-
Shaw v. Murphy
In Montana State Prison, Kevin Murphy sent a letter to an inmate to help him with his defense after he assaulted a correctional officer. Due to the prison policy, the letter was intercepted.Based on what the letter said, Murphy was sanctioned for violating the rules. The results were the Court held that inmates don't have a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available. -
Good News Club v. Milford Central School
District residents wanted to use Milford Central School buildings for church groups. Milford denied because it involved religious actions.Good News Club filed a suit alleging that the denial violates the first amendment. "When Milford denied the Good News Club access to the school's limited public forum on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it discriminated against the Club because of its religious viewpoint in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment," - Judge -
THOMPSON, SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER et al.
Due to rules, that pharmacies need to follow, they were not allowed to advertise or promote the compounding of any particular drug. A group of licensed pharmacies sought to argue that the rule violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
Results
Although speech restrictions allegedly served governmental interests in permitting drug compounding, it had not been demonstrated that speech restrictions were not more extensive than necessary to serve such interests. -
CITY OF LOS ANGELES v. ALAMEDA BOOKS
Alameda Books, Inc. and Highland Books, Inc., two adult establishments that openly operate combined bookstores/video arcades, sued, alleging that the ordinance violates the First Amendment. Finding that the ordinance was not a content-neutral regulation of speech
Court of Appeals found that, the city failed to present evidence upon which it could reasonably rely to demonstrate that its regulation of multiple-use establishments was designed to serve its substantial interest in reducing crime. -
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
. A number of organizations affected by COPA filed suit, alleging that the statute violated adults' First Amendment rights because it effectively banned constitutionally protected speech, was not the least restrictive means of accomplishing a compelling governmental purpose, and was substantially overboard.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals, reasoning that COPA's use of contemporary community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors rendered the statute substantially overboard. -
WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., a congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses that publish and distribute religious materials, brought an action for relief, alleging the ordinance that violates their First Amendment rights.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, the Village's interests in protecting its residents from fraud and desire to prevent criminals from posing as canvassers in order to defraud its residents were sufficient bases on which to justify the regulation. -
Christopher v. Harbury
Harbury, a United States citizen, widow of Efrain Bamaca- Velasquez, Guatemalan rebel leader. Harbury alleged that Government officials intentionally deceived her in concealing information about her husbands death. Harbury filed suit, listing 28 causes of action, for the violation of her constitutional right of access to courts.
The Court of Appeals reversed only the dismissal of one of Harbury's claims for denial of access to courts. -
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Ohio's Pilot Project Scholarship Program provides tuition aid in the form of vouchers for certain students in the Cleveland City School District to attend participating public or private schools of their parent's choosing. Sixty percent of the students were from families at or below the poverty line. A group of Ohio taxpayers sought to enjoin the program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause.
The District Court granted them summary judgment, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. -
UNITED STATES v. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
Congress passed the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) in 2000, requiring public libraries to install internet filtering software on their computers in order to qualify for federal funding. The American Library Association and others challenged the law, claiming that it improperly required them to restrict the First Amendment rights of their patrons.
As stipulated by the law, a three judge panel heard the case, and ruled unanimously that the CIPA violated the First Amendment. -
LOCKE, GOVERNOR OF WASHINGTON, ET AL. v. DAVEY
Joshua Davey forfeited his Promise Scholarship money in order to major in pastoral ministries at a private Christian college. Davey filed suit in U.S. district court, claiming the state constitution's ban on funding religious instruction violated his First Amendment right to free exercise of religion (in the U.S. Constitution).
The district court rejected Davey's claim. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, concluding Davey's free exercise rights were violated. -
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION v. FAVISH
A series of appeals in which a Ninth Circuit panel held that the Foster family's right to privacy was relevant to the case but that the district court must look at the specific photos in order to weigh the privacy rights against Favish's right to access government information, the Ninth Circuit eventually decided that Favish should be given access to all but four of the photos.
The government, joined by the Foster family, appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. -
ELK GROVE UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST. V. NEWDOW
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Newdow did have standing "to challenge a practice that interferes with his right to direct the religious education of his daughter." The Ninth Circuit ruled that Congress's 1954 act adding the words "under God" to the Pledge and the school district policy requiring it be recited both violated the First Amendment's establishment clause.
