Whether a court's prior restraint on speech must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternatives for communication to satisfy the First Amendment

Under the guise of protecting a 17½-year-old child, a New Jersey family court judge placed a blanket prohibition upon petitioner Jeanne Tamagny’s ability to speak to anyone about her pending divorce action. In so doing, the trial court violated Ms. Tamagny’s free speech and parental rights, in conflict with decisions of this Court and multiple federal courts of appeals. The question presented is: Whether a court’s prior restraint on speech must be content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and leave open ample alternatives for communication to satisfy the First Amendment. ii STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES Scott Tamagny v Jeanne Tamagny, Bergen County Superior Court, Family Division, Docket Number FM-02-220-22, Date of Order June 28, 2024 4A Scott Tamagny v Jeanne Tamagny, New Jersey Appellate Division, Docket Number AM-00059523T3, Date of Order September 9, 2024 2A Scott Tamagny v Jeanne Tamagny, New Jersey Supreme Court, Docket Number M-344, Date of Order January 14, 2025 1A