Court Opinion

ID: 9430925
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:30:55.016799+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:26.359227
License: Public Domain

Justice Stevens,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
To the extent that the Court’s opinion relies on the proposition that “‘government has no power to restrict expression *235because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content,’ ” see ante, at 229 (quoting Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92, 95 (1972)), I am unable to join it.* I do, however, agree that the State has the burden of justifying its content-based discrimination and has plainly failed to do so. Accordingly, I join Parts I, II, III-B, IV, and V of the Court’s opinion and concur in its judgment.

See my separate opinions in Consolidated Edison Co. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 530, 544 (1980); Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 277 (1981); and Regan v. Time, Inc., 468 U. S. 641, 692 (1984); see also FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U. S. 364, 408 (1984).