Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Charles Barton v. Texas
Paid petition · Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, No. PD-1123-19
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Questions presented
In Snyder v. Phelps, this Court held that speech on matters of public concern cannot be punished “simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt,” even when the speaker intends to annoy, harass or alarm. 562 U.S. 443, 458 (2011). Many other decisions of this Court hold the same. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals nonetheless held that a criminal prohibition in Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) against “electronic communications” repeatedly sent with the intent and likely result to “harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend” the recipient punishes “conduct,” does not implicate the First Amendment, and is not subject to any overbreadth analysis, even though the court construed the law as applying to “expressive speech” sent with an “intent to engage in the legitimate communication of ideas.” The questions presented are:
-
Does the criminalization of expressive electronic communications in Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) implicate the First Amendment?
-
Is Texas Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7) unconstitutionally overbroad?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
David A. Schulz
Media Freedom and Information Access Clinic
For respondent
Judd Edward Stone II
Texas Attorney General's Office
Proceedings
- Feb 21 2023Petition DENIED.
- Feb 01 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/17/2023.
- Jan 23 2023Reply of petitioners Charles Barton and Nathan Sanders filed.
- Jan 09 2023Brief of respondent Texas in opposition filed.
- Dec 08 2022Brief amicus curiae of University of Virginia School of Law First Amendment Clinic filed.
- Dec 08 2022Brief amici curiae of Technology Law and Policy Clinic at New York University School of Law & Woodhull Freedom Foundation filed.
- Dec 08 2022Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Scholars filed.
- Dec 08 2022Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed.
- Dec 08 2022Brief amicus curiae of The Rutherford Institute filed.
- Dec 07 2022Brief amicus curiae of Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA) (Corrected Brief submitted) filed.
- Dec 07 2022Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed.
- Nov 30 2022Amicus brief of Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association (TCDLA) not accepted for filing. (December 05, 2022) (corrected brief to be submitted)
- Nov 17 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including January 9, 2023.
- Nov 16 2022Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 8, 2022 to January 9, 2023, submitted to The Clerk.
- Nov 04 2022Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 8, 2022)
- Sep 28 2022Application (22A207) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until November 4, 2022.
- Sep 28 2022Application (22A138) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until November 4, 2022.
- Sep 23 2022Application (22A207) to extend further the time from October 6, 2022 to November 4, 2022, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Sep 23 2022Application (22A138) to extend further the time from October 6, 2022 to November 4, 2022, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Sep 08 2022Application (22A207) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 6, 2022.
- Aug 30 2022Application (22A207) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 27, 2022 to October 6, 2022, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Aug 18 2022Application (22A138) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until October 6, 2022.
- Aug 08 2022Application (22A138) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from September 6, 2022 to November 4, 2022, submitted to Justice Alito.