This preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.
This preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.View Full Document
Unformatted text preview: NEA v Finley NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. KAREN FINLEY, ET AL. No. 97-371 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 524 U.S. 569; 118 S. Ct. 2168; 141 L. Ed. 2d 500; 1998 U.S. LEXIS 4211; 66 U.S.L.W. 4586; 98 Daily Journal DAR 6957; 1998 Colo. J. C.A.R. 3222; 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 675 March 31, 1998, Argued June 25, 1998, Decided PRIOR HISTORY: ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. DISPOSITION: 100 F.3d 671 , reversed and remanded. CASE SUMMARY PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Petitioner National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) sought review of an order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of respondent artists. The artists challenged the constitutionality of the grant-making procedures under the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C.S. 954(d)(1) . OVERVIEW: The artists challenged the grant-making procedures outlined in the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act, 20 U.S.C.S. 954 (d)(1) , for First Amendment violations and constitutional vagueness after the NEA denied funding for their projects. The district court and court of appeals found that the statute was invalid, but on review, the Supreme Court held that the statute was facially valid because it neither inherently interfered with First Amendment rights nor violated constitutional vagueness principles. The legislation merely took "decency and respect" into consideration and was aimed at reforming procedures rather than precluding speech....
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 05/04/2010 for the course PLS 460 taught by Professor Lermack during the Spring '10 term at Bradley.
- Spring '10