This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Erwin Chemerinsky (Petitioner), the injunction at issue is alleged to violate the First Amendment because it is a prior restraint and a content‑based restriction on speech.
According to Erwin Chemerinsky (Petitioner), the petitioner argues the injunction is overbroad, restricting speech of non‑parties.
According to Mr. Cole, the respondent contends that the conduct of attempting to extort money is not protected speech.
According to Mr. Cole, the respondent argues California does not adopt the collateral bar rule; People v. Gonzales supports this position.
According to Mr. Cole, the respondent suggests the injunction could be limited to defamatory speech of a similar nature designed to extort.
According to Mr. Cole, the respondent also proposes narrowing the injunction by striking subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 2.
- [1] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 3
- [2] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 3
- [3] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 6
- [4] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 37
- [5] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 38
- [6] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 43
- [7] db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdf, p. 49
Background and question before the Court
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the petitioner was challenging only the second part of the injunction (the distance restriction) and not the other parts.
What each side argues
Petitioner (Ulysses Tory)
According to Erwin Chemerinsky (Petitioner), the injunction violates the First Amendment as a prior restraint and a content‑based restriction on speech.
According to Erwin Chemerinsky (Petitioner), the injunction is most clearly unconstitutional because it is overbroad.
According to Mr. Chemerinsky, one issue before the Court is whether the injunction is overbroad, and it clearly is.
Respondent (Johnnie L. Cochran, Jr.)
According to Mr. Cole, the conduct of attempting to extort money from Mr. Cochran is not protected speech.
According to Mr. Cole, california does not adopt the collateral bar rule; People v. Gonzales supports this position.
According to Mr. Cole, the injunction could be limited to defamatory speech of a similar nature designed to extort.
According to Mr. Cole, while the injunction is broad, it is not an unconstitutional prior restraint; striking subparagraphs (ii) and (iii) of paragraph 2 would resolve the problem.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the petitioner was challenging only the second part of the injunction.
Justice Souter asked, “Do you agree with that?”
The oral argument was presented by Jonathan B. Cole on behalf of the respondent.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- db892d5bed5ff0cf6e75-r1-13a32e8e68ccccbb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 20, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.