FREEDMAN v. MARYLAND

During his 2018 Senate reelection campaign and consistent with federal law, Ted Cruz loaned $260,000 to his campaign committee, Ted Cruz for Senate.

Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.

Whether an injunction that limits the places where and the manner in which antiabortion protestors may demonstrate violates the First Amendment.

Whether a Dallas ordinance licensing "sexually oriented businesses" amounted to a prior restraint on protected expression, violating the First Amendment.

Did Lakewood's city ordinance violate freedom of speech rights as protected by the First Amendment?

Whether a Texas statute authorizing injunctions against exhibition of obscene motions pictures violated the First Amendment's bar on prior restraints because it authorized temporary injunctions of indefinite duration.

Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.

Whether an injunction against enforcement of a New York ordinance prohibiting topless dancing due to overbreadth was wrongly granted.

Whether the denial of a city facility for a production of "Hair" because it contained "obscene" conduct constituted a prior restraint and violated the First Amendment.

Whether an order enjoining petitioners from distributing leaflets anywhere in the town of Westchester, Illinois, violates petitioners' First Amendment rights.

Whether a federal law barring use of the mail for delivering obscene matter to persons over 21 was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Whether a 10-day restraining order issued against the "white supremacist" National States Rights Party must be set aside as violative of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Must a protester, when faced with an injunction enforcing a facially unconstitutional ordinance, engage in an orderly judicial review of that injunction before disobeying it?

Whether the conviction of a manager of a movie theater for "possessing and exhibiting an allegedly obscene film" violated the free speech guarantee of the First Amendment.

Whether a state commission with broad discretion to define obscenity, and that allowed police enforcement of obscenity laws, was constitutional under the First Amendment.

Whether a Virginia barratry statute which banned the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business unconstitutionally burdened the First Amendment freedom of association rights of the petitioner and petitioners clients.

Whether a Chicago ordinance requiring submission of films for examination by city officials as prerequisite to granting of permit for public exhibition of such films violates the First Amendment.

Whether a New York law denying licenses to show movies which "alluringly portrays adultery as proper behavior" is viewpont discrimination and violates the First Amendment.

Whether an Ohio statute forbidding the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a license constitutes a prior restraint and is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Whether a New York Education Law that prohibited the commercial showing of any motion picture film without a license, and authorized denial of a license on a censors conclusion that a film was "sacrilegious," violated the First Amendment. Could the New York Board of Regents ban Roberto Rossellinis The Miracle under regulations barring "sacrilegious" films?

Whether a state law prohibiting a parade or procession on a public street without a special license violates the First Amendment.

Whether a local ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature of any kind, and in any way, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager violated the First Amendment.

Do the constitutional protections of freedom of expression, including those of the Ohio Constitution, extend to motion pictures?