Minnesota Voters Alliance: "We have two people that were told they either had to remove their clothing or have their name and address taken down for potential prosecution in order to vote. We also have a number of people that didn't even try to wear apparel because they were afraid of enforcement…."
Justice Sotomayor: "…. Let's not forget who these people were and what they were wearing, 'Please ID me,' which for some people was a highly charged political message, which was found, on remand, was intended to intimidate people to leave the polling booth …."
— Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky (U.S. Supreme Court, Oral Argument, Feb. 28, 2018)
"Commissioner Hess says freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a 'despicable piece of rhetoric.' Did the Commission ever disavow or disapprove of that statement?"
—Justice Kennedy, U.S. Supreme Court, Dec. 5, 2017 oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
"Appellants later clarified their desired injunctive relief as removal or demolition of the Cross, or removal of the arms from the Cross 'to form a non-religious slab or obelisk.'"
—American Humanist Association v. Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 874 F.3d 195, 202 n.7 (4th Cir. October 18, 2017).
"Plaintiff … produced a Proposed Amended Complaint that not only fails to state a plausible claim for relief against any of the named Defendants, but that also attempts to hold a hashtag [#BlackLivesMatter] liable for damages in tort. The Court therefore finds that granting leave to Plaintiff to attempt to file a Second Proposed Amended Complaint would be futile. The Court also notes that Plaintiff’s attempt to bring suit against a social movement and a hashtag evinces either a gross lack of understanding of the concept of capacity or bad faith, which would be an independent ground to deny Plaintiff leave to file a Second Proposed Amended Complaint...."
—Judge Brian A. Jackson, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Louisiana, September 28, 2017.