Index of Constitutional Issue & Support Cases and Current State Litigation

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUE AND SUPPORTING CASES

1. Big Mama Rag, Inc. v. United States, 631 F.2d 1030 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
• States the standard for determining whether legislation is unconstitutionally vague
2. Continental Training Services, Inc. v. Cavazos, 893 F.2d 877 (7th Cir. 1990).
• To revoke or remove a government-granted privilege, a notice and hearing are required
3. Greater Duluth COACT v. City of Duluth, 701 F.Supp. 1452 (D. Minn. 1988).
• Tax-exempt status for non-profit organizations is considered a property right
4. Famine Relief Fund v. State of W. Va., 905 F.2d 747 (4th Cir. 1990).
• Refusal to allow non-profit organization the right to solicit violates the right to free speech under the First Amendment
5. Freedman v. State of Maryland, 380 U.S. 51 (1965).
• Focuses on prior restraints to free speech and gives a three-prong test
6. Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 102 (1972)
• Discusses how vague legislation operates to inhibit personal freedom and liberty
7. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc. v. Nelson, 872 F.2d 1555 (11th Cir. 1989).
• Government is allowed to grant substantive benefits discretionately
8. Hynes v. Mayor and Council of Borough of Ovadell, 425 U.S. 610 (1976).
• Questions of vagueness are more closely reviewed when speech is involved
9. Secretary of State of MD v. Joseph H. Munson, Co., 467 U.S. 947 (1984).
• Percentage restrictions on charitable solicitation unconstitutionally limits First Amendment rights of the charities
10. Perry v. Snidermann, 408 U.S. 725 (1972).
• Court ruled that government may not deny a person a governmental benefit on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected rights
11. Riley v. National Federation of the Blind of N.C., 108 S.Ct. 2667 (1988).
• Court ruled that review of statutes regulating charitable contribution solicitations are under strict scrutiny
12. Speiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 424 (1958).
• Discriminatory denial of a tax exemption for engaging in speech is a limitation on free speech
13. Village of Shaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Society, 444 U.S. 620 (1980).
• Court declared city ordinance, which required at least 75 percent of door-to-door solicitations receipts be for charitable purposes, unconstitutional
14. Murdock v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).
• States the rule for assessing the constitutionality of a fee imposed by the state upon the exercise of free speech protected by the First Amendment
15. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue Illinois, 386 U.S. 753, 18 L.Ed.2d 505, 87 S.Ct. 1389 (1967).
• Deals with burdens of taxation upon mail order transactions generated by out-of-state companies - statute found unconstitutional based on the Commerce Clause
16. International Society for Krishna Consciousness v. City of Houston, 689 F.2d 541 (5th Cir. 1982).
• Registration requirement for charitable solicitors not invalid under First Amendment
17. Gaudiya Vaishnava Society v. San Francisco, CA0, No. 88-1904 (4/10/90), U.S. Law Week 5/1/90.
• City ordinance that requires nonprofit organizations to obtain peddler's permit to sell message-bearing merchandise on public sidewalks impermissibly regulates protected speech in public forum and rests unbridled discretion in government officials to deny expressive activity in violations of First Amendment
18. Greenpeace, U.S.A. v. City of Glendale, 4 Cal. Rptr. 2d 672 (Cal. App. 2 Dist. 1992).
• Ordinance requiring fingerprinting of solicitors who haven't maintained headquarters in city for 3 years held unconstitutional under First and Fouteenth Amendments
19. Make A Joyful Noise, Inc., v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1989-4.
• IRS employs "commensurate test" to revoke charities tax exempt status where charity operated bingo games through a for profit firm to raise funds, and no progress had been made in 5 years toward acheiving its goal of operating a camp for disadvantaged and elderly citizens
20. Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974).
• Speakers have the right to choose both what they say and how they say it
21. Hays County Gardian v. Supple, 969 F.2d 111 (5th Cir. 1992).
• Freedom of speech and association protected by the First Amendment includes the freedom to choose both waht to say and what not to say - can't force speech of support of another's viewpoint
22. Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego, [cite].
• Government may not favor commercial speech over nonprofit fully protected speech

CURRENT STATE LITIGATION
1. National Awareness Foundation v. Abrams, (FSC submitted Amicus Brief in 1994.
• Trying to strike down as unconstitutional New York registration fee of $80
2. National Federation of the Blind v. Norton, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado, Case No. 97-1396.
• Trying to strike down Colorado telemarketing regulations as unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth Amendments
3. Louisiana Union of Police Associations v. Ieyoub, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, Case No. 97-797-A-M3.
• Trying to strike down Louisiana statute which mandates disclosures at point of solicitation by certain, "unsanctioned" law enforcement groups, while exempting "sanctioned" groups, as unconstituional under First and Fourteenth Amendments
4. Texas State Troopers Association v. Morales, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, Case No. 397 CV 2114-H.
• First and Fourteenth Amendment constitutional challenges to Texas law requiring disclosure of percentage of donation to be spent on fundraising at point of solicitation, as well as restricting times in which telephone solicitations may be made.