safeguarding the privacy rights of students named at Board meetings would pass constitutional muster also is not before the Court today. Finally, the Court reiterates that this decision does not invalidate § 54957 of the Brown Act. As discussed above, the Brown Act does not authorize the Bylaw’s broad criticism ban, so the constitutionality of the Brown Act has never been at issue here. TV. Prior approval of agenda items: Bylaw No. 9002 § A Plaintiffs have standing to challenge Bylaw § A, the ’ provision regulating the placement of agenda items, notwithstanding the fact that Defendants have never denied any of the Plaintiffs’ requests to add an item to a Board meeting agenda. See, e.g., Gaudiya Vaishnava Society v. City and County of San Francisco, 952 F.2d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the Court holds that once the
holding that plaintiffs have standing to pursue facial challenge to alleged prior restraint without the necessity of first applying for and being denied a permit citing city of lakewood v plain dealer publishing co 486 us 750 108 sct 2138 100 led2d 771 1988 recognizing that the rule announced in mills v maryland 486 us 367 108 sct 1860 100 led2d 384 1988 that the eighth amendment prohibits any barrier to the sentencers consideration of mitigating evidence was not a watershed procedural rule falling within the second teague exception recognizing that courts should exercise judicial restraint in a facial challenge holding that a state may not exercise a prior restraint on publishing a newspaper holding that the rule announced in mills v maryland 486 us 367 108 sct 1860 100 led2d 384 1988 doesnt apply retroactively on collateral review