OR · 42usc1983:deprivation.first-amendment
Pesci v. Budz (11th Cir. 2019) is an actual First Amendment merits ruling, rejecting a civil detainee’s newsletter challenge under a modified Turner test. This is a scoped civil-detention speech example, not a universal test for retaliatory arrest or public-employee speech. The unrelated Olivier/Heck passage is removed.
Exact element source
to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and lawsSource:
docroot/ir/usc/title42.jsonl#title42_sec1983; Unicode character offsets [306:402] (end exclusive); SHA-256 88fe01322b9d94860a669ec452f558146e2745845070bc43583671ce12acb2bb.All variants
| Variant | Description | Merits instance blocks | Distinct cases | Example cases (up to 3 per group) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unspecified variant | No variant assigned in the database. | 0 Satisfied 0; not satisfied 0; excluded context 2 | 0 | No counted merits examples Excluded context examples: /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 — applied/merits; /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 — applied/merits |
How courts decided this element
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Variant | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| /f-supp/567/1159-01 — United States District Court for the District of Delaware · 1983 | Deprivation of First Amendment rights (free speech, retaliation, free exercise, petition) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsAlleged retaliatory firing of a whistleblowing comptroller who went to the news media after internal reports of financial irregularities were ignored; merits never reached. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| /f-supp/772/0583-01 — United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida · 1991 | Deprivation of First Amendment rights (free speech, retaliation, free exercise, petition) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsFirst Amendment and equal protection claims not challenged in the motion. | Unspecified variant | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
Court interpretations
interpretation
Apart from the narrowed universe of justifications, Turner and its progeny govern Pesci's case.
Apart from the narrowed universe of justifications, Turner and its progeny govern Pesci's case.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [15083:15178] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e7ada89811b9486d6394a114ef8545ff5043a13bf962e80aafb7b55f07e916b.Pesci v. Budz (11th Cir. 2019) is an actual First Amendment merits ruling, rejecting a civil detainee’s newsletter challenge under a modified Turner test. This is a scoped civil-detention speech example, not a universal test for retaliatory arrest or public-employee speech. The unrelated Olivier/Heck passage is removed.
interpretation
we hold that the 2010 ban on Duck Soup does not violate the First Amendment.
we hold that the 2010 ban on Duck Soup does not violate the First Amendment.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/1159-01; Unicode character offsets [34023:34099] (end exclusive); SHA-256 5e7ada89811b9486d6394a114ef8545ff5043a13bf962e80aafb7b55f07e916b.Pesci v. Budz (11th Cir. 2019) is an actual First Amendment merits ruling, rejecting a civil detainee’s newsletter challenge under a modified Turner test. This is a scoped civil-detention speech example, not a universal test for retaliatory arrest or public-employee speech. The unrelated Olivier/Heck passage is removed.