Arkansas Court Sets Hearing Date for Halloween Sign Challenge

Source: ACSOL

The federal district court in Arkansas where a lawsuit has been filed challenging a Halloween sign requirement set a hearing in the case for May 2 at 1:30 p.m. in the fifth floor courtroom in Fayetteville.  The purpose of that hearing is “to assess the pretrial needs of the case.”  According to the court document, the trial date for the case will also be set during that hearing.

Prior to the May 2 hearing, both parties are required to file several documents, including an important document that is due on March 20.  Motions, including but not limited to, an application for a Preliminary Injunction, can also be filed prior to the May 2 hearing.  Motions can also be filed after that hearing.

The federal district court judge assigned to this case is Judge Timothy Brooks whose position was confirmed in 2014.  Judge Brooks granted an injunction last year that stopped a state law that would have authorized criminal prosecution of librarians and bookstores that provided harmful materials to minors.  The ACLU praised this ruling stating that the law, if enforced, would have imperiled the First Amendment.

Download the scheduling order:

Scheduling Order – Feb 2024

Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Great news: The judge assigned to this case supports the First Amendment and has been praised by the ACLU as reflected in the article!

I am encouraged that the judge assigned to this case has ruled in favor of the First Amendment less than a year ago. We can only hope that he doesn’t turn a blind eye in our case due to the fact that the plaintiff in this case is required to register.