Wyoming Liberty Group
CHEYENNE – Wyoming Liberty Group attorneys sued the City of Cheyenne on behalf of resident Ronald Williams in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming today, challenging provisions of the Cheyenne Unified Development Code (UDC) that restrict political signs on private property as an unconstitutional abridgement of free speech.
CHEYENNE – Wyoming Liberty Group attorneys filed a petition with the United States Supreme Court today, requesting the Court hear an appeal of the case Free Speech v. Federal Election Commission (FEC). Free Speech, a small grassroots group of three Wyomingites, sued the FEC in 2012 for maintaining vague and overbroad regulations that prevent political engagement. The case was dismissed by the Wyoming Federal District Court and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed its ruling.
Your neighbor may not enjoy looking at the campaign sign on your front lawn, but he has no right to call in the police to make you take it down. This is a matter of settled First Amendment law:
A special respect for individual liberty in the home has long been part of our culture and our law, that principle has special resonance when the government seeks to constrain a person’s ability to speak there.” City of Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 U.S. 43, 58, 114 S. Ct. 2038, 2047, 129 L. Ed. 2d 36 (1994)
by Boyd Wiggam, Tim Kingston
The Cheyenne City Council is expected soon to vote on an ordinance that will amend the Unified Development Code to make special provisions for election and ideological signs.
This is necessary because the current rules governing signs do not comply with the First Amendment’s Free Speech guarantee.
Councilman Dicky Shanor’s arguments in the most recent City Council meeting most accurately stated how the Constitution protects election or ideological signs more than commercial signs.
Earlier this month, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Department of Health and Human Services could not force Freshway Foods to provide insurance that includes contraception coverage to its employees, a requirement under ObamaCare for employers with more than 50 employees. Late this summer, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled similarly for the Hobby Lobby Corporation. Both of these companies are owned and operated by people with strong religious beliefs regarding copulation and procreation, prohibiting them from paying for contraceptives (or, in Hobby Lobby’s case, certain kinds of contraceptives) for their employees.
On Friday, a panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the denial of preliminary injunction in the case Gilardi v. Dep’t of Health and Human Services (HHS). This represents another victory for religious freedom against part of ObamaCare, a HHS regulation requiring certain employers provide insurance covering all U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives. Hobby Lobby recently won a similar challenge in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.