A nice touch, I thought, in Justice Kagan's dissent in today's Free Speech Coalition v. Paxton:
To account for that concession in its analysis—and yet avoid strict scrutiny, as it wishes—the majority relies on a well-known distinction in First Amendment law between direct and incidental restrictions on speech. See (sorry) E. Kagan, Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine, 63 U. Chi. L. Rev. 413, 491–505 (1996).
Then-Professor Kagan's article is quite a legit cite here, by the way; it was an important and heavily cited work even before the author became a Justice.
The post "See (Sorry)": A New Citation Signal appeared first on Reason.com.
