RENELUS

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000)
  …es overbreadth analysis to an antiabortion law that has nothing to do with speech, even though until eight years ago overbreadth was unquestionably the exclusive preserve of the First Amendment. See Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, 517 U. S. 1174, 1177-1181 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Ada v. Guam Soc. of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, 506 U. S. 1011, 1013 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). Does the deck seem stacked? You bet. As I have…
• Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (U.S. 2000)
  …lth Organization v. Schafer, 507 U. S. 1013, 1014 (1993) (O’Connor, J., joined by Souter, J., concurring) (arguing that the “no set of circumstances” standard is incompatible with Casey). See also Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, 517 U. S. 1174, 1177-1179 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari). In Casey, the Court was presented with a facial challenge to, among other provisions, a spousal notice requirement. The question, according to the majority, was whether the spou…
• United States v. Frandsen, 212 F.3d 1231 (11th Cir. 2000)
  …2d 772 (1997) (Stevens, J. concurring) ("I do not believe the Court has ever actually applied such a strict standard, even -in Salerno itself, and the Court does not appear to apply Salerno here.”); Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, 517 U.S. 1174, 1175-76, 116 S.Ct. 1582, 1583, 134 L.Ed.2d 679 (1996) (Memorandum opinion by Stevens, J. denying cert.) ("[T]he dicta in- Salerno does not accurately characterize the standard for deciding facial challenges, and neither accurately reflects the Cour…