorways.'' __ (first emphasis added; original). that. business be) conclusions permissibly reached questions involving assessments credibility future conduct-and affirming posited conclusions, arrived not.1 cases, doubly true NAACP Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 886, 102 3409, 73 1215 (1982), decides speech-restrictive reaches "supported findings adequately disclose the[ir] evidentiary , identify impact recognize importance avoiding imposition punishment constitutionally activity.'' 933-934, 3436. 62 candidly concedes nonexistent underlay __. appears grasp, decisive import concession-which think exclude demonstrators preventing (other faux intruding targets' "private space''). statements conclude'' speculative (which fatal enough) conclude-which perfectly acceptable, infringe employees' patrons' expressly complete one. 1436, 13. grasp relevance assertions admitting rights,'' ante, bend backwards "accommodate' light,'' stood anything, obligation duty principle reaffirmed requires 2525 confronting permitted "accommodation'' demanded recharacterize responsibility imposed gratuity perhaps alarming concept contains alarmed about. III 64 disagree facile rejection properly present conceivably issue, designed, stated, invasion space,'' 1434, trespass. 65 responds nontrespass §40-c(2) 1992), provides [n]o shall, sex thereof, person.'' enough, seems me imaginative probability 11A Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller, & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice Procedure §2948.3 (2d ed.1995). put mildly, apparent men aborting male human fetuses constitutes sex. otherwise specifically wrote: "Having merits also, definition, §40-c.'' 269-273, 759-761, constitute determine, saying §40-c, affirm) chance anything long shot.2 66 proceeds point: plaintiff, serves [I]n -[T]he safety' argument.'' wonderful expansion power. Rather courts' according complaints announces gives ancillary decree protect-not interest%5A Every suit district judge one-man Committee Public Safety. precedent novel proposition. says, sidewalks.'' __; 769, acknowledging, eliminated conflict considerations entirely asserting, today, justification remedy.3 555-556, (1941). union's storekeepers, interest'' it, storekeepers customers dairy, 68 systems charged initiating guard safety. Executive Branch. threatened, branch empowered, invoking means, protection. Judicial Branch hitherto powerless invited itself. political [C]onstitution''-because "can active resolution whatever'' "may truly FORCE WILL, judgment.'' Federalist 78, p. 396 (M. Beloff ed.1987). fundamental principles powers measures eliminate traffic, lawsuit trespass.4 69 70 Today's destructive inroad determined necessity, found. contain apart remediation wrong Insofar concerned, evidently (with support, my view) repetition occurred past. invalidated related Accordingly, dissent upholding entirety. 71 72 Words meaning context. Considered context, create kind find unconstitutionally broad. recently, did. controversy arose oral Appeals. gave Judge, ongoing administering consider and, clarify language. 389, 1995) (en banc). Appeals' response, view, legally sensible. affirm judgment. key prohibits facilities.'' appeared precise scope order's "ingress from'' 74 "trespassing App. Reverend bubble. replied: 76 "THE COURT: don't intent -[W]e're It's moving feet. 77 "REV. SCHENCK: So words, you're speaking itself? 78 that's We're [e.g., doorway] -[M]y gosh, you deal length. 79 "It's [Y]ou sense [an interpretation creating zone] fair we're 80 Well, I'm glad pointed think, high degree ambiguity entranceway. 81 everyone now.'' Reply Petitioner A-2 A-3. 82 identical words "or vehicle'') presence "no-float'' understanding "clear.'' separated immediately preceded language) phrase 83 "fifteen 84 little relettering inserting new phrase, thereby intended give significantly original narrowing specification "blocking ingress'' language, appearing reference, "dual access,'' 9, itself) little, "bubble'' surrounds beyond respects, phrase-the speaks side''-the become redundant. deeds suggest injunctive life. orders example, (though repeated clarification (quoted __), Record, Doc. 232, pp. 276-279, "totality'' defendant's serious "10 feet'' 9; 6, 8). orders, say bubble zones- contemnors existence. Nor filings suggests contemplated diagrams submitted reference Rather, marked indicate property. Appendix B, infra. 86 appeals panel, "float'' time (for demonstrators) "someone leaves grocery store,'' "three miles away,'' replied "COUNSEL: [be] prohibit[ed] [by] setback 88 "APPEALS extent "leave' injunction? 89 Maybe didn't implications considered restriction. arguing far. interpret 90 Not surprisingly, mention bubbles. modifying restoring injunction-proceedings took place invalidating reversed. latter agreed produced moved another. 91 posture, surprising deny existence addressed regarding termed buffer''-an raised before-by F.3d, assumption definitively resolve instance linguistic problem. appropriate, same. Appellate normally Singleton Wulff, 428 106, 120, 96 2868, 2877, 826 (1976) Hormel Helvering, 556, 719, 721, 1037 (1941)). good depart understands history, thus meaning, context better we. show modification directly familiar flexibly. created, threaten create, difficulty. No violating ostensible realistic deter 93 interpreting reinterpreting creates above. then, potentially facts. bubbles seem raise For "fixed'' activated or, degree, space. infra, Diagram (Point X). possibly "floating'' protects alights curbside cross two-foot stretch buffer. Y). bubbles, follows store along Z). circumstances justification. wisely recognized consideration 94 sum, administration permit current objection. offering injunction-an obvious absence principles, lower difficult, ongoing, circumstance-specific task easier. To contrary, judges advance, parties, complex, fact-based every misinterpretation finds possible. statement bubbles,'' developments unnecessary unwise. 95 Hence, SAPPSAPPENDIX TO OPINION J. 97 "TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 98 "Upon hereby "ORDERED THAT officers, directors, agents, representatives whomsoever, unknown, acting behalf concert receiving actual notice Order, are: 100 "1. Temporarily Provided, person. interferes 104 105 Order construed participants' 22-26 106 "PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 107 introduced "11. 111 115 exercising APPENDIX 117 [NOTE: MATERIAL SET AT THIS POINT IS NOT DISPLAYABLE (GRAPHIC OR TABULAR MATERIAL)] 118 syllabus prepared Reporter Decisions convenience reader. Detroit Timber Lumber 200 321, 337, 282, 499. injunction) states triggered whenever "wants counseling,'' indicates, non-verbally, counseled.'' 391 (same). concerned propriety Nevertheless, explaining why describe Compare (§40-c: "defendants' abortion, subjects rights''), 1430 (§1985(3): [defendants are] cognizable persons, invidious class-based animus[,] [they committing overt furtherance conspiracy[,] [and the] infringes abortions''). §40-c. ("No ''), ("If conspire depriving [and] therein object conspiracy, whereby deprived privilege citizen States, party recovery damages ''). although entry obstructing' "for "more comprehensive'' access.'' "better evidence.'' inapplicable. distinguish ground, reject again. protesters'] expression, conduct.'' 764, 2, 2524, 2. SCALIA contends reliance factor. factor use rejecting grounds. "held "captive' circumstance''-at -is implicated chanting suffered increased risks result. 772, 2528. voices noise. suspect enforce. Contempt pace actually strayed period time. Significantly, himself expressed hearing, "moving'' infeasible. exactly authoritatively construction BREYER stress understood misreads despite 1(a) came 90-CV-1004A (WDNY) Sept 7-8, 20-21 (doctor parked hundred doctor length feet, entrance; TRO's "proscription clinic''). would-to interpreted "setting clinic]'' note cf. (discussing "how reach,'' not, suggests, all), none zones-subject provision-does detract conclusion. allow "accommodate'' conduct-especially police-would extra redound detriment disapproval approach easily distinguishable point, times deemed endorse setting terms. suggestion inconsistent precedents. Rutan Republican Party Ill., 497 62, 76, 2729, 2737-2738, (1990) [A]lthough Seventh Circuit's adopt reasoning''); Smith Phillips, 455 209, 215, 940, 945, (1982) ("Respondent may, course, defend below permit, expand granted''); 88, 459, (1943) [W]e disturb rule reviewing correct "although relied reason''') (quoting Helvering Gowran, 302 238, 245, 154, 158, 224 (1937)); Langnes Green, 282 531, 536-537, 243, 245-246, 520 (1931) direct writ error sued [district] court''); Williams Norris, Wheat. 117, 571 (1827) (Marshall, C.J.) [of court] correct, reasoning, mind unsound, [this] Court''). [i]f Court] basis, consent them.'' Pet. Cert. A-136. lengthy cases proposition mandatory 12, substitute facts, probabilities, hence necessities, made) "valid,'' "likely succeed.'' interesting one, entertain it: plainly [t]he ruling prevail antidiscrimination claim.'' 32; 15. refers 2526, approved approach. approves injunction,'' grounds.'' 7. distinction sense. grounds'' depends "element[s] suppor[t] strong enough. issues Any alter rule, increases required. Of illogical rationale hardly unimportant newly Committees Safety control.

Classification Label: 4