Free Speech Coalition v. Reno

220 F.3d 1113, 2000 WL 1010063
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided July 24, 2000·No. No. 97-16536·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinions

ORDER; Dissent by Judge WARDLAW.

ORDER

The panel as constituted above, has voted as follows: Judges Thomas and Molloy voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judge Thomas voted to reject the suggestion for rehearing en banc and Judge Mol-loy recommends rejection of the suggestion; Judge Ferguson voted to grant the [1114]*1114petition for rehearing and recommended granting the suggestion for rehearing en banc.

A judge of the court called for a vote on the suggestion for rehearing en banc. A vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges of the court failed to vote for en banc rehearing. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).

The petition for rehearing is denied and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is rejected.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Free Speech Coalition v. Reno, 220 F.3d 1113, 2000 WL 1010063 (9th Cir. 2000).

220 F.3d 1113 (Free Speech Coalition v. Reno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Gonzales v. Free Speech Coalition
408 F.3d 613 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
The Free Speech Coalition v. Janet Reno
220 F.3d 1113 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)