con law spring final

Central Hudson Test

"at the outset, we must determine whether the expression is protected by the First Amendment. For commercial speech to come within that provision, it at least must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Next, we ask whether the asserted governmental interest is substantial. If both inquiries yield positive answers, we must determine whether the regulation directly advances the governmental interest asserted, and whether it is not more extensive than necessary to serve that interest." developed by the Supreme Court to determine when commercial speech could be regulated under the First Amendment. It arose from the 1973 energy crisis when New York ordered utilities to stop advertising as a way to try to reduce consumer demand and consumption.

Gonzales v. Carhart

(2007) Upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of Roe v. Wade in 2003, but established stricter timeline limitations and limited procedure techniques on abortion Georgia was allowed to ban homosexual sexual activity

due process clause

14th amendment clause stating that no state may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law

Equal Protection Clause

14th amendment clause that prohibits states from denying equal protection under the law, and has been used to combat discrimination

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

A 1992 case in which the Supreme Court loosened its standard for evaluating restrictions on abortion from one of "strict scrutiny" of any restraints on a "fundamental right" to one of "undue burden" that permits considerably more regulation. States can regulate abortion, but not with regulations that impose "undue burden" upon women; did not overturn Roe v. Wade, but gave states more leeway in regulating abortion (e.g., 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors)

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. (1974)

A private company that does not have specific authorization by the state to act, is not acting on behalf of the state.

Collateral Bar Rule

A rule that bars someone who violates a court order from trying to defend this action by arguing that the court order was unconstitutional. requires all court orders, even those that appear to be unconstitutional and are later deemed to be unconstitutional by an appellate court, must be obeyed until they are overturned

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)

An early 20th-century United States Supreme Court decision striking down an Oregon statute that required all children to attend public school. The decision significantly expanded coverage of the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution to recognize personal civil liberties. The case has been cited as a precedent in more than 100 Supreme Court cases, including Roe v. Wade, and in more than 70 cases in the courts of appeals. same reasoning as Meyer case

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968)

An important United States Supreme Court case dealing with the freedom of choice plans created to avoid compliance with the Court's mandate in Brown II. The Court held that a Virginia county's freedom of choice plan did not constitute adequate compliance with the school board's responsibility to determine a system of admission to public schools on a non-racial basis. The Supreme Court mandated that the school board must formulate new plans and steps towards realistically converting to a desegregated system. The county's freedom of choice desegregation plan did not comply with the dictates of Brown v. Board of Education and was therefore unconstitutional. where there is not integration, presumption of segregation.

incorporation doctrine

An interpretation of the Constitution that holds that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that state and local governments also guarantee those rights. The legal concept under which the Supreme Court has nationalized the Bill of Rights by making most of its provisions applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Micheal M. v. Superior Court (1981)

CA statute that does not prosecute women for raping men under 18 but does prosecute men for raping women under 18. Interest in protecting women is a significant interest. Women and men are differently situated such that women are to be protected.

Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railroad Co. v. Ellis (1897)

Court invalidated a statute providing that successful PLs in certain kinds of suits against RR companies should receive in addition to costs reasonable attroney's fees not to exceed $10 singled out RR, invidious purpose, not rationally related.

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

Georgia was allowed to ban homosexual sexual activity. this case upheld anti-sodomy laws based on Judeo-Christian views - major privacy case. THe Court held that Equal protection and due process was not extended to same-sex relationships.

14th Amendment (1868)

Grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the US"; it forbids any state to deny any person "life, liberty or property, without due process of law" or to "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws." Most important law ever passed besides original Constitution and Bill of Rights. It has been the vehicle for the expansion of civil rights, women's rights, gay rights among other movements. It also allowed for the "incorporation doctrine" which means the application of the national Bill of Rights to the states. radically altered the balance of state and federal powers

Buck v. Bell (1927)

In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the Constitutionality of forced sterilization laws such as the 1907 Indiana law authorizing doctors to sterilize insane and "feeble-minded" inmates in mental institutions so that they would not pass on their "defective" genes to children. The decision was largely seen as an endorsement of eugenics—the attempt to improve the human race by eliminating "defectives" from the gene pool. The court said the Constitution did NOT prohibit forced sterilization of the mentally disabled

Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)

Issue: DC schools are still segragated. The whites claim that the schools are separate but equal, but the blacks claim that their schools are significantly lesser quality education and environment Decision: Desegregation in place from now own. Segregation was a violation of the Equal protection clause

Rochin v. California (1952)

Issues: 1) Does the 8th Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment apply against the states? Did state officers' pumping of defendant's stomach to obtain suspected narcotics violate the constitution? Reasoning: The restrictions of the 14th amendment concern process and enforcement primarily rather than subject matter of criminal laws. "Conduct that shocks the conscience" Black concurrence: Treats as self-incrimination: "Accordion like" qualities of case by case and selective incorporation language allow for economic substantive due process and disregard of Bill of Rights

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)

Law preventing teaching of German in schools unconstitutional under economic substantive due process, but court mentions that "due process denotes the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, and generally to enjoy those privileges enjoyed at common law s essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men."

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

Nebraska state senator sued in federal court claiming that the legislature's practice of opening sessions with a prayer offered by a state-supported chaplain was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The district court held that the prayer did not violate the Constitution, but that state support for the chaplain did. .a landmark court case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that government funding for chaplains was constitutional because of the "unique history" of the United States. Three days before the ratification of the First Amendment in 1791, containing the Establishment clause, the federal legislature authorized hiring a chaplain for opening sessions with prayer. Holding The practice of hiring a chaplain for the Nebraska state legislature did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Privileges and Immunities Clause

Part of Article IV of the Constitution guaranteeing that the citizens of each state are afforded the same rights as citizens of all other states.

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Prevented states from passing laws that prevented giving protected status for groups of people; law specifically targeted homosexuals. Colorado voters had adopted state constitutional amendment making it illegal to protect persons based on gay, lesbian or bisexual orientation; the Court overturns it

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)

Procreation is an important human right. Forced sterilization is not allowed under the 14th Amendment. Douglas struck down sterilization of habitual offenders. "Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race. No redemption" (Irreparable harm). Strict scrutiny applied to fundamental right of procreation. Law didn't survive scrutiny because it treated chicken thieves worse than embezzlers.

Palmore v. Sidoti (1984)

Rule of Law The deprivation of custody of an infant child from her mother solely because of the risk of racial biases violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977)

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS- FAMILY RIGHTS Test: Strict scrutiny Zoning ordinance limited the number of unrelated people who could live together in one household and defined "unrelated" to keep a grandmother from living with her two grandsons who were first cousins. Held that DP protected extended family rights and not just immediate family rights. *Powell decision* based on text and tradition.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

State laws making sodomy (gay sex) a crime violate equal protection clause (fails rational basis test because only possible reason for law is homophobia). Using right of privacy, struck down Texas law banning sodomy.

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)

State leased part of a public property to a racist restaurant. Proscriptions of the 14th must be complied with. Must serve blacks because funded with public funds. The Supreme Court rules that racially restrictive covenants are illegal because contracts require state action to be enforceable.

Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)

States may not ban partial birth abortions if they fail to allow an exception to protect the health of the mother

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Struck down state bans on same sex marriage. The 14th Amendment requires States to license a marriage between two people of the same sex. States must recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. (Roberts Court)

United States v. Kokinda (1990)

Supreme Court upheld a federal regulation prohibiting solicitation on post office property, including the sidewalk outside post office buildings. The Court concluded that the protections of the First Amendment were not breeched as the ban on solicitation was reasonable and did not discriminate based on viewpoint. Two volunteers for the National Democratic Policy Committee, set up a table outside the post office in Bowie, Maryland, to solicit contributions and sell materials. They were arrested after refusing to leave the premises and convicted by a magistrate of violating the anti-solicitation regulation. The court found that a United States Postal Service regulation prohibiting solicitation on postal premises does not violate the First Amendment.

Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932)

Te United States Supreme Court reversed the convictions of nine young black men for allegedly raping two white women on a freight train . The majority of the Court reasoned that the right to retain and be represented by a lawyer was fundamental to a fair trial and that at least in some circumstances, the trial judge must inform a defendant of this right. In addition, if the defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the court must appoint one sufficiently far in advance of trial to permit the lawyer to prepare adequately for the trial. This was the first time the Court had reversed a state criminal conviction for a violation of a criminal procedural provision of the United States Bill of Rights. In effect, it held that the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause included at least part of the right to counsel referred to in the Sixth Amendment, making that much of the Bill of Rights binding on the states as well as the federal government.

Reitman v. Mulkey

The Court invalidated Prop 14, which protected the right to discriminate in the sale of residential property, on the grounds that it encouraged discrimination and placed the state in the position of sanctioning and encouraging private discrimination to the extent that it constituted state action under the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

United States v. Carolene Products Company, 304 U.S. 144 (1938)

The case affirmed the presumption of constitutionality and deferential review for most legislation, but in "Footnote Four," the Court indicated that a higher level of scrutiny should apply to cases involving: (1) a specific constitutional prohibition such as the Bill of Rights, (2) legislation restricting the political process, and (3) legislation directed at discrete and insular minorities. Court further explained that though it would review economic substantive due process with a deference, the Court foreshadowed the next 80 years of SCOTUS jurisprudence in FN 4. The Court explained that it would apply enhanced scrutiny to cases involving the BOR, discrete and insular minorities and cases involving access to the political process.

Barron v. Baltimore ((32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833))

The city initiated a public works project that involved the modification of several streams that emptied into Harbor. City construction resulted in large amounts of sediment being deposited into the streams, which then emptied into the harbor near a profitable wharf owned and operated by As it was no longer easily accessible for ships, the business's profitability declined substantially. Plaintiff went to .court arguing that he was deprived of his property without the due process afforded him by the Fifth Amendment. awarded $4,500 in compensation by the trial court, but a Maryland appellate court reversed the decision.a landmark United States Supreme Court case in 1833, which helped define the concept of federalism in US constitutional law. The COURT RULED THE BILL OF RIGHTS ONLY APPLIED TO FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE STATES

United States v. Windsor (2013)

This case Struck down the federal Defense of Marriage of Marriage Act's (DOMA) restrictions of marriage rights to only heterosexual couples as unconstitutional violation of the 5th amendment due process clause; same sex married couples now receive federal benefits (Roberts Court). It is unconstitutional to deny the federal benefits of marriage to same-sex couples where marriage was preformed or recognized in states where same-sex marriage is legal.

Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)

United States Supreme Court case holding that the State-Action Doctrine includes the enforcement of private contracts, the Equal Protection Clause prohibits racially-restrictive housing covenants, and that such covenants are unenforceable in court. The Supreme Court ruled that racially restrictive covenants are illegal because contracts require state action to be enforceable.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, (2008)

United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an Indiana law requiring voters to provide photographic identification did not violate the United States Constitution.The Court upheld the constitutionality of the photo ID requirement, finding it closely related to Indiana's legitimate state interest in preventing voter fraud, modernizing elections, and safeguarding voter confidence. Justice Stevens, in the leading opinion, stated that the burdens placed on voters are limited to a small percentage of the population and were offset by the state's interest in reducing fraud

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held, 5-4, that the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at or across the street from a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In 2002, Juneau-Douglas High School principal Deborah Morse suspended a student after he displayed a banner reading "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. He sued, claiming his constitutional rights to free speech were violated. His suit was dismissed by the federal district court, but on appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed, concluding that his speech rights were violated. Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, concluded that the school officials did not violate the First Amendment. To do so, he made three legal determinations: first, that "school speech" doctrine should apply because his speech occurred "at a school event"; second, that the speech was "reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use"; and third, that a principal may legally restrict that speech—based on the three existing First Amendment school speech precedents, other Constitutional jurisprudence relating to schools, and a school's "important, indeed, perhaps compelling interest" in deterring drug use by students.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (1947)

a 5-4 decision of the United States Supreme Court that upheld an Ohio program that used school vouchers. The Court decided that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even if the vouchers could be used for private, religious schools. The Ohio school voucher program does not violate the Establishment Clause even if the vouchers could be used for private, religious schools, because it passed a five-part test developed by the court in the case. Court declared that the school voucher program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause. They also deemed that government support for religion was constitutional if it did not occur de jure but de facto and also failed to specify or to encourage religious schools. Cleveland's program was declared to be religiously neutral and to be giving parents the benefit of true private choice.

Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

a KKK leader was charged with advocating violence under Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute for his participation in a KKK rally and for the speech he made claiming that "our President, our Congress, our Supreme Court, continues to suppress the white, Caucasian race", and announced plans for a march on Washington. United States Supreme Court interprets the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Court held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Specifically, the Court struck down Ohio's criminal syndicalism statute, because that statute broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence. violated 1A because it prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action. In the process, Whitney v. California (1927) was explicitly overruled, and doubt was cast on Schenck v. United States (1919), Abrams v. United States (1919), Gitlow v. New York (1925), and Dennis v. United States (1951).

Gray v. Sanders (1963)

a SCOTUS case dealing with equal representation in regard to the American election system and formulated the famous "one person, one vote" standard for legislative districting. argued that the County Unit System gave unequal and preferential voting power to smaller counties. Rural counties which accounted for one-third of Georgia's population, accounted for a majority of County Unit votes. The court struck down the County Unit System saying "The concept of political equality...can mean only one thing—one person, one vote". The court found that the separation of voters in the same election into different classes was a violation of the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection.

Brown II (1955)

a Supreme Court case decided in 1955. The year before, the Supreme Court had decided a landmark case which made racial segregation in schools illegal. However, many all-white schools in the United States had not followed this ruling and still had not integrated (allowed black children into) their schools. The Court ordered them to integrate their schools "with all deliberate speed." the Supreme Court also set out rules about what schools needed to do to de-segregate. However "all deliberate speed was too ambiguous". Many Southern states and school districts interpreted the phrasing as legal justification for resisting, delaying, and avoiding significant integration for years—and in some cases for a decade or more—using such tactics as closing down school systems, using state money to finance segregated "private" schools, and "token" integration where a few carefully selected black children were admitted to former white-only schools but the vast majority remained in underfunded, unequal black schools

Osborne v. Ohio (1990)

a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography. In so doing, the Court extended the holding of New York v. Ferber, which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished Stanley v. Georgia, which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes. The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case. However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.

City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc (1985)

a U.S. Supreme Court case involving discrimination against the intellectually disabled. In 1980, a living center submitted a permit application seeking approval to build a group home for the intellectually disabled. The city of hotman Texas refused to grant them a permit on the basis of a municipal zoning ordinance. they then sued the City of Hotman on the theory that the denial of the permit violated the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection rights of living center and their potential residents. Applying rational basis review, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the ordinance as applied to the center The Court declined to rule that the intellectually disabled were a quasi-suspect or suspect class. Holding Possessing an intellectual disability is not a quasi-suspect classification calling for a heightened level of scrutiny, but nevertheless, the requirement of a special use permit for a proposed group home for people with intellectual disabilities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because no rational basis for the discriminatory classification could be shown, and in the absence of such justification, the classification appeared to be based on irrational prejudice against the intellectually disabled.

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

a U.S. Supreme Court case that successfully challenged the "separate but equal" doctrine of racial segregation established by the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson. The case was influential in the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education four years later. The case involved a black man, who was refused admission to the School of Law of the University of Texas, on the grounds that the Texas State Constitution prohibited integrated education. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, saying that the separate school failed to qualify, both because of quantitative differences in facilities and experiential factors, such as its isolation from most of the future lawyers with whom its graduates would interact. The court held that, when considering graduate education, experience must be considered as part of "substantive equality." The documentation of the court's decision included stark differences between the quality and funding of both schools.

Pruneyard v. Robins, (1980)

a U.S. Supreme Court decision issued on June 9, 1980 which affirmed the decision of the California Supreme Court in a case that arose out of a free speech dispute between a Shopping Center in Campbell, California, and several local high school students (who wished to solicit signatures for a petition against United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379). A state can prohibit the private owner of a shopping center from using state trespass law to exclude peaceful expressive activity in the open areas of the shopping center.holding was possible because California's constitution contains an affirmative right of free speech which has been liberally construed by the Supreme Court of California, while the federal constitution's First Amendment contains only a negative command to Congress to not abridge the freedom of speech.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

a U.S. constitutional law Supreme Court case on campaign finance following a lawsuit filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia, on January 2, 1975, by U.S. Senators, former U.S. Senator and presidential candidate Eugene McCarthy (a Democrat from Minnesota), the New York Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the Peace & Freedom Party, the Libertarian Party, and numerous other plaintiffs. A majority of judges held that limits on election spending in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 §608 are unconstitutional. In a per curiam (by the Court) opinion, they ruled that expenditure limits contravene the First Amendment provision on freedom of speech because a restriction on spending for political communication necessarily reduces the quantity of expression. It limited disclosure provisions and limited the Federal Election Commission's power. Justice Byron White dissented in part and wrote that Congress had legitimately recognized unlimited election spending "as a mortal danger against which effective preventive and curative steps must be taken". contribution limits okay, not spending limits

First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti (1978)

a U.S. constitutional law case which defined the free speech right of corporations for the first time. The United States Supreme Court held that corporations have a First Amendment right to make contributions to ballot initiative campaigns. The ruling came in response to a Massachusetts law that prohibited corporate donations in ballot initiatives unless the corporation's interests were directly involved. In 1976 several corporations, were barred from contributing to a Massachusetts referendum regarding tax policy and subsequently sued. The case was successfully appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in November 1977. On April 26, 1978, the Court ruled 5-4 against the Massachusetts law. As a result of the ruling, states could no longer impose specific regulations on donations from corporations in ballot initiative campaigns. corporation may spend money on any issue, not just issues materially affecting their businesses.

Fisher v. University of Texas (2013)

a United States Supreme Court case concerning the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Texas at Austin. The Supreme Court voided the lower appellate court's ruling in favor of the University and remanded the case, holding that the lower court had not applied the standard of strict scrutiny, articulated in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), to its admissions program. The Court's ruling took Grutter and Bakke as given and did not directly revisit the constitutionality of using race as a factor in college admissions. Holding The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals failed to apply strict scrutiny in its decision affirming the admissions policy. The decision is vacated, and the case remanded for further consideration.

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

a United States Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also had a significant impact on historic preservation. The basis for dispute arose when the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, applied for a building permit to enlarge his 1923 mission-style St. Peter's Church at another site. The building was located in a historic district and considered a contributing property. Local zoning authorities denied the permit, citing an ordinance governing additions and new construction in a historic district. The Archbishop brought suit, challenging the ruling under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) of 1993. Holding The Court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, struck down RFRA as it applies to the states as an unconstitutional use of Congress's enforcement powers. The Court held that it holds the sole power to define the substantive rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment—a definition to which Congress may not add and from which it may not subtract. Enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 exceeded congressional power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)

a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a conviction against def for the crime of disturbing the peace by wearing a jacket displaying "**** the Draft" in the public corridors of a California courthouse. The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. More broadly, the ruling places a heavy burden on the justification of prior restraint in order to curtail free speech. Court of Appeal of California reversed.

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

a United States Supreme Court case deciding on the issue of silent school prayer. Petitioner brought suit naming the Mobile County School Board, various school officials, and the minor plaintiffs' three teachers as defendants. Petitioner sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction restraining the defendants from "maintaining or allowing the maintenance of regular religious prayer services or other forms of religious observances in the Mobile County Public Schools in violation of the First Amendment as made applicable to states by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution." His complaint further alleged that two of his children had been subjected to various acts of religious indoctrination and that the defendant teachers had led their classes in saying certain prayers in unison on a daily basis; that as a result of not participating in the prayers his minor children had been exposed to ostracism from their peer group classmates; and that he had repeatedly but unsuccessfully requested that the prayers be stopped. State endorsement of prayer activities in schools is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled, that the new law was passed "for the sole purpose of expressing the State's endorsement of prayer activities for one minute at the beginning of each schoolday." Since "[s]uch an endorsement is not consistent with the established principle that the government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion," the Court ruled in favor of Petitioner and upheld the Eleventh Circuit's decision.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech. Def, a sidewalk preacher was detained for attacking the town marshal verbally. He was then arrested. The complaint against Def stated that he shouted: "You are a ********ed racketeer" and "a damned Fascist". Def admitted that he said the words charged in the complaint, with the exception of the name of the deity. For this, he was charged and convicted under a New Hampshire statute forbidding intentionally offensive speech directed at others in a public place. A criminal conviction for causing a breach of the peace through the use of "fighting words" does not violate the Free Speech guarantee of the First Amendment. The Court, in a unanimous decision, upheld the arrest.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union (1989)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court considered the constitutionality of two recurring Christmas and Hanukkah holiday displays located on public property. The first, a nativity scene (crèche), was placed on the grand staircase of the County Courthouse. The second of the holiday display in question was an 18-foot (5.5 m) public Hanukkah menorah, which was placed just outside the City-County Building next to the city's 45-foot (14 m) decorated Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty. The legality of the Christmas tree display was not considered in this case. In a complex and fragmented decision, the majority held that the County violated the Establishment Clause by displaying a crèche in the county courthouse, because the "principle or primary effect" of the display was to advance religion within the meaning of Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), when viewed in its overall context. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), nothing in the crèche's setting detracted from that message. Display of the menorah in this setting was constitutional, while the Christian nativity scene in this particular setting was unconstitutional.

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, legal responsible of his son, and declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. Sanctioned and organized Bible reading in public schools is unconstitutional.

Hustler Magazine, Inc v. Falwell (1988)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), if the emotional distress was caused by a caricature, parody, or satire of the public figure that a reasonable person would not have interpreted as factual. In an 8-0 decision, the Court ruled in favor of a dirty magazine, holding that a parody ad published in the magazine depicting a televangelist and political commentator as an incestuous drunk, was protected speech since he was a public figure and the parody could not have been reasonably considered believable. Therefore, the Court held that the emotional distress inflicted on him by the ad was not a sufficient reason to deny the First Amendment protection to speech that is critical of public officials and public figures

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group (2000)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court struck down Section 505 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which required that cable television operators completely scramble or block channels that are "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming" from 10 pm to 6 am. Court concluded that the provision violated the First Amendment's free speech clause because the Government failed to prove that Section 505 was the least restrictive means of preventing children from hearing or seeing images resulting from signal bleed

Goesaert v. Cleary (1948)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld a Michigan law, which prohibited women from being licensed as a bartender in all cities having a population of 50,000 or more unless their father or husband owned the establishment. the plaintiff in the case, challenged the law on the ground that it infringed on the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Speaking for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter affirmed the judgment of the Detroit district court and upheld the constitutionality of the state law. The state argued that since the profession of bartending could potentially lead to moral and social problems for women, it was within the state's power to bar them from working as bartenders. Only when the owner of the bar was a sufficiently close relative to the women bartender could it be guaranteed that such immorality would not be present. Holding A state law prohibiting a woman from being licensed as a bartender unless she was the wife or daughter of the bar owner did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, (1969)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the Supreme Court struck down a city ordinance that prohibited citizens from holding parades and processions on city streets without first obtaining a permit. Petitioner lead 52 African Americans in an orderly civil rights march in 1963. He was arrested and convicted for violating 1159 of the city's General Code, an ordinance which proscribes participating in any parade or procession on city streets or public ways without first obtaining a permit from the City Commission. The Court held that (1) even though the actual construction of § 1159 of the General City Code was unconstitutional, the judicial construction of the ordinance prohibited only standing or loitering on public property that obstructed free passage, but it was unclear from the record, whether the literal or judicial construction was applied; and (2) the literal construction of § 1159 of the General City Code was unconstitutional, and the statutory application revealed that it applied to the enforcement of an officer's order in directing vehicular traffic.

Town of Greece v. Galloway (2014)

a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the a town in New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer. The plaintiffs represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State. They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the town holding that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayer did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. does not violate by opening its meetings with sectarian prayer that comports with America's tradition and doesn't coerce participation by nonadherents. The judgment of the Second Circuit is reversed.

Sipuel v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Okla. (1948)

a United States Supreme Court case involving racial segregation toward African Americans by the University of Oklahoma and the application of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. On January 14, 1946, Petitioner applied to the all-white University of Oklahoma, then the only taxpayer-funded law school in Oklahoma. She was denied because of her race. She then petitioned the District Court of Cleveland County, Oklahoma. Her writ of mandamus was denied. The Oklahoma Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower district court (in 180 P.2d 135). The petitioners then appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Supreme Court ruled that the state of Oklahoma must provide instruction for Blacks equal to that of Whites, requiring the admission of qualified black students to previously all-white state law schools, reversing the Supreme Court of Oklahoma decision. Colleges can not deny admittance based on race.

Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

a United States Supreme Court case regarding the University of Michigan undergraduate affirmative action admissions policy. In a 6-3 decision announced on June 23, 2003, Chief Justice Rehnquist, writing for the Court, ruled the University's point system's "predetermined point allocations" that awarded 20 points towards admission to underrepresented minorities "ensures that the diversity contributions of applicants cannot be individually assessed" and was therefore unconstitutional. Holding A state university's admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because its ranking system gave an automatic point increase to all racial minorities rather than making individual determinations.

Adderley v. Florida (1966)

a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional. Because a jail facility is not a public forum and a state may regulate the use of its property, the First Amendment rights of the protesters were not violated. In 1966, a group of students from Florida A&M University demonstrated against racial segregation, and were subsequently arrested. The day after, around 200 FAMU students gathered in front of the Leon County jail to protest their arrest

Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)

a United States Supreme Court case relating to Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party USA. The Court ruled that Dennis did not have the right under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution to exercise free speech, publication and assembly, if the exercise involved the creation of a plot to overthrow the government. In 1948, eleven Communist Party leaders were convicted of advocating the violent overthrow of the US government and for the violation of several points of the Smith Act. The party members who had been petitioning for socialist reforms claimed that the act violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and that they served no clear and present danger to the nation. Defendants' convictions for conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government by force through their participation in the Communist Party were not in violation of the First Amendment. Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.

Keyes v. School District No. 1, Denver (1973)

a United States Supreme Court case that claimed de facto segregation had affected a substantial part of the school system and therefore was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The entire district in Denver, Colorado must be desegregated. In this case black and Hispanic parents filed suit against all Denver schools due to racial segregation. The decision on this case was key in defining de facto segregation. Brennan found that although there were no official laws supporting segregation in Denver, "the Board, through its actions over a period of years, intentionally created and maintained the segregated character of the core city schools." Holding A prima facie case of unlawful segregative design on the part of school authorities places to those authorities the burden of proving that other segregated schools within the system were not also the result of intentionally segregative actions.

Washington v. Davis (1976)

a United States Supreme Court case that established that laws that have a racially discriminatory effect but were not adopted to advance a racially discriminatory purpose are valid under the U.S. Constitution. Two black applicants for positions in the Washington, DC police department were turned down. Suing, they claimed that the Department used racially discriminatory hiring procedures, including its use of a test of verbal skills (Test 21), which was failed disproportionately by blacks. The plaintiffs sued the department, alleging that the test constituted impermissible employment discrimination under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the US Constitution. Holding To be unconstitutional, racial discrimination by the government must contain two elements: a discriminatory purpose and a discriminatory impact. Court concluded that a plaintiff must prove discriminatory motive on the part of the state actor to receive redress under the Constitution, not just discriminatory impact. It held a "disproportionate impact is not irrelevant, but it is not the sole touchstone of an invidious racial discrimination forbidden by the Constitution."

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)

a United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples. The Court struck down a Massachusetts law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people for the purpose of preventing pregnancy, ruling that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Holding A Massachusetts law criminalizing the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried persons for the purpose of preventing pregnancy violated the right to equal protection. Judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. Court membership

Poe v. Ullman (1961)

a United States Supreme Court case that held that plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge a Connecticut law that banned the use of contraceptives and banned doctors from advising their use because the law had never been enforced. Therefore, any challenge to the law was deemed unripe because there was no actual threat of injury to anyone who disobeyed the law. The same statute would later be challenged again (successfully) in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). Holding Connecticut law barring possession of birth control not ripe for constitutional challenge because of lack of enforcement.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

a United States Supreme Court case that held that the state could deny unemployment benefits to a person fired for violating a state prohibition on the use of peyote, even though the use of the drug was part of a religious ritual. Although states have the power to accommodate otherwise illegal acts performed in pursuit of religious beliefs, they are not required to do so. Plaintiff's were members of the Native American Church and counselors at a private drug rehabilitation clinic. They were fired because they had ingested peyote, a powerful entheogen, as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. At the time, intentional possession of peyote was a crime under Oregon law without an affirmative defense for religious use. The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)

a United States Supreme Court case that invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as violating of free speech under the First Amendment. It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty. It built on the opinion handed down in the Court's decision the prior year in Texas v. Johnson (1989), which invalidated on First Amendment grounds a Texas state statute banning flag burning. The government's interest in preserving the flag as a symbol did not outweigh the individual right to disparage that symbol through expressive conduct.

Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974)

a United States Supreme Court case that overturned a Florida state law requiring newspapers to allow equal space in their newspapers to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content. The court held that while the statute does not "prevent [newspapers] from saying anything [they] wish" it "exacts a penalty on the basis of the content." Because newspapers are economically finite enterprises, "editors may conclude that the safe course is to avoid controversy," thereby chilling speech. Furthermore, the Court held the exercise of editorial judgment is a protected First Amendment activity. The law requiring newspapers to allow equal access to political candidates in the case of a political editorial or endorsement content is unconstitutional. In effect, this ruling reaffirmed the constitutional principle of freedom of the press (detailed in the First Amendment) and prevented state governments from controlling the content of the press. This case illustrates the medium with the most Constitutional protection—newspapers—while Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC (1969) represents the medium with the least protection—broadcast, television, and radio.

McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents (1950)

a United States Supreme Court case that reversed a lower court decision upholding the efforts of the state-supported University of Oklahoma to adhere to the state law requiring African-Americans to be provided graduate or professional education on a segregated basis Holding Different treatment of students in public institutions of higher learning solely on the basis of race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. the high court reversed the decision of the US District Court, requiring the University of Oklahoma to remove the restrictions under which plaintiff was attending the institution. This case together with Sweatt v. Painter, which was decided the same day, marked the end of the separate but equal doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson in graduate and professional education.

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)

a United States Supreme Court case. At issue were efforts for voluntary school desegregation and integration in Seattle, Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky. Both school districts voluntarily used individualized racial classifications to achieve diversity and/or to avoid racial isolation through student assignment. The Court recognized that seeking diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling state interests. However, the Court struck down both school districts' assignment plans, finding that the plans were not sufficiently "narrowly tailored," a legal term that essentially suggests that the means or method being employed (in this case, a student assignment plan based on individualized racial classifications) is closely and narrowly tied to the ends (the stated goals of achieving diversity and/or avoiding racial isolation) Holding The student assignment plan of Seattle Public Schools and Jefferson County Public Schools does not meet the narrowly tailored and compelling interest requirements for a race-based assignment plan because it is used only to achieve "racial balance." Public schools may not use race as the sole determining factor for assigning students to schools. Race-conscious objectives to achieve diverse school environment may be acceptable.

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)

a United States Supreme Court decision holding that states which provided a school to white students had to provide in-state education to blacks as well. States could satisfy this requirement by allowing blacks and whites to attend the same school or creating a second school for blacks. Holding States that provide only one educational institution must allow blacks and whites to attend if there is no separate school for blacks.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It ruled that schools may not sponsor clerics to conduct even non-denominational prayer. The Court followed a broad interpretation of the Establishment Clause that had been standard for decades at the nation's highest court, a reaffirmation of the principles of such landmark cases as Engel v. Vitale and Abington v. Schempp. The court held that including a clergy-led prayer within the events of a public high school graduation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court found fault with school official's decision to give the rabbi who was planning to offer the graduation invocation a pamphlet on composing prayers for civic occasions. Through these means, the principal directed and controlled the content of the prayers. Even if the only sanction for ignoring the instructions were that the rabbi would not be invited back, we think no religious representative who valued his or her continued reputation and effectiveness in the community would incur the State's displeasure in this regard. It is a cornerstone principle of our Establishment Clause jurisprudence that it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government, and that is what the school officials attempted to do.

Schneider v. State of New Jersey, 308 U.S. 147 (1939)

a United States Supreme Court decision that combined four similar appeals, each of which presented the question whether regulations embodied in municipal ordinances abridged the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press secured against state invasion by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. The appellants (Jehovah's Witnesses) were charged with a violation of a local ordinance that barred persons from distributing handbills on public streets or handing them out door-to-door. The Court held that the purpose of the ordinances (to keep the streets clean and of good appearance) was insufficient to justify prohibiting defendants from handing out literature to other persons willing to receive it.

Stanley v. Georgia (1969)

a United States Supreme Court decision that helped to establish an implied "right to privacy" in U.S. law, in the form of mere possession of obscene materials. The home of a suspected and previously convicted bookmaker, was searched by police with a federal warrant to seize betting paraphernalia. They found none, but instead seized three reels of pornographic material from a desk drawer in an upstairs bedroom, and later charged him with the possession of obscene materials, a crime under Georgia law. The conviction was upheld by the Supreme Court of Georgia. The Supreme Court of the United States, however, per Justice Marshall, unanimously overturned the earlier decision and invalidated all state laws that forbade the private possession of materials judged obscene, on the grounds of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Justices Stewart, Brennan, and White, contributed a joint concurring opinion. Justice Hugo Black also concurred, with a separate opinion having to do with the Fourth Amendment search and seizure provision. The case also established an implied right to pornography. The right to privacy to pornography is not absolute, however. For example, in Osborne v. Ohio (1990) the Supreme Court upheld a law which criminalized the mere possession of child pornography.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

a bakery owner permitted employees to work over the 10-hour statutory limit. After receiving two fines, he brought suit, claiming the statutes violated the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court held that states may not regulate working hours mutually agreed upon between an employer and employee because it violates their 14th Amendment right to contract under the Due Process Clause. A New York State law fixing maximum working hours for bakers was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court held the law exceeded the police powers of the state and interfered with the individual's right to freedom of contract under Amendment 14.

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York (1949)

a case before the United States Supreme Court. city traffic regulation forbids the operation of any advertising vehicle on the streets an express company, which sold space on the exterior sides of its trucks for advertising and which operated such trucks on the streets, was convicted and fined for violating the ordinance. The business owner was engaged in a nationwide express business and operated about 1,900 trucks in the city. It sold the space on the exterior sides of the trucks for advertising, which, for the most part, was unconnected with its own business. The business was convicted in the magistrate's court of violating the law, which prohibited the operation of an advertising vehicle except where such vehicles were engaged in the usual business of the owner and not used mainly for advertising. The Court held that if the classification was related to the purpose for which it was made, then it did not contain the kind of discrimination against which the Equal Protection Clause afforded protection. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's judgment. A traffic regulation prohibiting advertising on vehicles in city streets did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.

Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970)

a case before the United States Supreme Court. New York law granted property tax exemptions to religious organizations for religious properties used solely for religious worship. an owner of real estate in Staten Island, New York, brought suit in the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, seeking to enjoin the New York City Tax Commission from granting these exemptions. The plaintiff contended that the exemptions indirectly required him to make a contribution to religious bodies and thereby violated the religion clauses of the First Amendment. The Court held that grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Grants of tax exemption to religious organizations do not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court held that there was no nexus between these tax exemptions and the establishment of religion, and that federal or state grants of tax exemption to churches did not violate the First Amendment.

Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982)

a case decided 5-4 by the Supreme Court of the United States. The court held that the single-sex admissions policy of an all girls college violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Holding The exclusion of men from enrollment in the nursing school violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1 (2010)

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, represents the only time in U.S. First Amendment jurisprudence that a restriction on political speech has passed the Brandenburg v. Ohio test. The Supreme Court ruled against the organization, 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. 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". The finding was based on the principle that any assistance could help to "legitimate" the terrorist organization, and free up its resources for terrorist activities. the federal government may prohibit providing non-violent material support for terrorist organizations, including legal services and advice, without violating the free speech clause of the First Amendment. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974)

a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States established the standard of First Amendment protection against defamation claims brought by private individuals. The Court held that, so long as they do not impose liability without fault, states are free to establish their own standards of liability for defamatory statements made about private individuals. However, the Court also ruled that if the state standard is lower than actual malice, the standard applying to public figures, then only actual damages may be awarded. The consequence is that strict liability for defamation is unconstitutional in the United States; the plaintiff must be able to show that the defendant acted negligently or with an even higher level of mens rea. In many other common law countries, strict liability for defamation is still the rule.

Wooley v. Maynard (1977)

a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display the state motto upon their license plates when the state motto was offensive to their moral convictions. New Hampshire could not constitutionally require citizens to display a state motto that went against an individual's morality upon their vehicle license plates.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)

a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house. crowd of petitioners did not engage in any violent conduct and did not threaten violence in any manner, nor did crowds gathering to witness the demonstration engage in any such behavior. Petitioners were told by police officials that they must disperse within 15 minutes or face arrest. The petitioners failed to disperse, opting to sing religious and patriotic songs instead. Petitioners were convicted of the common law crime of breach of the peace. State governments must protect First Amendment rights through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment required the government to demonstrate both a compelling interest and that the law in question was narrowly tailored before it denied unemployment compensation to someone who was fired because her job requirements substantially conflicted with her religion. The case established a test requiring demonstration of such a compelling interest and narrow tailoring in all Free Exercise cases in which a religious person was substantially burdened by a law. The conditions are the key components of what is usually called strict scrutiny. In 1990, the Supreme Court decided that the test, as a judicial constitutional analysis tool, was too broad when applied to all laws. With respect to religiously-neutral, generally-applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise, the testTest was eliminated in Employment Division v. Smith.[2] For laws that discriminate along religious/secular lines or neutral laws that are enforced in a discriminatory way, the components of the Test are still appropriate constitutional tools for courts to use. Holding: The Free Exercise Clause mandates strict scrutiny for unemployment compensation claims.

Cox v. New Hampshire (1941)

a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that, although the government cannot regulate the contents of speech, it can place reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on speech for the public safety. Sixty-eight Jehovah's Witnesses had assembled at their church and divided into smaller groups that marched along sidewalks, displaying signs, and handing out leaflets advertising a meeting. During the march, groups of 15 to 20 people marched in single file down sidewalks in the district, interfering with hard foot travel. In 1941, all 68 Jehovah's Witnesses were convicted in a municipal court for violating a state statute which prohibited parades and processions on public streets without a license. The defendants claimed that their First Amendment rights were violated including their rights to freedom of worship and freedom of assembly. Here, the Court held that government may require organizers of any parade or procession on public streets to have a license and pay a fee.

BSA v. Dale (2000)

a case of the Supreme Court of the United States, decided on June 28, 2000, that held that the constitutional right to freedom of association allowed the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to exclude a homosexual person from membership in spite of a state law requiring equal treatment of homosexuals in public accommodations. More generally, the court ruled that a private organization such as the BSA may exclude a person from membership when "the presence of that person affects in a significant way the group's ability to advocate public or private viewpoints".[1] In a five to four decision, the Supreme Court ruled that opposition to homosexuality is part of BSA's "expressive message" and that allowing homosexuals as adult leaders would interfere with that message.

Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985)

a credit rating agency, sent a report to five subscribers indicating that a construction contractor, had filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy. The report was false and grossly misrepresented the contractor's financial health. Thereafter, issued a corrective notice, but the contractor had already been harmed. A credit reporting agency can be held civilly liable for ordinary and punitive damages for publishing false assertions about the bankruptcy of a business which is not a public figure. (contractor was private figure)

Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States concerning whether the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment was offended by a school district that refused to allow a church access to school premises to show films dealing with family and child-rearing issues faced by parents. In a unanimous decision, the court concluded that it was. he case arose in New York, where state law authorized school boards to promulgate regulations for the use of school property outside of school hours. evangelical church sought to show a series of family lectures by James Dobson on school property. The local board refused on the grounds that the film "appear[ed] to be church related," 508 U.S. at 389, whereafter the church sued. Court held that Under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, a public school may not refuse to allow religious films.

Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940)

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the religious rights of public school students under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that public schools could compel students—in this case, Jehovah's Witnesses—to salute the American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance despite the students' religious objections to these practices. This decision led to increased persecution of Witnesses in the United States. The Supreme Court overruled this decision three years later, in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that defendant's act of flag burning was protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. A statute that criminalizes the desecration of the American flag violates the First Amendment. .

United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968

a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which ruled that a criminal prohibition against burning a draft card did not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Though the Court recognized that his conduct was expressive as a protest against the Vietnam War, it considered the law justified by a significant government interest unrelated to the suppression of speech and was tailored towards that end. This upheld the government's power to prosecute what was becoming a pervasive method of anti-war protest. Its greater legacy, however, was its application of a new constitutional standard. The test articulated has been subsequently used by the Court to analyze whether laws that have the effect of regulating speech, though are ostensibly neutral towards the content of that speech, violate the First Amendment.

Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)

a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed. Holding The Act's registration provisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment. Congress acted well within its constitutional authority to raise and regulate armies and navies when it authorized the registration of men and not women.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

a decision of the United States Supreme Court that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election. In a per curiam decision, the Court ruled that the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause, and ruled that no alternative method could be established within the time limit set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), § 5 ("Determination of controversy as to appointment of electors"), which was December 12 Holding In the circumstances of this case, any manual recount of votes seeking to meet the December 12 "safe harbor" deadline would be unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Florida Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Lucas v. Colorado General Assembly (1964)

a group sued various officials connected with Colorado's elections challenging the apportionment of seats in both houses of the Colorado General Assembly. Under Colorado's apportionment plan, the House of Representatives was apportioned on the basis of population but the apportionment of the Senate was based on a combination of population and other factors. Consequently, counties with only about one-third of the State's total population would elect a majority of the Senate and the chief metropolitan areas, with over two-thirds of the State's population, could elect only a bare majority of the Senate. The Court held that the Equal Protection Clause requires all districts to be substantially apportioned on a population bases. While noting that some deviation from strict population considerations may be permitted to offset minor underrepresentations of one group or another, the wholesale neglect of population considerations is unconstitutional.

Citizens United v. FEC

a landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5-4) on January 21, 2010, that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations. In the case, a conservative non-profit organization sought to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts shortly before the 2008 Democratic primary election in which Clinton was running for U.S. President. The federal law, however, prohibited any corporation (or labor union) from making an "electioneering communication" (defined as a broadcast ad reaching over 50,000 people in the electorate) within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election, or making any expenditure advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. The court found that these provisions of the law conflicted with the United States Constitution. The court upheld requirements, however, for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements. The case did not affect the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties. The decision was highly controversial and remains a subject of widespread public discussion.

Korematsu v. US (1944)

a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II regardless of their citizenship. In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the government, ruling that the exclusion order was constitutional. Six of the eight justices appointed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt sided with Roosevelt. The two others and the lone Herbert Hoover appointee, Owen Roberts, dissented. The majority opinion was written by Supreme Court justice Hugo Black and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed the rights of Americans of Japanese descent

Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971)

a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with the busing of students to promote integration in public schools. After Brown, a NC county had ended segregation with a school assignment plan based on neighborhoods that was approved by the Court. However, when they consolidated school districts from the city itself with a surrounding area totaling 550 square miles (1,400 km2), the majority of black students (who lived in central Charlotte) still attended mostly black schools as compared with majority white schools further outside the city. The Court held that busing was an appropriate remedy for the problem of racial imbalance in schools, even when the imbalance resulted from the selection of students based on geographic proximity to the school rather than from deliberate assignment based on race. This was done to ensure the schools would be "properly" integrated and that all students would receive equal educational opportunities regardless of their race.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and encourage its recitation in public schools. Government-directed prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students may remain silent or be excused from the classroom during its recitation. Court membership

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

a landmark United States Supreme Court case regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and Section 4(b), which contains the coverage formula that determines which jurisdictions are subjected to preclearance based on their histories of discrimination in voting. On June 25, 2013, the Court ruled by a 5-to-4 vote that Section 4(b) is unconstitutional because the coverage formula is based on data over 40 years old, making it no longer responsive to current needs and therefore an impermissible burden on the constitutional principles of federalism and equal sovereignty of the states. The Court did not strike down Section 5, but without Section 4(b), no jurisdiction will be subject to Section 5 preclearance unless Congress enacts a new coverage formula. Holding Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the actual malice standard that must be met for press reports about public officials to be considered libel. The decision defended 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 a plaintiff alleging defamation who 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. A newspaper cannot be held liable for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official unless the statements were made with actual malice (knowing or reckless disregard for the truth).

Adarand Constructors v. Pena (1995)

a landmark United States Supreme Court case which held that racial classifications, imposed by the federal government, must be analyzed under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the most stringent level of review which requires that racial classifications be narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote the majority opinion of the Court, which effectively overturned Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. FCC, 497 U.S. 547 (1990), in which the Court had created a two tiered system for analyzing racial classifications. The Court held the federal government to the same standards as the state and local governments through a process of "reverse incorporation," in which the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause was held to bind the federal government to the same standards as state and local governments are bound under the 14th Amendment. Holding All racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local government actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under a standard of "strict scrutiny," the highest level of Supreme Court review (such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored measures that further compelling governmental interests).

McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014)

a landmark campaign finance decision of the United States Supreme Court. The decision held that Section 441 of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA), which imposed a limit on contributions an individual can make over a two-year period to national party and federal candidate committees, is unconstitutional.[1] The case was argued before the Supreme Court on October 8, 2013,[2] being brought on appeal after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the challenge. It was decided on April 2, 2014, by a 5-4 vote,[3] reversing the decision below and remanding. Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito invalidated "aggregate contribution limits" (amounts one can contribute over the two-year period) as violating the First Amendment. Justice Thomas provided the necessary fifth vote, but concurred separately in the judgment while arguing that all contribution limits are unconstitutional.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2] Because of the District of Columbia's status as a federal enclave (it is not in any state), the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states,[3] which was addressed two years later by McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010) in which it was found that they are.

US v. Virginia (1996)

a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in a 7-1 decision Holding Commonwealth of Virginia's exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

a landmark case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School. The Court ruled that the University of Michigan Law School had a compelling interest in promoting class diversity. the court held that a race-conscious admissions process that may favor "underrepresented minority groups", but that also took into account many other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant, did not amount to a quota system that would have been unconstitutional under Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. The Court applied strict scrutiny that it claimed was made "no less strict" when it followed a "tradition of giving a degree of deference" "within constitutionally prescribed limits" to the university regarding the compelling nature of its interest in diversity.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. The case concerned the censorship of two articles in The Spectrum, a student newspaper of in St. Louis County, Missouri, 1983. When the school principal removed an article concerning divorce and another concerning teen pregnancy, the student journalists sued, claiming that their First Amendment rights had been violated. A lower court sided with the school, but its decision was overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which sided with the students. In a 5-3 decision, the Supreme Court overturned the circuit court's decision, determining that school administrators could exercise prior restraint of school-sponsored expression, such as curriculum-based student newspapers and assembly speeches, if the censorship is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns". School-sponsored student newspapers will not be presumed to be operating as public forums for student expression absent evidence indicating otherwise.

Bd. of Regents of California v. Bakke

a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. It upheld affirmative action, allowing race to be one of several factors in college admission policy. However, the court ruled that specific racial quotas, such as the 16 out of 100 seats set aside for minority students by the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, were impermissible. Finding diversity in the classroom to be a compelling state interest,the court opined that affirmative action in general was allowed under the Constitution and the Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Nevertheless, UC Davis's program went too far for a majority of justices, and it was struck down and petitioner was admitted. The practical effect of this case was that most affirmative action programs continued without change.

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)

a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment protects students from being forced to salute the American flag or say the Pledge of Allegiance in public school. The Court's 6-3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed "beyond the reach of majorities and officials". This overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis, in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the public school policy democratically. It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone. In overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause.

Bethel School District v. Fraser (1986)

a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court involving free speech in public schools. High school student was suspended from school in the Bethel School District in Washington for making a speech including sexual double entendres at a school assembly. The Supreme Court held that his suspension did not violate the First Amendment. The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, permits a public school to punish a student for giving a lewd and indecent, even if not obscene, speech at a school assembly.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the First Amendment. The ruling made it possible for newspapers to publish the then-classified Pentagon Papers without risk of government censorship or punishment.[1] President Richard Nixon had claimed executive authority to force papers to suspend publication of classified information in its possession. The question before the court was whether the constitutional freedom of the press, guaranteed by the First Amendment, was subordinate to a claimed need of the executive branch of government to maintain the secrecy of information. The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did protect the right of paper to print the materials. To exercise prior restraint, the Government must show sufficient evidence that the publication would cause a "grave and irreparable" danger.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined First Amendment rights of students in U.S. public schools. This test, also known as the "substantial disruption" test, is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's interest to prevent disruption infringes upon students' First Amendment rights. The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others.

Miller v. California (1973)

a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court wherein the court redefined its definition of obscenity from that of "utterly without socially redeeming value" to that which lacks "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". It is now referred to as the three-prong standard, with the third prong being informally known by the initialism and mnemonic device "SLAPS" or the term "SLAPS test". Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and that the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014)

a landmark decision in United States corporate law by the United States Supreme Court allowing closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a regulation its owners religiously object to, if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest, according to the provisions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). It is the first time that the court has recognized a for-profit corporation's claim of religious belief, but it is limited to closely held corporations. The decision does not address whether such corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Holding As applied to closely held for-profit corporations, the Health and Human Services (HHS) regulations imposing the contraceptive mandate violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). HHS's contraceptive mandate substantially burdens the exercise of religion under the RFRA. The Court assumes that guaranteeing cost-free access to the four challenged contraceptive methods is a compelling governmental interest, but the Government has failed to show that the mandate is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

a landmark decision issued in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of the constitutionality of laws that criminalized or restricted access to abortions. The Court ruled 7-2 that a right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life.[2] Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy. Holding Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman to get an abortion violated her due process rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in part.

MacDonald v. Chicago (2010)

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. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

Cooper v. Aaron (1958)

a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which denied the Arkansas School Board the right to delay desegregation for 30 months. On September 12, 1958 the Warren Court handed down a per curiam decision which held that the states are bound by the Court's decisions and must enforce them even if the states disagree with them, which asserted judicial supremacy established in Marbury v. Madison. The decision in this case upheld the rulings in Brown v. Board of Education and Brown II which held that the doctrine of separate but equal is unconstitutional. Holding This Court cannot countenance a claim by the Governor and Legislature of a State that there is no duty on state officials to obey federal court orders resting on this Court's considered interpretation of the United States Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education (1954).

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that American state laws establishing racial segregation in public schools are unconstitutional, even if the segregated schools are otherwise equal in quality. Handed down on May 17, 1954, the Court's unanimous (9-0) decision stated that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal," and therefore violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The case originated with a lawsuit filed by a family of black Americans in Topeka, Kansas, after their local public school district refused to enroll their daughter in the school closest to their home, instead requiring her to ride a bus to a blacks-only school further away. A number of other black families joined the lawsuit, and the Supreme Court later combined their case with several other similar lawsuits from other areas of the United States. Holding Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court issued in 1896. It upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation laws for public facilities as long as the segregated facilities were equal in quality - a doctrine that came to be known as "separate but equal". The decision legitimized the many state laws re-establishing racial segregation that had been passed in the American South after the end of the Reconstruction Era (1865-1877). The Court ruled that the Louisiana law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, stating that although the Fourteenth Amendment established the legal equality of white and black Americans, it did not and could not require the elimination of all social or other "distinctions based upon color". The Court rejected Plaintiff lawyers' arguments that the Louisiana law inherently implied that black people were inferior, and gave great deference to American state legislatures' inherent power to make laws regulating health, safety, and morals—the "police power"—and to determine the reasonableness of the laws they passed.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which struck down all state laws banning interracial marriage as violations of the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case was brought by a woman of color, and a white man, who had been sentenced to a year in prison in Virginia for marrying each other. Their marriage violated Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which criminalized marriage between people classified as "white" and people classified as "colored". They finally appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear their case. On June 12, 1967, the Court issued a unanimous decision in their favor and overturned their convictions. The Court ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States. The Court found that the law nonetheless violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and which citizens were free to do. Additionally, the Court ruled that the freedom to marry was a constitutionally protected fundamental liberty, and therefore the government's deprivation of it on an arbitrary basis such as race was violation of the Due Process Clause.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision, the First Amendment's words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges. This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was brought by a New Jersey taxpayer against a tax-funded school district that provided reimbursement to parents of both public and private schooled people taking the public transportation system to school. The taxpayer contended reimbursement given for children attending private religious schools violated the constitutional prohibition against state support of religion, and the use of taxpayer funds to do so violated the Due Process Clause. Court was split majority concluding these reimbursements were "separate and so indisputably marked off from the religious function" that they did not violate the constitution. (1) The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (2) New Jersey law providing public payment of the costs of transportation to and from parochial Catholic schools is not in violation of the Establishment Clause.

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama (2012)

a legal case between major factions within the Alabama legislature The Alabama legislature consisted mainly of Republicans. The republicans made new boundary lines which focused on increasing the amount of black voters in several districts to more than 75%. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and Alabama Democratic Conference challenged this and stated that it was set up to reduce black voting power in districts and to reduce black minority population power in majority- white areas. They also believe that these boundaries were set up to prevent alliances between other minority group. Holding The district court committed various legal errors, including the analysis of the racial gerrymandering claim as referring to the State "as a whole," rather than district-by-district.

Rankin v. McPherson (1987)

a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected. P interest in discharging D was outweighed by her rights under the First Amendment. The Court held that D's statement, when considered in context, "plainly dealt with a matter of public concern."

Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)

a member of a distinguished California family, was convicted under the 1919 California Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party of America, a group charged by the state with teaching the violent overthrow of government. She denied that it had been the intention of her or other organizers for the party to become an instrument of violence. United States Supreme Court decision upholding the conviction of an individual who had engaged in speech that raised a threat to society. Defendant's conviction under California's criminal syndicalism statute for membership in the Communist Labor Party did not violate her free speech rights as protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, because states may constitutionally prohibit speech tending to incite crime, disturb the public peace, or threaten the overthrow of government by unlawful means.

Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971)

a student, participated in a demonstration against city ordinance prohibiting assembling on a sidewalk in groups of more then 3 and was convicted of violating the ordinance. He appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, alleging that the ordinance and his conviction violated the First and Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution. he argued that the ordinance interfered with the first amendment protection of the right of the people to peaceably assemble ordinance which made it a criminal offense for three or more persons to assemble on a sidewalk and annoy passersby violated the rights of free assembly and association. Additionally, the vagueness of the law violated due process.

Reed v. Reed (1971)

an Equal Protection case in the United States in which the Supreme Court ruled that the administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that discriminates between sexes. the first major Supreme Court case that addressed that discrimination based on gender was unconstitutional because it denies equal protection.

Permoli v. New Orleans, 44 U.S. 589 (1845),

an unusual nineteenth-century case that shows the limits of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment in the years before the Fourteenth Amendment, through which the Court in time applied the vast majority of the provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states. At issue was a law limiting Catholic funerals to a single chapel in the city. The ordinance was on its face a health measure designed to combat yellow fever. The priest fined for violating the ordinance argued that it violated the clause in Article 4, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing a "republican" form of government to the states and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. court reasoned that it is up to "state constitutions and laws" to protect citizens' religious liberties in the states. consistent with the Court's decision in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) declaring that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states.

Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972)

anti-war activist, was taken into custody in Georgia a few years earlier and charged for yelling "fighting words" at the arresting officer. The Supreme Court limited the scope of the "fighting words" exception to the First Amendment and enhanced the long-term development of the overbreadth doctrine — the notion that statutes and regulations must be sufficiently precise in order to avoid regulating protected as well as unprotected speech. The court declared the statute he was convicted under unconstitutionally overbroad.

Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919)

bad tendency test a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States upholding the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a criminal offense to urge curtailment of production of the materials necessary to the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918. The defendants were convicted on the basis of two leaflets they printed and threw from windows of a building in New York City. One leaflet, signed "revolutionists", denounced the sending of American troops to Russia. The second leaflet, written in Yiddish, denounced the war and US efforts to impede the Russian Revolution. It advocated the cessation of the production of weapons to be used against Soviet Russia. The defendants were charged and convicted of inciting resistance to the war effort and urging curtailment of production of essential war material. They were sentenced to 10 and 20 years in prison. The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, that the defendants' freedom of speech, protected by the First Amendment, was not violated. Justice John Hessin Clarke in an opinion for the majority held that the defendants' intent to hinder war production could be inferred from their words, and that Congress had determined such expressions posed an imminent danger.

Schenk v. United States (1919)

clear and present danger test a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)

held that when a government operates a "limited public forum," it may not discriminate against speech that takes place within that forum on the basis of the viewpoint it expresses—in this case, against religious speech engaged in by an evangelical Christian club for children. Restrictions on speech that take place in a limited public forum must not discriminate on the basis of the speaker's viewpoint and be reasonable in light of the forum's purpose. Because the school's exclusion of the club violated this principle, the school violated the Club's free speech rights guaranteed by the First Amendment. Furthermore, the school's claim that allowing the club to meet on its property would violate the Establishment Clause lacked merit and thus was no defense to the club's First Amendment claim.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

hot shot man was arrested after distributing socialist material he published in a newspaper. New York convicted him under a statute which prohibited advocacy of criminal anarchy. He challenged his conviction claiming the state statute was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's judgment because it found that it was reasonably foreseeable public harm could follow speech advocating criminal anarchy. holding indicated the court believed that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

in a newspaper called The Saturday Press, editors and owners alleged that the police chief, the mayor, a prosecutor, and grand jury members were neglecting their duties to prosecute known criminal activity. The anti-Semitic newspaper suggested that these authority figures were colluding with Jewish gangs. Despite two ensuing assassination attempts on Guilford, the newspaper's disclosures resulted in the conviction of a local gangster. Court held that Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory content. According to the majority opinion, government officials could not be trusted with the responsibility of regulating speech before it even reaches the public. Hughes used the incorporation doctrine, echoing Gitlow v. New York, to apply the rights granted under the Bill of Rights to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

landmark United States Supreme Court case that decided that redistricting (attempts to change the way voting districts are delineated) issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene and to decide redistricting cases. The defendants unsuccessfully argued that redistricting of legislative districts is a "political question", and hence not a question that may be resolved by federal courts. Petitioner's complaint was that Tennessee had not redistricted since 1901, in response to the 1900 census.By the time of petitioner's lawsuit, the population had shifted such that his district in Shelby County had about ten times as many residents as some of the rural districts. The votes of rural citizens were overrepresented compared to those of urban citizens. His argument was that this discrepancy was causing him to fail to receive the "equal protection of the laws" required by the Fourteenth Amendment. Holding The redistricting of state legislative districts is not a political question, and thus is justiciable by the federal courts.

Frontiero v. Richardson (1973)

landmark United States Supreme Court case which decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of sex. The court found the military's benefit policy unconstitutional, because there was no reason why military wives needed benefits any more than similarly situated military husbands. Holding Any statutory scheme which draws a sharp line between the sexes solely for the purpose of achieving administrative convenience necessarily commands dissimilar treatment for men and women who are similarly situated and therefore involves the very kind of arbitrary legislative choice forbidden by the Constitution

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

no endorsement test/neutrality a United States Supreme Court case challenging the legality of Christmas decorations on town property. Pawtucket, Rhode Island's annual Christmas display in the city's shopping district, consisting of a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading "Season's Greetings," and a crèche, was challenged in court. The crèche had been a part of the display since at least 1943. The plaintiffs brought the suit to the District Court of Rhode Island, which permanently enjoined the city from displaying the Nativity scene as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling. The city then petitioned to the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari. The Supreme Court reversed previous rulings in a vote of 5-4, ruling that the display was not an effort to advocate a particular religious message and had "legitimate secular purposes." Court held that the crèche did not violate the Establishment Clause based on the test created in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). They ruled that the crèche is a passive representation of religion and that there was "insufficient evidence to establish that the inclusion of the crèche is a purposeful or surreptitious effort to express some kind of subtle governmental advocacy of a particular religious" view. They also stated that the Constitution "affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any."

The Slaughterhouse Cases

series of Supreme Court cases starting in 1873 that challenged the 14th amendment; court ruled that the 14th amendment only protected federal rights and not STATE rights. a U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that the "Privileges or Immunities" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution only protects the legal rights that are associated with federal U.S. citizenship, not those that are more fundamental and pertain to state citizenship. It was a pivotal case in early civil rights law and held that the Fourteenth Amendment protects the privileges or immunities of citizenship of the United States, not privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state.

Jones v. Wolf (1979)

the Supreme Court ruled that, under the religion clauses of the First Amendment, a state could resolve disputes over church property between two groups by applying neutral principles of law rather than relying on compulsory deference to religious authority. Faced with a schism in the Vineville Presbyterian Church of Macon, Georgia, between a majority who had split from the church to join the Presbyterian Church of America and a minority who wanted to stay with the Presbyterian Church in the United States, the state court attempted to resolve the issue of who owned church property by applying "neutral principles of law." majority opinion stressed that the First Amendment mandated that civil courts have a limited role in resolving church property disputes. As long as they did not examine doctrinal matters, states could apply neutral principles of law rather than adopt compulsory deference to the denomination's highest authority, which had been decided in some cases of churches that were hierarchically arranged.

Wisconsin v. Jonas Yoder (1972

the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade. The parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion was determined to outweigh the state's interest in educating its children. The case is often cited as a basis for parents' right to educate their children outside of traditional private or public schools. Holding The State Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because required attendance past the eighth grade interfered with the right of Amish parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. State Supreme Court affirmed.

Craig v. Boren (1976)

the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. laws about beers and ladies and dudes. Court held that the gender classifications made by the Oklahoma statute were unconstitutional because the statistics relied on by the state were insufficient to show a substantial relationship between the statute and the benefits intended to stem from it. The Court instituted a standard, dubbed "intermediate scrutiny," under which the state must prove the existence of specific important governmental objectives, and the law must be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. Holding To regulate in a sex-discriminatory fashion, the government must demonstrate that its use of sex-based criteria is substantially related to the achievement of important governmental objectives.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969)

upheld the equal time provisions of the Fairness Doctrine, ruling that it was "the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences". However, it strongly suggested that broadcast radio stations (and, by logical extension, television stations) are First Amendment speakers whose editorial speech is protected. In upholding the Fairness Doctrine, the Court based its rationale partly on a scarce radio spectrum. The First Amendment permits a federal agency to formulate rules to allow persons defamed or potentially defamed access to equal time to respond and a fairness standard for editorial speech by broadcast radio stations.