Laserfiche WebLink
1 activity that they would wish to engage in. So it basically is <br />2 a facial challenge. <br />3 QUESTION: Weil, if it is, then I take that if there <br />4 is any set of facts that we can think about picketing to which <br />5 the ordinance could constitutionally be applied, you lose, do <br />6 you not, it it is a facial attack? <br />7 MR. MCDOWELL: If it is a facial attack, there the <br />8 question that this Court would have to determine is whether the <br />ordinance could appropriately be subject to a limiting <br />10 construction. <br />11 In this case, the town in its brief indicated that <br />12 limiting constructions might or might not be possible, but that <br />13 the town wished to forbid all picketing. <br />14 QUESTION: You are not relying on the overbreadth <br />15 doctrine then, I take it? <br />16 MR. MCDOWELL: The overbreadth doctrine is a point <br />17 that we have relied upon at various points. It was not the key <br />18 issue upon which the District Court granted its injunction. <br />19 However, the overbreadth doctrine has been raised both at the <br />20 District Court and at the Seventh Circuit. And in this case, <br />21 there may wen be that the ordinance sweeps substantially <br />22 overbroadly with respect to protected expression. <br />23 QUESTION: If you can only conceive of one instance <br />4 in which it is okay and only one, one might suspect that it is <br />25 overbroad. <br />28 <br />Heritage Reporting Corporation <br />(202) 628-4888 <br />