Kidwell’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 9 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Although these principles require some limit on the government’s power to advocate during elections, they do not support a bright line rule barring such speech, at least where the government speaks within the scope of its governance functions. Governments must serve their citizens in myriad ways, including by provision of emergency services, and those activities require funding through taxation .... The issues on which the city advocated were thus germane to the mechanics of its function, and are clearly distinguishable from the hypothetical cases of government speech in support of particular candidates.... The natural outcome of government speech is that some constituents will be displeased by the stance that their government has taken. Displeasure does not necessarily equal unconstitutional compulsion, however, and in most cases the electoral process — not First Amend ment litigation — is the appropriate recourse for such displeasure.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Young v. Red Clay Consolidated School District

2. “Our compelled-subsidy cases have consistently respected the principle that “[cjompelled support of a private association is fundamentally different from compelled support of government.” “Compelled support of government” — even those programs of government one does not approve — is of course perfectly constitutional, as every taxpayer must attest. And some government programs involve, or entirely consist of, advocating a position. “The government, as a general rule, may support valid programs and policies by taxes or other exactions binding on protesting parties. Within this broader principle it seems inevitable that funds raised by the government will be spent for speech and other expression to advocate and defend its own policies.” We have generally assumed, though not yet squarely held, that compelled funding of government speech does not alone raise First Amendment concerns.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 222 Md. App. 278 - Montgomery County v. Fraternal Order of Police