Oberholzer, F. v. Galapo, S. Aplts.

Summary

Justice Wecht dissented from the majority's conclusion that the injunction restricting the Galapos' sign display was an unconstitutional prior restraint and that Pennsylvania law broadly bars injunctions against speech-related torts. He reasoned that Pennsylvania has never adopted a categorical no-injunction rule, that a narrowly tailored injunction against an already-adjudicated tortious course of conduct is not a prior restraint, and that the injunction would survive either strict or intermediate scrutiny. Justice Wecht would have upheld the injunction.