Connection lost
Server error
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Demonstrators protesting homelessness sought to sleep in symbolic tents in a national park. The Supreme Court upheld a content-neutral National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping, finding it a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction on expressive conduct.
Legal Significance: This case affirms judicial deference to content-neutral regulations of expressive conduct in public forums and effectively merges the time, place, and manner test with the O’Brien test for symbolic speech, prioritizing governmental interests in park maintenance over the expressive value of the prohibited conduct.
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Respondent, the Community for Creative Non-Violence (CCNV), organized a demonstration in Lafayette Park and the Mall in Washington, D.C., to raise awareness about the plight of the homeless. The National Park Service (NPS) granted CCNV a permit to erect two symbolic tent cities as part of the demonstration. However, citing its regulations, the NPS denied CCNV’s request to allow demonstrators to sleep in the tents. The relevant regulation, 36 C.F.R. § 50.27(a), prohibits camping in non-designated areas, defining camping as using park land for living accommodation purposes, including sleeping or preparing to sleep. CCNV argued that sleeping was an integral part of their symbolic expression, intended to dramatize the reality of homelessness. They filed suit, claiming the application of the no-camping regulation violated their First Amendment rights. The Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court’s summary judgment for the government, finding the regulation unconstitutional as applied. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a content-neutral National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in certain public parks violate the First Amendment when applied to demonstrators seeking to sleep in tents as a form of symbolic political protest?
No. The National Park Service regulation is a valid time, place, and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat.
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a content-neutral National Park Service regulation prohibiting camping in certain public parks violate the First Amendment when applied to demonstrators seeking to sleep in tents as a form of symbolic political protest?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies a deferential standard of review for content-neutral regulations of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud ex
Legal Rule
Expression protected by the First Amendment is subject to reasonable time, place, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. E
Legal Analysis
The Court assumed, without deciding, that overnight sleeping in connection with the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A content-neutral ban on camping in national parks is a valid