Recharacterizing the levels of scrutiny in First Amendment cases?

I noticed something slightly odd about the Supreme Court’s decision in McCullen v. Coakley — the way in which it characterized two of its prior precedents. First, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project. In that case the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that banned material support to designated terrorist groups, reasoning that the statute appropriately […]

Reed v. Town of Gilbert: an important First Amendment content discrimination case, to be heard by the Court this coming year

Can a speech restriction distinguishing (1) signs “support[ing] candidates” or relating to “any other matter on the ballot,” (2) “sign[s] communicating a message or ideas,” and (3) signs related to noncommercial “event[s],” be called "content-neutral"? The Ninth Circuit said it was indeed content-neutral -- but that can't be right.