Gilles v. Blanchard
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
477 F.3d 466, cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 127 (2007)
- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
James Gilles (plaintiff) was a traveling evangelist who used a confrontation style of preaching that included calling people in the crowds names, such as whoremonger and drunkard. In 2001, Gilles went to Vincennes University (the University) (defendant) and preached on a lawn in the middle of campus. Gilles had not been invited to speak on the campus. That incident resulted in a disturbance, and the University enacted a sales and/or solicitation policy that prohibited any solicitations on campus without prior approval. If approved, solicitors could only solicit in the brick walkway in front of the student union. The policy defined solicitation broadly to include the act of seeking to obtain by permission or entice a person to action. Gilles returned to the campus after the policy was enacted and was directed to the brick walkway. Gilles attempted to preach from that location, but he found it too noisy to attract an audience. Gilles then sued the University, alleging that the solicitation policy violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. The district court granted summary judgment to the University, and Gilles appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Posner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.