The following is a legal brief outlining the Supreme Court of the United States' ruling in the case of Barbano v. Zom-B-Gone.
The petitioner, Julian Barbano, awoke from a comatose state to find himself abandoned by his caretakers. Unaware of the widespread panic caused the recent undead outbreak, Mr. Barbano began to search his local township for aid. In his search, he encountered agents of Zom-B-Gone, Incorporated, an undead removal company. Mr. Barbano approached the agents and ignored their verbal warnings and requests for identification. As a result, Mr. Barbano was fired upon and grievously wounded by the Zom-B-Gone agents.
Did the agents of Zom-B-Gone, Inc. violate Mr. Barbano's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights when they fired upon him? Is foregoing to answer a verbal challenge during a time of undead crisis protected speech under the First Amendment?
Justice Colbert, writing the majority opinion, stated that
"...though the situation was stressful and unusual (at the time), it was still within Mr. Barbano's rights to refuse to answer the verbal challenge issued to him by the Zom-B-Gone agents. However, the agent's actions given the time, place and knowledge regarding undead individuals (zombies) at that moment, where understandable and, while not technically within the law, will be overlooked by the surviving Justices of the Supreme Court. As such, future living individuals can choose to ignore the verbal challenges issued by law enforcement officers or individuals fulfilling that capacity (agents of undead removal companies, bounty hunters, zombie hunters etc.) and said officers and agents must respect that right to refuse. In regards to Mr. Barbano, the court sympathizes with the pain and suffering he has endured as result of this incident, but finds that the agents were correct in their thinking and methods, given the time, place and then understanding of the situation. Therefore, the Supreme Court of the United States rules against Mr. Barbano, awards him no damages and requires that he pays the respondents' court fees in toto, in compliance with Rove v. ACLU."