To restrict someone's right to free speech, there has to be a compelling government interest.

But the court struggled to find a way to protect legitimate government interests (such as national security) in light of these decisions.

I often represent people who face powerful government interests.

The second condition is that the rule must be the least restrictive way in which to further the government interest.

The defendants, he said, must show there was a "compelling government interest" in the decision.

Here a legitimate government interest is enough to pass this review.

And what about government interest bearing liabilities (bonds for short)?

The lab was a small place by the standards of government interests, far smaller even than my own corporate facilities.

All the government interest raises the obvious question: why?

However, government interest in its enforcement fluctuated: especially after 1947.