-
Reynolds vs. US
Writing for an anonymous court held that the statute can punish criminal activity wothout regard to religious belief -
Bradfield vs. Roberts
Whether a citizen and taxpayer can sue to enjoin financial support by the commissioners of Washington, D.C. to Province Hospital, a religious establishment -
Patterson v. Colorado
Whether, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a criminal contempt order can stand insofar as it punished the publication of certain articles and a cartoon, which allegedly reflected upon the motives and conduct of the Colorado Supreme Court in cases still pending before that tribunal. -
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 that Congress has the right to prevent. -
De Jonge Vs. Oregon
criminal punishment under a state statue for state participation in conduct of a public meeting merely because the meeting was held under organizations which teaches use of violence and unlawful acts -
Zorach v. Clauson
Whether voluntary "released time" programs that allow religious instruction occurring off school grounds violate the Establishment Clause. -
Brown v. Louisiana
The Supreme Court reversed the convictions of five black individuals who participated in an orderly and peaceful sit-in at a local branch library to protest segregation at the library. The court protected their right of petition and freedom of assembly. -
Tinker v. Des Moines
To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment. -
Cohen v. California
Appellant was convicted of violating that part of Cal.Penal Code § 415 which prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct," for wearing a jacket bearing the words "Fuck the Draft" in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. -
Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.
Concerning zoning restriction for movie theaters -
Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n
Although the Constitution accords a lesser protection to commercial speech than to other constitutionally guaranteed expression, nevertheless the First Amendment protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation. -
Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier
Concerning the censorship of highschool newspapers -
44 Liquormart v. Rhode Island
Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit truthful, non-misleading price advertising regarding alcoholic beverages. -
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
Whether the Santa Fe School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause. -
Morse vs. Frederick
Whether the First Amendment allows public schools to prohibit students from displaying messages that allegedly promote the use of illegal substances at so-called school-sponsored events