Report
free-speech-coalition-v-paxton-pet
61 authorities checked
How this report was built
AI inference calls
0
Citations parsed
61
Sources queried
3
Cornell LII, CourtListener, govinfo
Source texts retrieved
56
Quotes checked
89
72 matched in source text
Verification runs deterministically against authoritative public databases. Your brief is not sent to OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or any other third-party model.
Click any citation below to see how we verified it, the matched source, and a per-quote breakdown.
§Authorities
|
1 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570 (2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “303 Creative LLC v. Elenis”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
2 ACLU v. Johnson, 194 F.3d 1149 (10th Cir. 1999) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “American Civil Liberties Union v. Johnson”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
3 ACLU v. Mukasey, 534 F.3d 181 (3rd Cir. 2008) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “American Civil Liberties Union v. Mukasey”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
4 Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Agostini v. Felton”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
5 Am. Booksellers Found. v. Dean, 342 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2003) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “American Booksellers Foundation v. Dean”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
6 Ams. for Prosperity Found. v. Bonta, 594 U.S. 595 (2021) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
7 Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
6 of 7 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“less restrictive alternatives”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that the statute was enacted to serve.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits.”
The brief's quote matches 64% of the cited opinion, but in separate passages — not as one continuous quote. This typically means the brief either paraphrased inside the quotation marks (Bluebook Rule 5.2 requires brackets for any substitution) or silently omitted intervening text (Bluebook Rule 5.3 requires “. . .” for omissions). Compare the brief's quotation against the cited opinion.
What diverges
brief: …rated that they are likely to succeed on the merits…
opinion: …rated that they are likely to prevail on the merits. see, e. g., doran …
“they are likely to succeed on the merits.”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
“the underlying constitutional question is close,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“take steps to promote their development by industry,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“allow[ing] the parties to update and supplement the factual record to reflect current technological realities.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
8 , 27-29, 31-33, 37, 39-42, 44 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coal., 535 U.S. 234 (2002) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 4 of 4 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“bars the government from dictating what we see or read or speak or hear.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“[S]peech may not be prohibited because it concerns subjects offending our sensibilities.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“is not directed at speech that is obscene”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“Congress has proscribed those materials through a separate statute”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
9 Barr v. Am. Ass'n of Pol. Consultants, Inc., 591 U.S. 610 (2020) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Barr v. American Assn. of Political Consultants, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
10 Bolger v. Youngs Drug Prods. Corp., 463 U.S. 60 (1983) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
11 Brown v. Ent. Merchs. Ass'n, 564 U.S. 786 (2011) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 6 of 6 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“The most basic”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“government has no power to restrict expression because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“it is difficult to distinguish”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“to try.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“What is one man's amusement, teaches another's doctrine.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“is alone enough to defeat it.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
12 Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380 (1957) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Butler v. Michigan”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for children,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“burn the house to roast the pig”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
13 Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“exacting scrutiny”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
14 Denver Area Educ. Telecomms. Consortium, Inc. v. FCC, 518 U.S. 727 (1996) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“on leased channels”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“not on other channels”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“the record before Congress … provides no convincing explanation”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).
15 Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Elrod v. Burns”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
16 Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Rokita, F. Supp. 3d , 2024 WL 3228197 (S.D. Ind. June 28, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. v. ROKITA”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“discriminates amongst speakers in the marketplace”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
17 Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Rokita, 2024 WL 3861733 (7th Cir. Aug. 16, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· low confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
18 Free Speech Coal., Inc. v. Rokita, No. 1:24-cv-00980-RLY-MG (S.D. Ind. July 25, 2024) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· low confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
We couldn't independently confirm the reporter triple, but we believe this is the matching case based on CourtListener's docket index. Matched docket: “FREE SPEECH COALITION, INC. v. ROKITA”.
View matched docket on CourtListener →
View case page on GovInfo →
19 Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ginsberg v. New York”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“defined to be obscene on the basis of its appeal to them whether or not it would be obscene to adults.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“adjusts the definition of obscenity 'to social realities by permitting the appeal of this type of material to be assessed in term of the sexual interests'”
Found — minor punctuation or spacing differences.
“[H]is contention is … that the scope of the constitutional freedom of expression secured to a citizen to read or see material concerned with sex cannot be made to depend upon whether the citizen is an adult or a minor.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).
20 Gordon v. Holder, 721 F.3d 638 (D.C. Cir. 2013) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Robert Gordon v. Eric Holder, Jr”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[E]nforcement of an unconstitutional law is always contrary to the public interest.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
21 Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U.S. 255 (2023) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Haaland v. Brackeen”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
22 Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
23 Mahanoy Area Sch. Dist. v. B.L., 594 U.S. 180 (2021) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B. L”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“[P]arents, not the State, have the primary authority and duty to raise, educate, and form the character of their children.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
24 McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (2014) brief quality retrieval gap
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'Eleanor McCullen v. Martha Coakley, Attorney General of Massachusetts' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '134', 'reporter': 'S. Ct.', 'page': '2518'}, {'volume': '189', 'reporter': 'L. Ed. 2d', 'page': '502'}, {'volume': '2014', 'reporter': 'U.S. LEXIS', 'page': '4499'}, {'volume': '2014', 'reporter': 'WL', 'page': '2882079'}, {'volume': '24', 'reporter': 'Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S', 'page': '929'}, {'volume': '82', 'reporter': 'U.S.L.W.', 'page': '4584'}] (scotus, 2014), but the brief's citation does not match.
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
assume, without deciding, that
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
level of scrutiny
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
25 Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
3 of 4 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Miller v. California”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“depicts or describes … sexual content”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“patently offensive”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“appeals to the prurient interest,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
26 Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minn. Comm'r of Revenue, 460 U.S. 575 (1983) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Commissioner of Revenue”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“suggests that the goal of the regulation is not unrelated to suppression of expression.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
27 Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502 (1966) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Mishkin v. New York”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“rational relation to the objective of safeguarding such minors from harm,”
This quote does not appear in the cited opinion's text, but may be a canonical restatement of the opinion — the language appears in another opinion this brief cites.
28 Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 144 S. Ct. 2383 (2024) brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'Ashley Moody, Attorney General of Florida, et al., Petitioners v. NetChoice, LLC, dba NetChoice, et al.' exists in CourtListener at [{'volume': '603', 'reporter': 'U.S.', 'page': '707'}] (scotus, 2024), but the brief's citation does not match.
How we matched this
The brief's reporter triple is independently confirmed by leagle.com's volume index, and CourtListener's docket index identifies the same case.
Quotes attributed to this authority
“stipulate or bind [a court] to the application of an incorrect legal standard.”
Found — the brief signaled the modification with a Bluebook parenthetical, so we used a relaxed match. Brief signaled: “(citations omitted)”.
“a substantial number of [the law's] applications are unconstitutional, judged in relation to the statute's plainly legitimate sweep”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“ask[], as to every covered platform or function, whether there is an intrusion on protected editorial discretion.”
Found, treating [bracketed] text in the quote as flexible.
29 Nat'l. Inst. of Family and Life Advocs. v. Becerra, 585 U.S. 755 (2018) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 6 of 6 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits laws that abridge the freedom of speech.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“fundamental principle”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“because of its message, its ideas, its subject matter, or its content.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“are presumptively unconstitutional”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“stringent standard”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“[s]peaker-based laws run the risk that 'the State has left unburdened those speakers whose messages are in accord with its own views.'”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
30 Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Nken v. Holder”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
31 Planned Parenthood v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52 (1976) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“somewhat broader authority to regulate the activities of children,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
32 Police Dept. v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
33 PSInet v. Chapman, 362 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2004) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “PSINet, Inc. v. Chapman”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
34 R.A.V. v. St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “R. A. v. v. City of St. Paul”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
35 Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83 (2020) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Ramos v. Louisiana”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“vertical stare decisis.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
36 Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U.S. 155 (2015) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Reed v. Town of Gilbert”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
37 Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“made it perfectly clear that 'sexual expression which is … not obscene is protected by the First Amendment.'”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3). Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
“with serious educational or other value”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“[T]he level of discourse reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that which would be suitable for a sandbox.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
38 , 32, 35, 39, 42, 44 Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 3 of 3 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Roth v. United States”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“sex and obscenity are not synonymous,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“portrayal of sex … in art, literature, and scientific works”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).
“sufficient reason to deny material the constitutional protection of freedom of speech and press.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
39 Sable Commc'ns v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115 (1989) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
0 of 2 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Sable Communications of California, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“should be clear: The standard is strict scrutiny.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“[t]he Government's contentbased burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
40 Seminole Tribe v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
41 Smith v. Daily Mail Publ'g Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“electronic media”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
42 Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 2 of 2 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Snyder v. Phelps”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment … that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).
“the point of all speech protection ... is to shield just those choices of content that in someone's eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
43 Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552 (2011) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· medium confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Lawmakers may no more silence unwanted speech by burdening its utterance than by censoring its content.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
44 Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Stern v. Marshall”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“Slight encroachments create new boundaries from which legions of power can seek new territory to capture.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
45 Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of N.Y. State Crime Victims Bd., 502 U.S. 105 (1991) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Simon & Schuster, Inc. v. Members of the New York State Crime Victims Board”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
46 Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Texas v. Johnson”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
47 Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200 (1994) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“complying with a regulation later held invalid almost always produces the irreparable harm of nonrecoverable compliance costs.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
48 United States v. Playboy Ent. Grp., Inc., 529 U.S. 803 (2000) flagged
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
10 of 11 located
Why we flagged this
- At least one attributed quote wasn't located in the retrieved text.
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature … are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree,”
Found — the brief joined separate passages with ellipses (Bluebook R. 5.3).
“can stand only if it satisfies strict scrutiny,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“one idea is as good as any other”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“Constitution no more enforces a relativistic philosophy or moral nihilism than it does any other point of view.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“exists precisely so that opinions and judgments, including esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature, can be formed, tested, and expressed.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“judgments are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“[c]easeless vigilance”
Not found in the cited opinion. We tried exact matching, bracketed substitutions, ellipsis-split joins, and punctuation-tolerant matching — none matched.
“find [it] shabby, offensive, or even ugly,”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“[t]he Government's content-based burdens must satisfy the same rigorous scrutiny as its content-based bans.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“Laws designed or intended to suppress or restrict the expression of specific speakers contradict basic First Amendment principles.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
“well-promoted voluntary blocking provision”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
49 , 21-25, 28, 32, 34, 37, 40-41 United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460 (2010) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “United States v. Stevens”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“historic and traditional categories long familiar to the bar.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion. Brief signaled: “(citation omitted)”.
50 Williams-Yulee v. Fla. Bar, 575 U.S. 433 (2015) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
51 Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (2008) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
Pass· 1 of 1 located
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
Quotes attributed to this authority
“plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Found word-for-word in the opinion.
52 Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507 (1948) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Winters v. New York”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
53 Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns., 471 U.S. 626 (1985) clean
Case exists as cited?
Pass
· high confidence
Opinion text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
The citation's reporter triple appears in CourtListener's index, matched to “Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of the Supreme Court of Ohio”.
View matched opinion on CourtListener →
54 95 F.4th 263 flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Why we flagged this
- We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.
55 689 F. Supp. 3d 373 flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Why we flagged this
- We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.
56 (No. 47, O.T. 1967), 1967 WL 113634, at *7 brief quality flagged
Case exists as cited?
Not verified
Opinion text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in opinion?
N/A
· opinion text unavailable
Brief-quality observations
- A case named 'In Re Multidistrict Civil Actions Involving Air Crash Disaster Near Dayton, Ohio, on March 9, 1967' exists in CourtListener at 386 F. Supp. 908 (jpml, 1975). The brief cites it as 1967 WL 113634 — the brief's citation does not match the real instrument.
Why we flagged this
- We couldn't independently verify this citation against our public sources.
- We couldn't retrieve the source text from any of our public sources.
Why we couldn't check the quotes
We couldn't retrieve any opinion text for this citation from our public sources. The case may only be available on a paid service like Westlaw or Lexis. Without the text, we can't check whether the brief's quotes appear in the opinion.
Quotes attributed to this authority
These quotes have not been verified because the opinion text wasn't available.
The appellant's position is that the restriction on the distribution of literature based on age classification is censorship, pure and simple.
Not verified: opinion text unavailable.
57 47 U.S.C. § 231 clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
58 Iowa Code § 256.11 manual verify
Citation exists?
Not verified
Source text retrieved?
No
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
Please verify this one manually
This citation falls outside our automated coverage. Law reviews, treatises, restatements, and legislative packages predating govinfo's collection window don't have a free full-text source we can reliably retrieve. The citation itself looks well-formed; a reviewer with access to HeinOnline, Westlaw, Lexis, or a law library can confirm. This isn't a defect in the citation; it's a coverage gap in our automated sources.
59 Id. clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
How we matched this
Constitutional citation.
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
60 28 U.S.C. § 1254 clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
· no quotes to check
How we matched this
Matched on Cornell Law's online code (LII).
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
62 Fourteenth Amendment clean
Citation exists?
Pass
· high confidence
Source text retrieved?
Yes
Quotes found in source?
N/A
How we matched this
Constitutional citation.
View text on Cornell Law (LII) →
§Record & filing references (68)
Citations to filings in this case or its record — appendices, docket entries, pleadings. These aren't published authority, so we don't retrieve or verify them. They're listed here so every citation in the brief is accounted for.
Footnote 4
footnote
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [p]ornography is potentially biologically addictive
- proven to harm human brain development.
- Exposure to this content is associated with low selfesteem and body image, eating disorders, impaired brain development, and other emotional and mental illnesses.
- TEXAS HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
- sexual materials health warnings
- landing page
- all advertisements,
- substance abuse and mental health.
ECF No. 50
docket filing
not verified
Pet. App. 17a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- startling omissions.
- omissions
- startling omission[].
Pet. App. 1a-87a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 90a-161a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 109a, 115a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- all salacious material,
Pet. App. 112a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- sexually explicit or pornographic
- visual search
- [Texas's] own expert suggests that exposure to online pornography often begins with 'misspelled searches,'
- sexually explicit or pornographic
- extracted from [adult] websites regardless of age verification.
Pet. App. 113a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- verify that an individual attempting to access the [site] is
- digital identification,
- governmentissued identification,
- a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data.
- material which is sexually explicit for minors,
- maintain entire communities and forums
- to posting online pornography.
- fails to reduce the online pornography that is most readily available to minors.
- maintain entire communities and forums
- to posting online pornography.
- material which is sexually explicit for minors.
Pet. App. 95a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 125a-126a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- substantial chilling effect
- affirmatively identify themselves
- inadvertent disclosures, leaks, or hacks.
- state monitoring
- what kind of websites they visit.
- reveal intimate desires and preferences.
Pet. App. 127a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [u]sers today are more cognizant of privacy concerns
- data breaches have become more high-profile
- users may be more willing to pay to keep that information private.
- simply does not match the evidence.
Pet. App. 125a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- access to sexual material
- can reveal intimate desires and preferences.
Pet. App. 90a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 107a-111a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 111a-136a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 112a-114a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- severely underinclusive.
Pet. App. 122a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- sweeps far beyond obscene material and includes all content offensive to minors, while failing to exempt material that has cultural, scientific, or educational value to adults only.
- It is the structure of the law, and not its application to any particular [website], that renders it unconstitutional.
Pet. App. 135a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- even consider[] the law's tailoring or ma[ke] any effort whatsoever to choose the least-restrictive measure.
Pet. App. 128a-135a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 136a-150a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 137a-143a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 142a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 145a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 156a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 160a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- nothing in th[e court's] order prevents the state from pursuing
- viable and constitutional means
- to achieve Texas's goal
- are viable and constitutional means to achieve Texas's goal
Pet. App. 167a-168a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 166a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 27a-38a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 8a-27a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 44a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 16a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 17a, 26a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 16a-19a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- discussion of rational-basis review under Ginsberg
- startling omission[]
Pet. App. 17a-18a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- did not have to correct
Pet. App. 13a-16a, 20a-26a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 20a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- surmount the rock that is Ginsberg.
Pet. App. 26a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- easily
Pet. App. 45a-87a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 47a-48a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- must face strict scrutiny review,
- because it limits adults' access to protected speech using a content-based distinction.
- has no purchase
- a challenge to an adult's ability to access constitutionally protected materials
Pet. App. 56a-57a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- that minors have more limited First Amendment rights than adults.
Pet. App. 68a-78a
appendix
not verified
Pet App. 109a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- Because most sexual content is offensive to young minors, the law covers virtually all salacious material,
https://bit.ly/4c5B42K
web source
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- adults should still be able to access every bit of the materials.
Pet. App. 124a-127a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 126a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- trust that companies will actually delete it.
Pet. App. 75a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- the state government can log and track adults' access to sexual material.
Pet. App. 108a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 4a, 16a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 19a-20a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 55a, 68a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 22a-23a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 22a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- a death knell in and of itself.
Pet. App. 25a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- a reasonable policy choice to avoid the legal concerns that accompany … regulat[ing] the 'entire universe of cyberspace.'
- [s]electivity
- different sorts of messages, not different mediums.
Pet. App. 113a-114a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 131a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- [Texas's] own study … points out[ that] pop-up ads, not pornographic websites, are the most common forms of sexual material encountered by adolescents,
Pet. App. 111a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- catalog all movies that they show, and if at least onethird of those movies are R-rated, … screen everyone at the main entrance for their 18+ identification, regardless of what movie they wanted to see.
Pet. App. 114a
appendix
not verified
Quoted language the brief sources to this reference (not to a cited case):
- material most likely to serve as a gateway to pornography use.
Pet. App. 133a-135a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 132a, 134a
appendix
not verified
J.A. 59
appendix
not verified
J.A. 280
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 127a, 132a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 134a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 85a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 135a-136a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 128a
appendix
not verified
Pet. App. 157a
appendix
not verified
Footnote 6
footnote
not verified