-
Vidal v. Philadelphia
A man left a state money for church rather than his nieces or nephews and they tried to claim that conditions banning christianity went against public policy, The court decided to vote with the public policy. -
Schenck v. United States
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated in this case his famous aphorism about "falsely shouting fire in a theatre" and set forth a "clear and present danger test" to judge whether speech is protected by the First Amendment. "The question," he wrote, "is whether the words are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils. -
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Legal scholar and columnist Anthony Lewis called Near the Court's "first great press case. -
McCollum v. Board of Education
McCollum v. Board of Education was a landmark case ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court in 1948, and related to the power of a state to use its tax-supported public school system in aid of religious instruction. The case was an early test of the separation of church and state with respect to education. -
Period: to
Court Cases
-
Butler v. Michigan
A man convicted of selling "a book containing obscene, immoral, lewd, lascivious language, or descriptions, tending to incite minors to violent or depraved or immoral acts, manifestly tending to the corruption of the morals of youth" to a police officer appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court. The Court overturned the conviction and struck down the law. Famously, the Court ruled that the state of Michigan couldn't reduce the adult population of Michigan to reading only what is fit for kids -
The New York Times v. Sullivan
To protect uninhibited and wide-open debate on public issues, the Supreme Court held that no public official may recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with actual malice that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The Court stated that the First Amendments require that critics of official conduct have the fair equivalent to protection given to a official. -
Brown v. Louisiana
Brown v. Louisiana was a United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that protesters have a First and Fourteenth Amendment right to engage in a peaceful sit-in at a public library. Justice Fortas wrote the plurality opinion and was joined by Justice Douglas and Justice Warren. Justices Brennan and Byron White concurred. Justices Black, Clark, Harlan and Stewart dissented. -
Brandenburg v. Ohio
The Supreme Court established the modern version of the "clear and present danger" doctrine, holding that states only could restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action." -
New York Times Company v. United States
In the "Pentagon Papers" case, the U.S. government attempted to enjoin the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing classified documents concerning the Vietnam War. Applying the doctrine of prior restraint from Near v. Minnesota, the Court found that the claims that publication of the documents would interfere with foreign policy and prolong the war were too speculative. -
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc
The Court applied the rule in the New York Times case to public figures, finding that persons who have special prominence in society by virtue of their fame or notoriety, even if they are not public officials, must prove "actual malice" when alleging libel. Gertz was a prominent lawyer who alleged that a leaflet defamed him. -
FCC V. Pacifica Foundation
In a case that considered the First Amendment protections extended to a radio station's daytime broadcast of comedian George Carlin's "Seven Filthy Words" monologue, the Supreme Court held that Section 326 of the Telecommunications Act, which prohibits the FCC from censoring broadcasts over radio or television, does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction radio or television stations broadcasting material that is obscene, indecent, or profane. -
Zykan v. Warsaw (Indiana) Community School Corporation and Warsaw School Board of Trustees
A student brought suit seeking to reverse school officials' decision to "limit or prohibit the use of certain textbooks, to remove a certain book from the school library, and to delete certain courses from the curriculum." The district court dismissed the suit. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that the school board has the right to establish a curriculum. -
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell
Hustler Magazine published a parody of a liquor advertisement in which Rev. Jerry Falwell described his first time as a drunken encounter with his mother in an outhouse. A unanimous Supreme Court held that a public figure had to show actual malice in order to recover for intentional infliction of emotional distress as a result of a parody in a magazine. The Court could see no standard to distinguish among types of parodies that would not harm public discourse. -
Denver Area Educational Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC
In a decision that produced six opinions, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law permitting cable system operators to ban "indecent" or "patently offensive" speech on leased access channels. The Court also struck down a similar law for non-leased, public access channels, and struck down a law requiring indecent material to be shown on separate, segregated cable channels. The case is significant in that the Court affirmed that protecting children from some speech is a compelling state interest. -
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe
Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe was a case heard before the United States Supreme Court. It ruled that a policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Oral arguments were heard March 29, 2000. The court announced its decision on June 19, holding the policy unconstitutional in a 6-3 decision. School prayer is a controversial topic in American jurisprudence.
