Landmark Cases
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US
1964 *A motel operator refused to serve an African American customer *The SUpreme Court upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination in schools, places of work, voting sites, public accommodations, and public areas
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
5th Amendment self-incrimination clause requires government agents to warn suspects of their right to remain silent and/or contact an attorney before questioning them when they are in custody. Statements made without Miranda Warning are inadmissible in court (like the exclusionary rule for evidence) Ernesto Miranda, a Mexican immigrant living in Phoenix, Arizona, was identified in a police lineup by a woman, who accused him of kidnapping and raping her. Miranda was arrested and questioned by the police for two hours until he confessed to the crimes. During the interrogation, police did not tell Miranda about his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination or his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. The case went to trial in an Arizona state court and the prosecutor used the confession as evidence against Miranda, who was convicted and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison. Miranda's attorney appealed to the Arizona Supreme Court, which upheld the conviction. Then he appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it along with four similar cases. In taking the case, the Court had to determine the role police have in protecting the rights of the accused guaranteed by the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Miranda. This decision gave rise to what has become known as the Miranda Warning. While jurisdictions have their own regulations as to the precise warning given to a person interrogated in police custody, the typical warning states:
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
A black slave, had lived with his master for 5 years in Illinois and Wisconsin Territory. Backed by interested abolitionists, he sued for freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil. The ruling on the case was that He was a black slave and not a citizen, so he had no rights.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Allowed states to provide textbooks and busing to students attending private religious schools. Established 3-part test to determine if establishment clause is violated: nonsecular purpose, advances/inhibits religion, excessive entanglement with government. Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island adopted statutes that provided for the state to pay for aspects of non-secular, non-public education. The Pennsylvania statute was passed in 1968 and provided funding for non-public elementary and secondary school teachers' salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials for secular subjects. Rhode Island's statute was passed in 1969 and provided state financial support for non-public elementary schools in the form of supplementing 15% of teachers' annual salaries. The appellants in the Pennsylvania case represented citizens and taxpayers in Pennsylvania who believed that the statute violated the separation of church and state described in the First Amendment. he Court held that a statute must pass a three-pronged test in order to avoid violating the Establishment Clause. The statute must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither promotes nor inhibits religion, and it must not foster "excessive government entanglement with religion." In Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court of the United States found that the passing of any state laws that establish a religious body is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Therefore, in Lemon v. Kurtzman, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of Alton Lemon. The verdict in Lemon v. Kurtzman led to the creation of the Lemon Test. This test is a classification system that is used to see whether or not state laws regarding funding or creating religious institutions with public money violate the United States constitution. The Lemon test ensures that the general population's interests take priority within public institutions and settings. The Lemon test also prohibits the Federal Government from becoming overly religious or involved with a particular religious institution.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Established exclusionary rule; illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in court; Warren Court's judicial activism. case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on June 19, 1961, ruled (6-3) that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," is inadmissible in state courts. In so doing, it held that the federal exclusionary rule, which forbade the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in federal courts, was also applicable to the states through the incorporation doctrine, the theory that most protections of the federal Bill of Rights are guaranteed against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law). The Mapp ruling also overturned in part the Supreme Court's decision in Wolf v. Colorado (1949), which recognized the right to privacy as "incorporated" but not the federal exclusionary rule. Because of the inherent vagueness of the Fourth Amendment, the scope of the exclusionary rule has been subject to interpretation by the courts, including the Supreme Court, which since the 1980s has gradually narrowed the range of circumstances and the kinds of evidence to which the rule applies. The case arose in 1957 when police in Cleveland forcibly entered the home of Dollree Mapp and conducted an apparently warrantless search for a bombing suspect. Although no suspect was found, officers did discover certain allegedly "lewd and lascivious" books and pictures, the possession of which was prohibited under Ohio state law. Mapp was convicted of violating the law on the basis of this evidence. Hearing the case on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the unlawfulness of the search but upheld the conviction on the grounds that Wolf had established that the states were not required to abide by the exclusionary rule. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, and oral arguments were heard on March 29, 1961. In a 6-3 ruling issued on June 19, 1961, the Supreme Court reversed the Ohio court's decision. Writing for the plurality, Justice Tom C. Clark first dismissed the main argument of Mapp's attorneys, that the Ohio law constituted an infringement of freedom of speech, as moot in light of the court's view that the exclusionary rule is incorporated. Following Weeks v. United States (1914), which established the federal exclusionary rule, Clark argued that the Fourth Amendment strictly implies that the use of evidence obtained in violation of the amendment is unconstitutional. Without the deterrent effect provided by the rule, the Fourth Amendment would be reduced to a mere "form of words" (Silverthorne Lumber Co., Inc. v. United States [1920]) and "might as well be stricken from the Constitution" (Weeks). In Wolf, furthermore, the Supreme Court had found that the Fourth Amendment's protection against "police incursion into privacy" is incorporated. If the right to privacy is incorporated, however, then so too must be the "only effectively available way" of compelling respect for it, as the court characterized the exclusionary rule in Elkins v. United States (1960). "To hold otherwise is to grant the right but, in reality, to withhold its privilege and enjoyment," according to Clark. In response to then district judge (later Supreme Court justice) Benjamin Cardozo's objection (in People v. Defore [1926]) that "[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered," Clark replied, "The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free." Clark's opinion was joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren, William O. Douglas, and William Brennan. Douglas also filed a separate concurring opinion, as did Hugo Black. Potter Stewart concurred solely on free-speech grounds. In his dissenting opinion, which was joined by Felix Frankfurter and Charles E. Whittaker, John Marshall Harlan faulted the plurality for a lack of judicial restraint for deciding a constitutional question that had not been properly briefed and argued. The "pivotal" issue in the case, according to Harlan, was whether the Ohio law was "consistent with the rights of free thought and expression assured against state action by the Fourteenth Amendment." He also argued that the plurality had misconstrued the Wolf ruling as incorporating the specific command against unreasonable searches and seizures rather than merely the core right to privacy, the safeguarding of which did not require the imposition of a federal rule of evidence upon the states.
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
Established precedent of federalizing Bill of Rights (applying them to the states); states cannot deny freedom of speech --protected through due process clause of Amendment 14 The case of Gitlow v. New York was a trial that took place in 1925 with regard to the application of the tenets and precepts expressed within the Constitution of the United States - as well as those expressed within the Amendments; this trial addressed both the Federal Government's - as well as the individual States' - responsibility to uphold civil liberties expressed within the Consitution. Benjamin Gitlow, who was considered to be both a Socialist - as well as a potential anarchist threat to the United States government, was charged with a violating 'Anti-Anarchist' legislature upheld by the State of New York; prior to his arrest, Gitlow had been charged with releasing publications presumed to be latent with Anti-American rhetoric. Subsequent to his initial conviction, Benjamin Gitlow appealed his conviction, stating that his conviction was in direct violation of both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights expressed in the Constitution; the appeal hearing became what is now considered 'Gitlow v. New York'. Date of the Trial: November 23rd, 1923 Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard Although Gitlow was convicted of violating applicable legislation enacted within the State of New York prohibiting expression considered to be 'Anti American', Gitlow appealed his conviction accusing the State of New York of violating his Constitutional rights Benjamin Gitlow - the plaintiff - was an social activist and author The State of New York - the defendant - was cited for a violation of Gitlow's Constitutional rights Verdict Delivered: Benjamin Gitlow remained guilty of his crimes, but the Supreme Court mandated that individual State governments were unable to deny their residents the civil and human rights expressed within the Constitution of the United States The 1st Amendment of the Constitution ensures that all citizens of the United States are afforded the freedom of speech; this statute also includes the freedom to express oneself in accordance to accepted and undertaken legislation and legality - this statute includes the freedom to join and participate in activities and engagements upon choosing to do so without threat or duress. The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue 'Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness' with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America - this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age
Wesberry v. Sanders (1963)
Established the principle of "one person, one vote" in drawing congressional districts. Triggered widespread redistricting that gave cities and suburbs greater representation in Congress. James P. Wesberry, Jr., was one of the citizens of Fulton County, Georgia, who filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia challenging the state apportionment law. Georgia's Fifth Congressional District, which included Fulton County, was one of five voting districts created by a 1931 Georgia statute. By 1960, the population of the fifth district had grown to such an extent that its single congressman had to represent two to three times as many voters as did congressmen in the other Georgia districts. Georgia's congressional districts violated the Fourteenth Amendment and deprived citizens of the full benefit of their right to vote
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
If a newspaper prints an article that turns out to be false but that the newspaper thought was true at the time of publication, the newspaper has not committed libel. In 1960, the New York Times ran a full-page advertisement paid for by civil right activists. The ad openly criticized the police department in the city of Montgomery, Alabama for its treatment of civil rights protestors. Most of the descriptions in the ad were accurate, but some of the statements were false. The police commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, took offense to the ad and sued the New York Times in an Alabama court. Sullivan argued that the ad had damaged his reputation, and he had been libeled. The Alabama court ruled in favor of Sullivan, finding that the newspaper ad falsely represented the police department and Sullivan. After losing an appeal in the Supreme Court of Alabama, the New York Times took its case to the United States Supreme Court arguing that the ad was not meant to hurt Sullivan's reputation and was protected under the First Amendment. The United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper. The Court said the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment. The Court also said in order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice - "that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard for the truth."
New York Times v. United States (1971)
In 1960, the New York Times ran an advertisement about Martin Luther King that contained inaccuracies about the conduct of the Montgomery, Alabama police department. The newspaper alleged that the police department took unlawful action against civil rights protesters. The Montgomery Police Commissioner, L. B. Sullivan, wrote a letter to the New York Times demanding they run a retraction of the story. When the Times refused, Sullivan brought suit against the newspaper and received damages. The Times still did not publish a retraction because they claimed the advertisement did not specifically name Sullivan and was not a condemnation of his conduct. In New York Times v. Sullivan, the United State Supreme Court held that the actions of the New York Times were not sufficient for a libel suit. The New York Times was protected under the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment, which states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". The Court ruled under the actual malice standard. This would require Sullivan to prove that the New York Times knew the statements against him were untrue and acted recklessly through a conscious lack of investigation by publishing them. The Supreme Court determined that the Alabama State court's award of punitive damages to Sullivan was not appropriate due to the Times' Constitutional right to freedom of the press.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Legalized segregation in publicly owned facilities on the basis of "separate but equal." The State of Louisiana passed a law saying that whites and blacks had to ride in different cars on trains, but required that the train cars be "equal." Homer Plessy, who was one-eighth black (meaning that one of his eight great-grandparents was black) was arrested for riding in a whites-only car. He challenged the Louisiana law, saying it was against the United States Constitution. Plessy argued that the state law which required East Louisiana Railroad to segregate trains had denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court, in a 7-1 decision, ruled that the Louisiana law was valid. They said that requiring whites and blacks to ride in separate trains did not harm blacks in any way. Justice John Marshall Harlan was the only justice who thought the law was against the Constitution. He thought segregation made blacks feel inferior. He said that the Constitution is "color blind" and that the law should not treat any group better than any other group.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
McCulloch v. Maryland: The Background The case of McCulloch v. Maryland was a groundbreaking Federal court case that dealt with the formation of a federal bank and a series of individual banks. The case of McCulloch v. Maryland started through a series of important events that involved a number of laws. The following laws will allow you to understand what was going on with the McCulloch v. Maryland case. In 1816, the United States Congress passed an Act that allowed Federal Banks to be located and to operate within individual states in the U.S. Two years later, in 1816, the state of Maryland passed an Act that placed all banks and financial institutions that operated in the state under the taxation model of Maryland. This law thus made banks and other financial institutions in the state, including all federal banks, to pay Maryland state tax. A year after the passing of this law, McCulloch v. Maryland was heard. McCulloch v. Maryland: The Case Profile The case of McCulloch v. Maryland was heard in 1819. The case was tried in the Supreme Court of the United States. Andrew McCulloch was the defendant in McCulloch v. Maryland. McCulloch was the appointed manager of the Federal Bank located in Baltimore, Maryland. McCulloch refused to pay the state tax imposed by Maryland; he believed that federal banks were not subject to state taxation. In McCulloch v. Maryland, the state was the plaintiff. The state of Maryland believed that the federal bank should pay state taxes because they were operating on their land and using their resources. McCulloch v. Maryland: The Verdict The United States Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland ruled in favor of the defendant, Andrew McCulloch. The United States Supreme Court in McCulloch v. Maryland ruled in favor of the defendant because the Necessary and Proper Clause of the United States Constitution stated that the Federal Government was permitted to operate banks within individual states without paying taxes. The decision in McCulloch v. Maryland created a precedent; it led to a number of future decisions involving taxation issues and the federal government.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Ordered states to provide lawyers for those unable to afford them in criminal proceedings. Warren Court's judicial activism in criminal rights. Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial court's decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived.
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
Prohibited school-sponsored devotional Bible reading in public schools because it violated the establishment clause and due process clause Under Pennsylvania law, public schools were required to read from the bible at the opening of each school day. The school district sought to enjoin enforcement of the statute. The district court ruled that the statute violated the First Amendment, even after the statute had been amended to permit a student to excuse himself. The Court consolidated this case with one involving Maryland atheists who challenged a city rule that provided for opening exercises in the public schools that consisted primarily of reading a chapter from the bible and the Lord's Prayer. The state's highest court held the exercise did not violate the First Amendment. The religious character of the exercise was admitted by the state. Public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord's Prayer under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
Prohibited state-sponsored recitation of prayer in public schools by virtue of 1st Amendment's establishment clause and the 14th Amendment's due process clause; Warren Court's judicial activism. The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments. The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Struck down state's law banning interracial marriage as violation of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause The case of Loving v. Virginia deals with marriage laws. It begins with a woman named Mildred Loving, an African-American who married Richard Loving, a Caucasian male. The couple married in Washington D.C. in the year of 1958. Both Richard and Mildred were residents of the state of Virginia; however, Virginia did not allow couples of different races to marry. Because of this law, Richard Loving and Mildred decided to marry in neighboring Washington D.C. which did allow marriages between different races to take place. When the couple returned from their marriage ceremony in Washington, D.C., the Lovings were promptly arrested because they violated Virginia law, which did not allow couples of different races to get married. This law, which was called the Anti-Miscegenation Statue, was passed in the state of Virginia in 1924 and formally made inter-marriage illegal. "Inter-marriage" according to this law referred to the marriage of people of different races. The Lovings were sentenced to a year in prison for violating this law. In response to their arrest, the Lovings appealed and claimed that the state law was wrong and that it violated the United States Constitution. The case of Loving v. Virginia took place on April 10th of 1967. The case resulted from the appeal of the original arrest. Richard Perry Loving and Lidred Jeter Loving filed an appeal against the state of Virginia because they felt the state's law was a direct violation of the couple's right to marry and their marital privacy. These Lovings claimed that the state law violated their 14th Amendment rights to pursuit life, liberty and happiness. The State of Virginia initially offered a reduced sentence so long as the couple left the state. The Lovings didn't think this was an acceptable compromise so they took their case to the Supreme Court. The case of Loving v. Virginia was decided on June 12th of 1967 and was heard in the United States Supreme Court. In the Loving v. Virginia case, the United States Supreme Court over-turned the Virginia state law by claiming it was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, which forces all governments to treat every citizen in an equal manner when passing laws. The government must only pass laws that are in line with the 14th Amendments provision that every citizen has the right to pursuit happiness. In Loving v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court added that the law was not only a violation of the 14th Amendment, but also a violation of an American citizen's individual freedoms.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Students in an Iowa school were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war. Ruled that this suspension was unconstitutional, and that public school students do not "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse door."
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Constitution implicitly guarantees citizens' right to privacy. In 1879, Connecticut passed a law that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state courts. Their plan was to use the clinic to challenge the constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth Amendment before the Supreme Court. Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on contraception. While the Court explained that the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments create the right to privacy in marital relations.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The court legalized abortion by ruling that state laws could not restrict it during the first three months of pregnancy. Based on 4th Amendment rights of a person to be secure in their persons. Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7-2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harry A. Blackmun, the court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman's constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("...nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"). The case began in 1970 when "Jane Roe"—a fictional name used to protect the identity of the plaintiff, Norma McCorvey—instituted federal action against Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas county, Texas, where Roe resided. The Supreme Court disagreed with Roe's assertion of an absolute right to terminate pregnancy in any way and at any time and attempted to balance a woman's right of privacy with a state's interest in regulating abortion. In his opinion, Blackmun noted that only a "compelling state interest" justifies regulations limiting "fundamental rights" such as privacy and that legislators must therefore draw statutes narrowly "to express only the legitimate state interests at stake." The court then attempted to balance the state's distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state's compelling interest in the pregnant woman's health would allow it to regulate abortion "at approximately the end of the first trimester" of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the court located that point at "capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb," or viability.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
This case establishes the Supreme Court's power of Judicial Review. In the 1800 presidential election, John Adams lost to Thomas Jefferson. Before he left office, Adams created a number of new positions and filled them with members of his political party. William Marbury was appointed as one of the new judges, but he did not receive his order before Jefferson became president. Marbury could not take office without the official order. Jefferson told his secretary of state James Madison to not deliver it to Marbury. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the decision in Marbury v. Madison. The court found in favor of Madison on February 24, 1803. The decision said the law that gave the court the power to force Madison to deliver Marbury's order was unconstitutional. This decision established the Supreme Court as the ultimate interpreter of the United States Constitution.
Baker v. Carr (1962)
case that est. one man one vote. this decision created guidelines for drawing up congresional districts and guaranteed a more equitable system of representation to the citizens of each state. A law in Tennessee says that all the towns are required to provide population statistics to the state every 10 years. Each town is required to do this so the state can accurately determine jurisdictional boundaries. Mr. Charles Baker explained that Tennessee did not follow this law. In response to this accusation, the state of Tennessee said that the law to remap towns was created for political purposes and that they were following the legislation. Baker did not accept this excuse; he thought the state was required to follow the law in an exact fashion. Baker's argument revolved around the Supremacy Clause. This part of the Constitution states that the Federal Government has the right to control and maintain jurisdiction over state laws. The Baker V. Carr dealt with Administrative law. This field of law is associated with how the Federal Government treats its citizens and how the government institutes its programs, creates its agencies and establishes laws. In Baker v. Carr, Mr. Charles Baker went up against Joe Carr who as an appointed representative of Tennessee. In Baker V. Carr, Baker said that the law upheld by the Tennessee Constitution regarding the establishment of districts was a violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Baker v. Carr, the United States Supreme Court said that Tennessee refusal to follow the expressed law of remapping the districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. This clause forces every individual citizen of the United States to be treated equally and without bias with regard to their pursuit of happiness. The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution does not allow the government to infringe on the individual person's rights to pursue a happy life. Furthermore, Article III of the United States Constitution states that the Federal Government is allowed to rule over all laws in the event that unfair advantages are present with the creation of a law. This law was created to ensure that an equal legal process was respected throughout the United States.
Schneck v. US (1919)
speech can be limited if it is considered a "clear and present" danger The case of Schenck v. United States took place in the year of 1919. This groundbreaking trial started with a man named Charles Schenck who was arrested for organizing a protest against the military draft undertaken by the Federal Government. The Government held the draft for World War I; random male citizens who were of age were selected to fight for the country in this enormous war. Charles Schenck, who was a member of the Socialist Party, distributed over 20,000 pamphlets to United States citizen to form a protest of the draft process. Schenck felt that the draft was a form of slavery and should be outlawed by a free country. During his organized protest; however, Schenck was arrested on the grounds that he was in direct violation of the Espionage Act. This law, which was passed in 1917, required that any protest or form of anti-government speech must be in line with the United States' ability to protect the wellbeing of its citizens. The Federal Government believes that a person trying to spark a violent movement or cause uproar is in violation of the Espionage Act. As a result, Mr. Charles Schenck was arrested for his efforts in forming mass protests against the draft. The case of Schenck v. United States took place from January 9th 1919 to January 10th. Schenck, who was found guilty in the original trial, appealed the charges by claiming the U.S. had sparked slave-like laws. Schenck pointed to the 13th Amendment as his main support; this Amendment outlawed slavery and forced service. Schenck stated that a military draft and forced enlistment may be classified as a measure of slavery. In addition to the provisions of the 13th Amendment, Charles Schenck also claimed that the government is not allowed to censor his writings. He believed that by censoring his works, the Government was violating his civil liberties of free speech and free expression which are both guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Schenck v. United States case was decided on March 3rd of 1919. Although the original case found Schenck guilty, he appealed the charges and brought the Schenck v. United States case to the United States Supreme Court. In Schenck v. United States, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government. The court distinguished between dangerous expressions and dangerous acts, stating that the sentiments expressed in Schenck's writings were considered to be an immediate threat to the country's safety and the wellbeing of its people.
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
speech that does not call for illegal action is protected, and even speech that does call for illegal action is protected if the action is not "imminent" or there is reason to believe that the listeners will not take action Clarence Brandenburg was a member of the Ku Klux Klan located in the outskirts of Cincinnati, Ohio; upon the organization of a county Ku Klux Klan rally, Brandenburg contacted a local news publication in Cincinnati in order to invite them to cover the events taking place. The news arrived at the rally and filmed the events taking place, which resulted in the broadcast of racist, derogatory, and objectionable hate-speech on television. Following a multitude of complaints, Brandenburg was arrested as a resulted of a presumed violation of an Ohio statute prohibiting the syndication of expression and speech deemed to be objectionable, violent, and offensive; Brandenburg disputed the charges explaining that his actions were absent of criminal intent: The notion of criminal intent - or the intention to commit a crime - is explored in trials and lawsuits that involve charges of both free speech, as well as the violation of free speech; as a result, the freedom of expression latent within the 1st Amendment of the Constitution requires the permissibility of free speech in the event that it is devoid of criminal intent or illegal recourse The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Brandenburg, stating that the Ohio statute prohibiting the syndication of speech and expression deemed to be objectionable was violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Within their ruling, the Supreme Court distinguished the difference between implied violence and violent acts; although there existed arguable latent violence within the events of the Ku Klux Rally, the sentiments expressed were not considered to be of immediate danger, threat, or harm.
