Business Law- First Amendment

By uncrewedwall767

  • Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District

    Tinker vs. Des Moines Independent School District
    -Three public school students were suspended for wearing black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War. They sued the district for violating their 1st Amendment rights.
    -The Supreme Court established the standard that public schools must meet before legally restricting free speech or expression of students.which are must be a disturbance or cause some kind of fight

  • New York Times Co. vs. United States

    New York Times Co. vs. United States
    -At the US government's request, the district court ordered the Times not to publish a copy of an internal Defense Department report that detailed government discussions about the Vietnam war, claiming it would endanger national security. The Times argued their First Amendment rights were violated.
    -The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Times. Chief Justice Warren Burger challenged the wisdom of publishing the confidential intelligence, but respected the freedom offered by the First Amendment.

  • Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier

    Hazelwood School District vs. Kuhlmeier
    -Hazel wood East High School journalism students wrote articles about divorce and teen pregnancy for the school paper. The principal refused to publish the them because they were too sensitive and had too many personal details. The girls claimed their First Amendment rights were violated.
    -the Supreme Court ruled against the girls. "Educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities,"

  • Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe

    Santa Fe Independent School District vs. Jane Doe
    -A Texas school district allowed a student to lead a prayer over the public address system before football games. Several students and their parents sued the school district, claiming a violation the First Amendment.
    -Supreme Court ruled that the school's policy regarding prayer was unconstitutional. Although led by students, the prayers were still a school-sponsored activity, and they were coercive because they placed students in the position of having to participate in a religious ceremony.

  • GOOD NEWS CLUB et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL, (2001)

    GOOD NEWS CLUB et al. v. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL, (2001)
    Argued: February 28, 2001 Decided: June 11, 2001
    The good news club wanted to be after school once a week to do quote the bible and sing so they put in the request form and they were denied because they said it would be equivalent to religious worship
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/98.

  • UNITED STATES et al. v. UNITED FOODS, INC., (2001)

    UNITED STATES et al. v. UNITED FOODS, INC., (2001)
    Argued: April 17, 2001 Decided: June 25, 2001
    they had to pay assessments for mushrooms and they stated that this violated the first amendment then they filed a petition challenging of agriculture, They thought they violated by making them pay for mushroom commercial even though they didn't agree to it
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/405.html

  • THOMAS et al. v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, (2002)

    THOMAS et al. v. CHICAGO PARK DISTRICT, (2002)
    Argued: December 3, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002
    They wanted to assemble to support the legalization of marijuana so they ask for a application to protest in the park and they got turned down because of what product they wanted to legalize. They stated that it violated the first amendment.
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/534/316.html

  • REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA et al. v. WHITE, CHAIRPERSON

    REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA et al. v. WHITE, CHAIRPERSON
    Argued: March 26, 2002 Decided: June 27, 2002
    Stated the announce clause violated or prohibited the first amendment in Minnesota and is an injunction against its enforcement,
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/536/765.html

  • ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL

    ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL
    Argued: October 9, 2002 Decided: January 15, 2003
    This is about how somebody copyrighted and he got about 70 years in prison and he said that this is going against the 8th amendment because of how long the years are.

  • VIRGINIA v. HICKS, (2003)

    VIRGINIA v. HICKS, (2003)
    Argued: April 30, 2003 Decided: June 16, 2003
    Hicks got arrested for going into a neighborhood because he was non-residential he got warned once and they was arrested and took it to court and said it was unconstitutional.
    https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/539/113.html

  • UNITED STATES v. STEVENS

    UNITED STATES v. STEVENS
    Argued October 6, 2009—Decided April 20, 2010
    Steven was selling recording of dog fights and was indicted under 48 which addresses only portrayals of harmful acts, not the underlying conduct of animal abuse and he said his first amendment was being violated from 48 but the court dismissed it and he was indictedhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-769.pdf

  • CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP v. MARTINEZ ET AL.

    CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW, AKA HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP v. MARTINEZ ET AL.
    Argued April 19, 2010—Decided June 28, 2010
    the university except everybody even though it is a christian school Martinez is not christian but they still try to make him sign this RSO that i will not have sex until he gets married