SG files opposition in gun in parks case
SCOTUSBlog has a link and discussion. The brief argues that (1) the regulation has been revoked by legislation, hence its constitutionality is not worth reviewing, and (2) the regulation could be justified under intermediate scrutiny.
UPDATE: I think he's referring to intermediate scrutiny, which is applied (as I recall) to most content-neutral time-place-manner restrictions on speech. I.e., you can't use a bullhorn at night in a residential area, and we don't care which side or what issue you speak on.
In first amendment case law, is intermediate scrutiny used to evaluate laws restricting free speech in public places? Also, what is “mid-level scrutiny”? Is he simply referring to intermediate, or is there some other level between rational basis and intermediate?
Posted by: Jim at October 20, 2011 12:07 PM