stating that governmental speech is “immune from constitutional challenge, 27 because the government is not required to be impartial when speaking, as long as its speech is consistent with the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses”
How later courts described this case
- stating that governmental speech is “immune from constitutional challenge, 27 because the government is not required to be impartial when speaking, as long as its speech is consistent with the Establishment and Equal Protection clauses”
- “Our focus in this case . . . is the statutorily-authorized control the State has . . . and not the actual level of control evidenced in the record.” (citing Paramount Land Co. Ltd. P’ship v. Cal. Pistachio Comm’n, 491 F.3d 1003, 1011 (9th Cir. 2007))
- “government speech [] is immune to challenge under the First Amendment”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
REINHARDT, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part:
I concur in the majority opinion up to the concluding paragraph of Part I. Rather than finding any “uncharted gap” or performing any “tip[ping of] the balance,” I would simply conclude that the Commission is a government entity and that its speech is therefore government speech. For that reason, I find Part II wholly unnecessary to the opinion, and would not reach the question of government control. I express no view as to any discussion or holdings contained in Part II.