Erotic Service Provider Legal Education & Research Project v. Gascon
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- DeFrancesco v. Arizona Board of Regents (United States District Court for the District of Arizona 2020)
- Vargas v. City of Tracy (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2025)
- Kasadu v. Mid-Willamette Valley Community Action Agency (District Court, D. Oregon 2025)
- Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Alberto Carvalho (9th Cir. 2025)
- Vicente Borja v. Scott Nago (9th Cir. 2024)
- Vicente Borja v. Scott Nago (9th Cir. 2024)
- Galindo v. City of San Francisco (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2024)
- Garcia v. County of Napa (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 2022)
- Preterm-Cleveland v. Stephanie McCloud (6th Cir. 2021)
- Preterm-Cleveland v. Stephanie McCloud (6th Cir. 2021)
- Forbes v. Macchione, FACHE (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 2021)
- Doe v. Wasden (United States District Court for the District of Idaho 2021)
- Estate of Mendez v. City of Ceres (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2019)
- Robert Mann, Sr. v. John Tennis (9th Cir. 2018)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
ORDER
This order amends the opinion filed for this case on January 17, 2018. The last sentence of the second full paragraph on page 17 of the slip opinion currently reads: “For commercial speech to receive First Amendment protection, however, it must: (1) concern lawful activity and not be misleading; (2) serve a substantial government interest; (3) directly advance the governmental interest asserted; and (4) be narrowly tailored. Id. at 566.” That sentence is now replaced with: “For commercial speech to receive First Amendment protection (1) the speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading; (2) the challenged restriction must serve a substantial government interest; (3) the restriction must directly advance the governmental interest asserted; and (4) the restriction must be narrowly tailored. Id. at 566.”
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.