First Amendment Court Cases

Ferber v. New York (1982)

A New York child pornography law prohibited persons from knowingly promoting sexual performances by children under the age of sixteen by distributing material which depicts such performances. Does it violate First Amendment? The Court found that the state's interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors was a compelling "government objective of surpassing importance." The law was carefully drawn to protect children from the mental, physical, and sexual abuse associated with pornography while not violating the First Amendment. 9-0 vote

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

An Alabama law authorized teachers to conduct regular religious prayer services and activities in school classrooms during the school day. The Court held that Alabama's passage of the prayer and meditation statute was not only a deviation from the state's duty to maintain absolute neutrality toward religion, but was endorsement of religion. As such, the statute clearly lacked any secular purpose as it sought to establish religion in public schools, thereby violating the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Brandenburg gave a KKK Speech and Ohio was like "nah". Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violated Brandenburg's right to free speech, and assembly as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

US v. O'Brien (1968)

David O'Brien burned his draft card at a Boston courthouse. He said he was expressing his opposition to war. He was convicted under a federal law that made the destruction or mutilation of drafts card a crime. SCOTUS determined this constitutional because of the Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts 1st amend does not apply

Schenck v. U.S. (1919)

During WWI, Schenck (socialist) mailed circulars to draftees. The circulars suggested that the draft was a wrong motivated by the capitalist system. The circulars advised only peaceful action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. SCOTUS determined this constitutional because 1917 Espionage Act; 1st amend does not apply.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. The desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment. 5-4 decision

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. The Supreme Court held that the statute authorizing the injunction was unconstitutional as applied. History had shown that the protection against previous restraints was at the heart of the First Amendment 5-4 vote.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Jonas Yoder and Wallace Miller, both members of the Old Order Amish religion, and Adin Yutzy, a member of the Conservative Amish Mennonite Church, were prosecuted under a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until age 16. The three parents refused to send their children to such schools after the eighth grade, arguing that high school attendance was contrary to their religious beliefs. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that individual's interests in the free exercise of religion under the First Amendment outweighed the State's interests in compelling school attendance beyond the eighth grade

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition (2002)

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) prohibits "any visual depiction..." that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment trade association filed suit, alleging that the "appears to be" and "conveys the impression" provisions are overbroad and vague and, thus, restrain works otherwise protected by the First Amendment. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court held that the two prohibitions described above are overbroad and unconstitutional. The Court found the CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity. (Free Speech Coalition wins)

NYT v. US (1971)

The Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the NYT and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. In its per curiam opinion the Court held that the government did not overcome the "heavy presumption against" prior restraint of the press in this case. 6-3 vote.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

The Pennsylvania legislature passed Act 109, which reimbursed nonpublic religious schools for certain secular educational services. It is an abuse of a court's discretion to allow payment of allocated funds to nonpublic religious schools, after such allocations were found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Created the Lemon Test for examining constitutionality of religious establishment issues: has to have a legit secular purpose, doesn't enhance or inhibit religion, doesn't foster excessive government entanglement with religion.

NYT v. Sullivan (1964)

This case concerns a full-page ad in the NYT which alleged that the arrest of MLK for perjury in Alabama was part of a campaign to destroy King's efforts to integrate public facilities and encourage blacks to vote. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, filed a libel action against the newspaper claiming that the allegations against the Montgomery police defamed him personally. The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice 9-0 vote.

Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote -- a powerful hallucinogen -- as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related misconduct. It is constitutional for a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes. (worried about other things such as "war is against my religion. so are taxes!")

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violates the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment. "Schools shall not be enclaves of totalitarianism-- students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gates". There was no substantial disruption, so they could wear the armbands.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. The reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violates the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment. By providing the prayer, New York officially approved religion. This was the first in a series of cases in which the Court used the establishment clause

Miller v. California (1973)

Miller, after conducting a mass mailing campaign to advertise the sale of "adult" material, was convicted of violating a California statute prohibiting the distribution of obscene material. Some unwilling recipients of Miller's brochures complained to the police, initiating the legal proceedings. In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that obscene materials did not enjoy First Amendment protection. 5-4 vote. Created the Miller Test on obscenity standards-- if the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds the work as a whole appeals to the prurient interest (incites lust), lacks literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.