Ronan is the leader of a religious cult in Gotham City. He holds a weekly “service” in the public park and, during his sermon, uses insulting expletives directed at persons in his audience who are not members of the cult. The audience has become boisterous and several times fights have almost broken out between members of the audience and members of the cult. After a particularly boisterous rally, the attorney for the city of Gotham obtained an ex parte injunction prohibiting Ronan from conducting any further rallies “which tend to disturb or annoy the average member of the community.” If challenged on appeal, a judge would find the injunction:
A. Valid, because the threats of imminent violence justify the injunction.
B. Invalid, because the injunction is overly broad and vague.
C. Invalid, because the injunction was obtained in a manner which violates procedural due process.
D. Invalid for the reasons set forth in B & C.
{ 10 comments… read them below or add one }
Answer D is correct. The injunction is overly broad and vague because it fails to sufficiently define what acts are prohibited. Likewise, the speaker was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the injunction because the injunction severely limited his freedom and there was no emergency justifying the ex parte proceeding.
Answer A is incorrect. There is no threat of imminent violence here, because this is a prior restraint of future rallies. Free speech cannot be limited on the basis of future, speculative violence.
Answer B is incorrect. While the injunction is overly broad and vague because it fails to sufficiently define what acts are prohibited, C is also a true statement and, therefore, D is the correct answer.
Answer C is incorrect. The speaker was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the injunction because the injunction severely limited his freedom and there was no emergency justifying the ex parte proceeding. However, because B is also a true statement, D is the correct answer.
Answer D
Answer D In this case, the injunction is overly broad and vague because it fails to sufficiently define what acts are prohibited for answer B and the speaker was entitled to a hearing prior to the issuance of the injunction because the injunction severely limited his freedom and there was no emergency justifying the ex parte proceeding for answer C.
Dina–I don’t know if you’ll see my comment on the last question, but can you please post the answer for Question 36 when you are able as well? Thanks so much!
I’m voting C.
Answer – D
B.
Although A is usually true under the Brandenburg standard, the words of the injunction aren’t narrowly tailored to achieving their objective.
D? I think ex parte injunctions can be sought when there is a sufficient urgency. If this was after the rally, I don’t know if there was good cause to get an ex parte injunction, so I think C is correct, and B as well, because the injunction is overly broad and vague.
B.
B