Con Law II Cases

Marsh v. Alabama

A private entity that acts like a governmental body and performs a public function is subject to the US Constitution

Corporate owned town, the public functions made it so that Marsh could distribute religious literature

Smith v. Allwrite

Held that TX grant of power to Dem Party to establish voter qualifications is a delegation of state function that makes the party’s action the action of the state

Hudgens v. NLRB

Distinguished Marsh, just doing one thing that a city does is not enough.  The First Amendment did not apply to privately owned commercial spaces unless they take on all the attributes of a town.

Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co

A private company that does not have specific authorization by the state to act is not acting on behalf of the state.

Monopoly alone is not enough to be a state action

Public function doctrine is not to be read broadly

Manhattan Comm. Access Corp v. Halleck

Held that operation of public access channels on a cable system is not a traditional, exclusive government function

Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority

There is significant state involvement to permit an action under the 14th amendment when a state leases public property to a private actor who discriminates

State had a parking garage and rented space to Eagle Coffee. The state facility necessarily benefited from the shop’s customers.

entanglement/entwinement

Blum v. Yaretsky

The court held that a private nursing home is NOT converted into a state actor by having 90% state funding and heavy state regulation

Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Assn.

A private org can be considered a state actor if there is sufficient entwinement between the state and org.

The TSSAA was entwined with the schools as the TSSAA regulated school sports, members paid fees, and the Board was made up of public school officials in their official capacity. The employees were eligible for state retirement.

Shelley v. Kraemer

State actions can include action by legislative bodies, courts, and juridical officials

Delt with racially restrictive covenants on deeds.

The Civil Rights Cases

Congress did not have the power to outlaw racial discrimination under the 13th and 14th amendments.  The 13th does not allow the government to punish racist actions by private citizens and the 14th only applies to public entities.  The court determined that there could not be legislation that regulated the actions of private entities as doing so would violate constitutional provisions.

Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

Essential principal of due process is that a deprivation of life, liberty, or property be preceded by notice and opportunity for hearing appropriate to the nature of the case.  The formality and procedural requisites for a hearing can vary depending on the nature and importance of interests involved and subsequent proceedings.

Board of Education hired Loudermill but later found out he had a grand larceny conviction and was fired. Loudermill sued for procedural due process but the court said he did because the statute approved a full administrative and judicial review after termination.

Goldberg

Procedural due process - what are property interests

P was receiving welfare benefits and they were cut off.  The Court held that a welfare recipient is entitled to an evidentiary hearing before termination because the benefits are a matter of statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.  Elimination would deprive the claimant of the very life to life.

Perry v. Snidermann

Procedural due process - what are property interests

If the state gives you something by law, that creates a property interest.  An employment contract with the state can create a property interest.  In Perry, the school had a de facto tenure system by informing faculty that the school wants each member to feel they have tenure so long as they provide good services.  When Snidermann was fired, the court found there was a property interest in continued employment. 

In Board of Regents v. Roth, the professor did NOT have a property interest because his contract was for a 1 year term.

Paul v. Davis

Procedural due process - what are liberty interests

Loss of reputation alone is not enough

Constantineau

Procedural due process - what are liberty interests

Loss of reputation AND loss of a previously held right (here, ability to purchase alcohol) is a loss of liberty

Wilkinson

Procedural due process - what are liberty interests

Liberty interests can arise from statutes, contracts, or common law and may arise from the Constitution

Mathews v. Eldridge

Procedural Due process generally requires 3 factors:

1. private interest that will be affected by official action,

2. risk of erroneous deprivation of such interest through procedures used/probative value of safeguards, AND

3. governments interest/the fiscal and administrative burdens (of the government) that the additional substitute procedural requirements would entail

test for what process is due (procedural)

Slaughter-House Cases

The pervading purpose of the 13, 14, and 15th amendments was to secure the freedom of enslaved people. The butchers bringing suit were not deprived of property without due process, as they could still earn a legal living by slaughtering for another company. 

Incorporation Doctrine

most of the substantive guarantees of the bill of rights are “incorporated” into the 14th’s due process clause and thus made applicable to the states.  The first 10 were designed to protect from the federal government, in Barron v. Baltimore the Court decided that he Bill of Rights only protected from the Feds.  However, after the Civil war the 14th amendment added limits on state power that reversed this decision.

Munn v. Illinois

The Court upheld IL regulation of grain storage rates saying that the government could regulate private property when it is affected with a public interest or used in a manner to make it of public consequence and affects the community at large. These same regulations would violate due process when applied to private contracts without public interests. 

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad

Substantive due process is not limited to natural persons. Case held that corporations were persons under the 14th, allowing a corporation to challenge the constitutional validity of economic regulations. 

Griswold v. Connecticut

Substantive due process - what is a liberty

Right to married couple’s use of contraceptives was a fundamental right as it falls within the zone of privacy made by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments

Meyer v. Nebraska

Substantive due process - what is a liberty

Meyer was convicted of teaching German to children.  The Court reversed the conviction, stating that the substantive liberty protected by due process is the right to have knowledge, marry, establish a home, and generally enjoy privileges long recognized at common law as essential to orderly pursuits of happiness of free men

Moore v. City of East Cleveland

Substantive due process - what is a liberty

Court ordinance that limited dwellings to a single family was unconstitutional. Freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

Substantive due process - what is NOT a liberty

There is no history and tradition of abortion in the US and it is not mentioned in the Constitution. The court applied rational basis and found that there is a rationally related government interest in preserving life that would permit an abortion ban.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health

Substantive due process - what is NOT a liberty

Right to die was not a substantive right. A state may condition the exercise of a patient’s right to terminate treatment on a showing of clear and convincing evidence of the desire of the patient to exercise that right. The state has a rational interest in preserving life, so the law was upheld.

Washington v. Glucksberg

Substantive due process - what is NOT a liberty

Right to assisted suicide is NOT a protected liberty. The common law punished or disapproved of suicide or its assistance. The right to commit suicide would be contrary to that history. The ban is rationally related to preserving life.

Lawrence v. Texas

Substantive due process - what is NOT a liberty

Same sex sexual activities were not a fundamental liberty. However, under rational basis the Court still struck the law. The state was a prohibition based on moral disapproval which did not meet the rational basis test.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Substantive due process - what is a liberty

There is a fundamental right to marry the person of your choosing. This applies to same sex couples too. The law was not upheld because it violated the 14th amendment equal protections.

Loving v. Virginia

Substantive due process

Made interracial marriage a crime because barring interracial marriage was to “preserv(e) white supremacy” (straight from the textbook).  This was not a legitimate interest, the Court did not state what the standard of review might have been for more legitimate infringement on marriage. 

Zablocki v. Redhail

Substantive due process

overturned a law that said you could not marry someone who was not compliant with child support obligations

Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. New York

Equal Protection

The equal protection clause does not seek to protect so called discrimination in determining whether to allow advertising on some vehicles and none on others.

Determined under rational basis

Fn. 4 US v. Carolene Products

Equal protection

There are some classifications that are “suspect” and therefore subject to heightened judicial scrutiny including those that:

• Conflict facially with specific rights guaranteed by the Constitution (ex. 1st Amend. Free speech; if law students had more free speech than business students that would be suspect)

• Anything that inhibits the democratic process (ex. Voting, peaceable assembly, dissemination of information)

• Based of religion, nationality, race, or membership in a discrete and insular minority group

United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz

Equal protection

It was not impermissible for Congress to have drawn lines between employee groups to phase out benefits. Those who had a current connection with the railroad industry when the Act was passed or returned before retirement than those who left to pursue a railroad career which the retirement act was designed for.

United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno

Equal protection

Excluded households containing unrelated people from getting food stamps. The stated purpose of the Act is to alleviate hunger, which the challenged classifications must further of a legitimate government interest. The purpose to discriminate against a classification did not minimize abuse of the system, it instead harmed those who could not change their living situation to retain eligibility.

Romer v. Evans

Equal protection

If a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, it will be upheld so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end.  

CO Amendment permitted discrimination in re sexual orientation. This was a violation of equal protection as it did not have a rational relation to a legitimate end, instead imposing broad punishment on a signed named group on nothing but animus towards a class.

City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc.

Equal protection

Generally, equal protection says that legislation is presumed valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.  This rule gives way for a statute based on classes of race, alienage, or national origin.

The state has to have a legitimate interest. Here, while they articulated one their argument failed because the arguments in re being on a flood plain were not used when making nursing homes/hospitals.

The court will sometimes use a heightened rational basis test, where they say they are using minimal scrutiny but use a higher standard.

Plyler v. Doe

Equal protection

When applying equal protection to state action, the court sees assurance that the classification bears some fair relationship to a legitimate public purpose.  

Certain forms of legislative classification may be facially ok, but give rise to recurring constitutional issues, in those circumstances the courts have required assurance that the classification is a reasoned judgement consistent with the idea of equal protection by seeing whether it may further a substantial state interest

Court did not believe that illegal immigrants were a suspect class because their membership is a voluntary action. The children should not be punished for their parent’s actions. The court did not find that imposing a lifetime detriment on these children was not rationally related to a substantial (not legitimate) state interest (MODIFIED TEST)

Washington v. Davis

Equal protection

A statute, otherwise neutral, must not be applied so as to invidiously discriminate on the basis of race. 

Looked at DC PD admissions exam, which failed 4x as many black applicants than white. This law was constitutional, just bearing more heavy on one race than another was NOT enough to violate equal protection. The disproportionate impact did not warrant the conclusion that there was a purposeful device to discriminate against black Americans.

Yick Wo

Equal protection - Neutral classifications in a discriminatory fashion

Where San Francisco prohibited operating a laundry in a wooden building for fire risk, but only closed those owned by Chinese Americans. The law was to prevent fires in wooden buildings, but only those owned by Chinese Americans were closed. Violation of Equal Protection.

Gomillion v. Lightfoot

Equal protection - Neutral classifications motivated by discrimination that produce a discriminatory effect

Tuskegee, AL redrew its boundaries to remove 99% of black voters while no white voters were removed, unconstitutional

Korematsu

Equal Protection

Even though the internment was based on race (suspect class) under strict scrutiny, the public necessity of preventing espionage post-Pearl Harbour was an important government interest to overcome strict scrutiny

• overturned by Trump v. HI

Regents of U. California v. Bakke

Equal Protection

Racial quotas in admissions are a violation of equal protection applying strict scrutiny because the quota makes race determinative, not a “plus” factor.

Strict scrutiny applies to any racial classification, even if it targets white individuals 

Challenge to UC Davis med school, 16/100 places were set aside for minority students, which a white applicant challenged. Classification was unconstitutional.

** OVERTURNED BY Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Univ. of NC

City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co

Equal Protection

Any public entity, state or federal, has a compelling interest in assuring that public dollars drawn from the tax contributions of all citizens do not serve to finance “the evil of private prejudice”

• The city did not properly prove that their interest in preventing discrimination was valid (no proof of the discrimination)

• City could/should have considered a race neutral practice first.  The court will say that trying those race neutral methods first will make the state’s case stronger because they can better show that there was no other way.  This has a downside of making people wait for a remedy while the state/city uses a remedy that may not be as effective

Richmond VA wanted to set aside 30% of construction contracts to minority owned businesses. There was no direct evidence of race discrimination which Richmond claimed it was fixing. The city used a list of enumerated minorities that SCOTUS approved for Congress, but this was not approved at the state level because Congress gets more latitude. Unconstitutional.

Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena

Equal Protection

Strict scrutiny applies to a federal law based on a majority group.  Whenever a race is a classification in a program, federal or state, the court will apply strict scrutiny. 

Whether the act is benign or invidious does not matter.

• Needs compelling interest that is narrowly tailored

Federal government told a contractor they would be paid more if a subcontractor that was controlled by economically advantaged individuals was hired. This was not constitutional.

Grutter v. Bollinger

Equal Protection

Diversity in admissions of a law school is a compelling state interest, using a plus factor of race (not having a quota) was a holistic approach which makes it narrowly tailored

U MI used race as a “plus factor” in a holistic admissions process. SCOTUS approved because there was a compelling interest for the school to have the program to achieve a diverse student body and the plan was narrowly tailored. There was no number quota that was being achieved. Constitutional, given a 25 year license.

** OVERTURNED BY Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Univ. of NC

Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard and Univ. of NC

Cannot use race based affirmative action in admissions processes.

Did not expressly say that there is not a compelling interest, but the policy is not narrowly tailored. Unlike U MI, the Harvard program weighted race heavily. The school’s goal of increasing cultural sensitivity was not measurable and they could not prove under strict scrutiny that they met it. There was no end goal in sight, the Court says we need to move towards colour blind admissions.

Arlington Heights

Factors that help to establish a discriminatory motive:

• Clear pattern that cannot be explained except on the basis of race (Gomillion)

• Historical background of the law, particularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for individual purposes (Griffin)

• Sequence of events leading up to the law’s adoption

• Departures from normal procedures of usual substantive considerations

• Legislative or administrative history containing contemporary statements by decision makers

Sugarman v. Dougall

Equal Protection

Generally, a classification on the basis of immigration/alienage calls for strict scrutiny

In re Griffiths

Equal Protection

court applied strict scrutiny to a law to void CT’s exclusion of lawful permanent residents from law practice

Mathews v. Diaz

Equal Protection

When Congress draws lines between citizens and non citizens, SCOTUS only applies minimal scrutiny because of Congress’ plenary control over immigration

Craig v. Boren

Equal Protection

Gender discrimination should use intermediate scrutiny.

Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County

Equal protection does not demand that a statute apply equally to all persons or things which are different to be treated as though they are the same. 

(teen pregnancy law impacted men more than women because of the disproportionate burden to women in pregnancy compared to men)

Rostker v. Goldberg

Equal Protection

Women were allowed to be conscripted from the draft because the decision was not a byproduct of thoughts against women, it was because women being drafted was not worth the added burdens on the draft

J.E.B. v AL ex rel T.B.

Equal Protection

court ruled that peremptory challenges on basis of sex was unconstitutional.

United States v. Virginia

Equal Protection (VA military college case)

Inherent differences is NOT a valid justification for a gender classification

Providing another alternative requires that the remedial decree they offered must be shaped to place persons denied unconstitutionally in the position they would have if not for the discrimination

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez

Equal Protection

Being poor is not a suspect class because it is not a discrete/insular minority (not immutable, not lacking access to political power)

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Equal Protection

A state violates equal protection whenever it makes the affluence of a voter or payment of a fee the electoral standard.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Equal Protection

Court found that imposition of a photo ID requirement to vote in state elections was a violation of equal protection because it imposes a requirement and the burden of the government’s fraud prevention goals on the voter and substantially increase the burdens of voting

Reynolds v. Sims

Equal Protection

Each person has one vote, cannot apportion votes by property/ownership

Bush v. Gore

Equal Protection

The recount process, in its features here described, is inconsistent with the minimum procedures necessary to protect the fundamental right of each voter in the special instance of a statewide recount under the authority of one judicial officer.  

M.L.B. v. S.L.J.

Equal Protection

State must provide access to the judicial processes without regard to the party’s ability to pay fees in some cases.  If there was a fundamental interests involved it is examined under strict scrutiny otherwise it is rational basis.

Griffin v. IL

Equal Protection

state charged all convicted criminals cost of a trial transcript for appeal.  This was deemed to be a denial of equal protection and due process for indigent clients.

Douglas v. CA

Equal Protection

For appeal of criminal convictions, the first appeal granted as a matter of statutory right. Court voided CA practice of appointing appellate counsel to indigent convicts only after an appeals court had concluded after a review of record that a lawyer would be helpful to the defendant or the court.

Ross v. Moffitt

Equal Protection

Due process which does not require any appeal at all was not offended by a state’s refusal to provide counsel to an indigent defendant a every stage of the way

Boddie v. CT

Equal Protection

struck down, as applied to indigents, CT’s requirement that persons seeking divorce pay filing fees of $60 to commence the civil process of divorce

Little v. Streater

Equal Protection

Court held that on due process grounds, an indigent defendant in a paternity action was entitled to free blood-grouping tests

US v. Kras

Equal Protection

Court upheld the federal Bankruptcy Act’s requirement of $50 filing fee to institute bankruptcy. Unlike the Boddie marriage interest, the bankruptcy act did not infringe of a fundamental right

Ortwein v. Schwab

Equal Protection

upheld a $25 filing fee to obtain appellate review of an administrative decision to reduce welfare benefits. The right to receive welfare benefits, much less any level of benefits, is not an independently protected constitutional right and subject to minimal scrutiny.

Saenz v. Roe

Equal Protection

States cannot deny benefits to those who have moved into the state because each citizen has a Constitutional right to enter/leave a state and be treated as a welcome visitor rather than unfriendly agent

Shapiro v. Thompson

Equal Protection

Court struck down state and federal laws that denied welfare assistance to residents who were not in the jurisdiction for at least 1 year prior

Relied on two rights:

• Idea that classifications would penalize the exercise of migration, which would be subject to strict scrutiny, AND

• Idea that classifications that deny important rights, or the basic necessities of life, are subject to strict scrutiny

Brandenburg v. OH

Freedom of Speech - Incitement of Imminent Crime

Constitution does not guarantee free speech and free press in a way which permits the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.

A state may NOT forbid advocacy unless it is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action AND is likely to produce/incite such action

VA v. Black

Freedom of Speech - True Threat

A true threat is a statement where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of intent to omit an act of unlawful violence to a particular group of people or individual or group of individuals

Roth v US; Alberts v. CA

Freedom of Speech - Obscenity

Obscenity is generally not protected by freedom of speech

Memoirs v. MA

Freedom of Speech - Obscenity

Is it obscene?

• would an average person, applying contemporary community standards, would take the work as a whole to appeal to the prurient interest and

• whether the word depicts/describes (in a pattently offensive way) sexual conduct specifically defied by state law in question, and

• whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, or scientific value

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton

Freedom of Speech - Obscenity

There are legitimate state interests in stemming the tide of commercialized obscenity, even in an “Adult” theater where minors are excluded

NY v. Ferber

Freedom of Speech - Child Pornography

Child pornography is obscene without exception since the materials are intrinsically related to child abuse

Does not require the obscenity test to be applied to show obscenity

American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut

Freedom of Speech - Obscenity

The IN law was not valid in prohibiting pornography because the ordinance did not refer to the prurient interest as required under Miller. It instead focused on pornography’s portrayal of women which was not an appropriate restriction on speech.

Ashcroft v. The Free Speech Coalition

Free Speech - Child Pornography

A law imposing criminal penalties on protected speech is a type of speech suppression. With such severe penalties, few legitimate speakers would risk distributing the images in question despite its artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

Making child pornography using digital editing is not treated the same as child porn with real children.

Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association

Freedom of Speech - Obscenity

Violent media is not covered by obscenity, only sexual content

(fun note: Alito mentioned playing a lot of video games to make his dissent)

Reno v. ACLU

Freedom of Speech - Content Based Restriction

The regulations acted as a content based blanket restriction of free speech on the internet and should not be upheld.

McCullen v. Coakley

Freedom of Speech - Content Neutral Restriction

MA law made it a crime to knowingly stand on a public sidewalk within 35 ft of an entrance/driveway to a place, other than hospital, where abortions are performed. This was content neutral and applied as intermediate scrutiny. The government has an interest in ensuring that people can be able to access the clinic without a mob and seek emergency services.

It was not narrowly tailored for strict scrutiny because MA could have used other laws that existed to get rid of harassment or assault of women seeking access to the clinic.

The law was overbroad because there was not a reasonable time/place/manner buffer zone.

Packingham v. NC

Freedom of Speech - Content Neutral Restriction

Packingham posted about a traffic ticket he got and was penalized because he was a sex offender and could not post online.  Court believed that it was content neutral.  It was an overbroad law because it prohibited much access to the internet/speech that may have not affected children but would impact daily life.

NYT Co v. Sullivan

Freedom of Speech - Libel

For defamation of libel, the First Amendment requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant know the statement was false or reckless in deciding to publish the information without investigating its accuracy.

Malice requires at least recklessness.

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc

Freedom of Speech - Libel

The recklessness standard (NYT) only applies to defamation of public officials or public figures

Even for private individuals, the state cannot impost strict liability on publishers or news media

Any standard of fault less than recklessness limits private person to actual injury

PA Newspapers v. Hepps

Freedom of Speech - Libel

plaintiffs in Sullivan or Gertz cases must prove the defamatory character of speech, including falsity

No special protection for opinions (Milkovich)

United States v. Alvarez

Freedom of Speech

While categories of speech, such as defamation and true threats, present a grave and imminent threat, false statements alone do not present such a threat.  There are other ways to refute this false speech than banning it, such as looking at the list of those who received the medal

Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

Freedom of Speech

Public figures may not recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress without showing that the offending publication contained a false statement of fact made with actual malice. 

Reicher v. Public Disclosure Comm - cannot sue over an ad with lies about a candidate that is running for office.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of Speech

Deciding if speech is a public or private concern requires an examination of the content, form, and context of the speech as revealed by the whole record.  No factor is dispositive.

Speech on public issues is given special protection under the First Amendment, private speech is less protected because there is no threat to the free and robust debate of public issues, no interference with meaningful dialogue of ideas.

Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn

Freedom of Speech

The Court held that civil liability could not be imposed on a broadcaster who had released the name of a deceased rape victim. The Court declared that “once true information is disclosed in public court documents open to public inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it.” But the opinion noted that it was an open question “whether truthful publication of very private matters unrelated to public affairs could be constitutionally proscribed.”

Florida Star v. B.J.F.

Freedom of Speech

The Court held that Florida could not make a newspaper civilly liable for publishing the name of a rape victim that the newspaper had lawfully obtained from a police report that was accessible due to police negligence.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism

Freedom of Speech - Content Neutral Restrictions

Even in a public forum, the government may impose reasonable time, place, manner restrictions provided they are justified without reference to the content of regulated speech, that they are narrowly tailored to serve a significant public interest, and leave open ample alternative channels for communication of that information.

The restriction is not invalid simply because there is some imaginable alternative that would be less burdensome.

Narrow tailoring - does NOT have to be the least restrictive means for 1st amendment, should instead be narrowly tailored for a significant public interest that leaves open ample alt channels of communication for the information 

Tik Tok Case

Freedom of Speech - Content Neutral Restriction

Congress said that the Chinese government needed to divest their majority ownership of Bytedance, the parent company.  The court said this was not really a speech issue.  It was content neutral since the concern was national security and privacy protections. 

Because it is content neutral, intermediate scrutiny is applied and the government was determined to have a significant interest in national security and was narrowly tailored

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Freedom of Speech - Fighting Words

Fighting words requires that the words be directed at a specific person; must be the kind of insult that would cause them to immediately react

Johnson v. TX

Freedom of Speech - Fighting Words

burning the american flag is NOT fighting words since it is not directed at a specific person

Cohen v. CA

Freedom of Speech - Fighting Words

Emotive speech to be used to get attention is protected by the Constitution (Jacket protest in Courthouse)

Matal v. Tam

Freedom of Speech

The First Amendment prohibits Congress and other government entities and actors from “abridging the freedom of speech.” If calling something commercial allows the suppression of free speech, free speech would be in danger.

R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul

Freedom of Speech

A city may not prohibit expression of particular ideas on the basis of the subjects the speech addresses. It may prohibit all fighting words or even single out “especially offensive mode of expression,” but it may not proscribe particular “messages of racial, gender, or religious intolerance.”

The government does not have the ability to let one side of a debate go crazy while the other can say nothing.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell

Freedom of Speech

Hate crimes can be used as a sentencing enhancement