noting that “a challenge to the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction under the abuse of discretion standard” will succeed when “the district court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- noting that “a challenge to the grant or denial of a preliminary injunction under the abuse of discretion standard” will succeed when “the district court relied upon clearly erroneous findings of fact, improperly applied the governing law, or used an erroneous legal standard” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- stating “the public as a whole has a significant interest in ensuring equal protection of the laws and protection of First Amendment liberties”
- “the public as a whole has a significant interest in ... protection of First Amendment liberties”
- “[T]o the extent that the plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood that they could succeed on the merits of their First Amendment claims, they have also established the possibility of irreparable harm as a result of the deprivation of the claimed free speech rights.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ALAN E. NORRIS, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
While I concur with the conclusions reached by my colleagues in virtually every respect, I write separately because I believe that Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1716.08(D), which requires professional solicitors to obtain written commitments for donated tickets, passes constitutional muster.
Assuming that the provision imposes a content-based restriction on speech, it is neither unduly burdensome nor overly broad in view of the state’s compelling interest in ensuring that charitable solicitations are free from fraudulent representations.
The provision itself is certainly narrow inasmuch as it only affects those solicitors who use donated tickets as a means of increasing contributions. Further, the provision does not impose a limit on the number of tickets that can be given away; it merely requires that solicitors engage in a modicum of forethought by contacting the recipient organization before, rather than after, the fundraising campaign. Seen in this light, the burden, if any, imposed on solicitors is minimal when balanced against the state’s interest in ensuring that the tickets are used as represented.