Colleen Reilly, et al. v. City of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, et al.

Whether this Court’s holding in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. Ct. 2218 (2015), that laws restricting speech on the basis of its function or purpose are facially content-based, overruled and replaced this Court’s previous test for content neutrality set forth in Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (2000).

Whether an Article III court’s use of the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to impose a narrowing construction on a content-based regulation of protected speech that is contrary to the law’s plain text and the government’s construction, enforcement, and defense conflicts with this Court’s binding precedents in United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 481 (2010), and Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844, 884 (1997).

Whether this Court’s holding in McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 494 (2014), that the government must demonstrate it seriously undertook to address alleged problems with protected speech by less restrictive tools readily available to it, requires that the government show, with a meaningful record, that other less restrictive alternatives were tried and failed or that such alternatives were closely examined and ruled out for good reason, as stated in Bruni v. City of Pittsburgh, 824 F.3d 353 (3d Cir. 2016) [hereinafter Bruni I].