Important Cases for Civil Liberties

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Held that hateful speech is still protected under the First Amendment. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court ruled that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even in the circumstances that the speech is viewed or interpreted as "offensive" or "outrageous".

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010), 130 S.Ct. 2705, was a case decided in June 2010 by the United States Supreme Court regarding the USA PATRIOT Act's prohibition on providing material support to foreign terrorist organizations (18 U.S.C. § 2339B). The case, petitioned by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder,[1] represents the only time in U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has passed the Brandenburg v. Ohio test.[2] The Supreme Court ruled against the Humanitarian Law Project, which sought to help the Kurdistan Workers' Party in Turkey and Sri Lanka's Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam learn how to peacefully resolve conflicts.[3] It concluded that Congress had intended to prevent aid to such groups, even if for the purpose of facilitating peace negotiations or United Nations processes, because that assistance did fit the law's definition of material aid as "training", "expert advice or assistance", "service", and "personnel".

Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982)

Illustrates the impact of this second requirement. I've asked you to read the syllabus for that decision, because it makes clear that even if a private institution has very close links with government, actions by that institution are not governmental and thus are not subject to the 14th Amendment. Note that the two dissenters from this decision were the most liberal justices on the Court.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

Upheld Voting Rights Act of 1965 which required some states with histories of discrimination to get pre-clearance for voting laws for all types of elections

Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia (1980)

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) is a United States Supreme Court case involving issues of privacy in correspondence with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the freedom of the press, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. After a murder case ended in three mistrials, a judge, in accordance with a state statute, closed the fourth trial to the public and the press. On appeal, the Supreme Court ruled the statute to be in violation of the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment asserting that the First Amendment implicitly guarantees the press access to public trials.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second Amendment, is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931),[1] is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that found that prior restraints on publication violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment). Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case".[2] It was later a key precedent in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), in which the Court ruled against the Nixon administration's attempt to enjoin publication of the Pentagon Papers.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964),[1] was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard, which has to be met before press reports about public officials can be considered to be libel;[2] and hence allowed free reporting of the civil rights campaigns in the southern United States. It is one of the key decisions supporting the freedom of the press. The actual malice standard requires that the plaintiff in a defamation case, if that person is a public official or public figure, prove that the publisher of the statement in question knew that the statement was false or acted in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity. Because of the extremely high burden of proof on the plaintiff, and the difficulty of proving the defendant's knowledge and intentions, such claims by public figures rarely prevail.