No. 19-1091
Steve Ray Evans v. Sandy City, Utah, et al.
Tags: expressive-conduct first-amendment free-speech government-burden government-regulation less-restrictive-alternatives public-forum roadway-medians speech-restriction traffic-safety
Latest Conference:
2020-09-29
(distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)
1. Whether a governme nt may ban expressive
conduc t without first trying to advance its interests
using less speech -restrictive measures , as the Ten th
Circuit held below, in conflict with decisions of this
Court and the First, Third, Fourth , and Ninth Circuits .
2. Whether a government may ban all expressive
conduct in or near roadways on the gr ound that doing so is necessary to eliminat e the risk of traffic accidents , as the Tenth Circuit h eld below, in conflic t
with decisions of this Court a nd the First, Fourth ,
and Ninth Circuit s.
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether a government may ban expressive conduct without first trying to advance its interests using less speech-restrictive measures
Docket Entries
2020-10-05
Petition DENIED.
2020-09-04
Letter of September 4, 2020 from counsel for petitioner filed.
2020-06-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2020.
2020-06-23
Reply of petitioner Steve Ray Evans filed. (Distributed)
2020-06-08
Brief of respondents Sandy City, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-05-04
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 8, 2020.
2020-05-01
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 7, 2020 to June 8, 2020, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-04-07
Response Requested. (Due May 7, 2020)
2020-03-25
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2020.
2020-03-17
Waiver of right of respondent Sandy City, et al. to respond filed.
2020-03-02
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 6, 2020)
Attorneys
Sandy City, et al.
Troy L. Booher — Zimmerman Booher, Respondent
Steve Ray Evans
Kevin Paul Martin — Goodwin Procter LLP, Petitioner