Doe v. Reed: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
Lost Student (talk | contribs) m (Text replacement - "|case_treatment=No " to "") |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
|date=June 24, 2010 | |date=June 24, 2010 | ||
|subject=First Amendment | |subject=First Amendment | ||
| | |appealed_from=9th Circuit | ||
|facts=In the state of Washington, citizens can challenge laws through the process of referendums. A petition is a prerequisite for a referendum. The petition must be include the names, addresses, and signatures of 4% of the state voters to meet the threshold for a referendum. | |facts=In the state of Washington, citizens can challenge laws through the process of referendums. A petition is a prerequisite for a referendum. The petition must be include the names, addresses, and signatures of 4% of the state voters to meet the threshold for a referendum. | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Pro-marriage equality objected to the public disclosure of their names and addresses. | Pro-marriage equality objected to the public disclosure of their names and addresses. | ||
|procedural_history=Doe (pro-marriage equality advocates) win at the trial loses. | |||
Doe loses at the 9th Circuit. | |||
|issues=Does compelled disclosure of names and addresses of petitioners violate the '''Petition Clause''' of the [[1st Amendment]]? | |issues=Does compelled disclosure of names and addresses of petitioners violate the '''Petition Clause''' of the [[1st Amendment]]? | ||
|arguments=Knowing the names and addresses of the petitioners prevents fraudulent petitions. | |||
|holding=Compelled disclosures doesn't violate the [[1st Amendment]] if there is an important government interest. | |||
|rule='''Exacting scrutiny''' is the standard for compelled disclosure. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/doe-v-reed | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/doe-v-reed | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/186/ | |link=https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/561/186/ | ||
Latest revision as of 03:39, July 14, 2023
| Doe v. Reed | |
| Court | Supreme Court of the United States |
|---|---|
| Citation | |
| Date decided | June 24, 2010 |
| Appealed from | 9th Circuit |
Facts
In the state of Washington, citizens can challenge laws through the process of referendums. A petition is a prerequisite for a referendum. The petition must be include the names, addresses, and signatures of 4% of the state voters to meet the threshold for a referendum.
The Secretary of State of Washington is the deciding official for the validity of a referendum.
Opponents of marriage equality sought the names of petitioners for same-sex marriage benefits under the Washington Public Records Act (PRA).
Pro-marriage equality objected to the public disclosure of their names and addresses.Procedural History
Doe (pro-marriage equality advocates) win at the trial loses.
Doe loses at the 9th Circuit.Issues
Does compelled disclosure of names and addresses of petitioners violate the Petition Clause of the 1st Amendment?
Arguments
Knowing the names and addresses of the petitioners prevents fraudulent petitions.
Holding
Compelled disclosures doesn't violate the 1st Amendment if there is an important government interest.
Rule
Exacting scrutiny is the standard for compelled disclosure.
