Con Team Cases

Brandbenburg v. Ohio (1969)

EVENTS: Ku Klux Klan leader made a speech at a rally, which was filmed by a news crew. The speech contained content that was restricted under Ohio’s criminal syndicalism statute.

[Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?] Yes, it did.

Established a two-pronged test: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Clark. v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984)

EVENTS: Protesters sought a permit to establish a ceremonial tent city in D.C. parks to raise awareness of the plight of the homeless. The permit was issued, but the group was disallowed from sleeping in the tents due to federal regulation 36 CFR 50.19, which prohibits camping in national parks.

Does the government have the power to restrict the free expression of ideas via a demonstration involving sleeping in National Parks? Yes, it does.

Speech in traditional public fora is subject to reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions.

Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)

EVENTS: A group of black students met at a church and remained on the sidewalk while protesting grievances over racial discrimination. A crowd formed, and the police “identified troublemakers” within it. The students chose not to disperse, and all were arrested.

[Did arresting these students violate their First Amendment right to free speech, assembly, and petition for redress of grievances?] Yes, it did.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Right to Petition to the states.

Cox v. Louisiana (1965)

Events: Pastor led 2,000 protesters to picket segregated lunch counters at a courthouse. They were ordered to stay across the street from the courthouse and did so, but Cox was arrested regardless for disturbing the peace, obstructing public passages, and picketing before a courthouse.

Do Cox's convictions based on violations of the Louisiana statutes prohibiting "disturbing the peace" and “obstructing public passages” violate his rights to free speech and assembly under the First and Fourteenth Amendments? Yes, they do.

"Disturbing the peace” is unconstitutionally vague, “Obstructing public passages” violates 1st/14th Amendment rights to free speech and assembly.

Adderly v. Florida (1966)

EVENTS: Florida students went to protest the arrests of fellow students at the jail. They were standing in a police station driveway that is not typically open to the public and were charged under a malicious/mischevious intent statute.

[Were the petitioners denied their rights of free speech, assembly, petition, due process of law, and equal protection of the laws as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?] No, they were not.

Florida statute was determined to be clearly defined and applied, and was applied in a content-neutral manner; therefore, the state had a right to regulate behavior in the station driveway.

Cohen v. California (1971)

EVENTS: Cohen entered courthouse, and was observed in the courthouse corridor wearing a jacket that read “F*** THE DRAFT. STOP THE WAR.” He was charged under a California statute that prohibits "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace and quiet of any neighborhood or person [by] offensive conduct."

[Did California's statute, prohibiting the display of offensive messages such as "Fuck the Draft," violate freedom of expression as protected by the First Amendment?] Yes, it did.

The expletive was not directed at anyone in particular; there was no evidence that the text on Cohen’s jacket was likely to produce any dangerous action from any individual witnessing it. The court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (1995)

EVENTS: GLIB, an association of Irish American members of the LGBTQ community, sought participation in an annual parade celebrating St. Patrick’s Day in Boston. The Massachusetts State Court ordered the Veterans' Council to include GLIB under a state law prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation in public accommodations.

[Did a Massachusetts State Court's mandate to Boston's Veterans' Council, requiring it to include GLIB members in its parade, violate the Council's free speech rights as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?] Yes, it did.

Requiring private citizens who organize a parade to include a group expressing a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment by making private speech subordinate to the public accommodation requirement. Such an action "violate[s] the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to say."

Lee v. Society for Krishna Consciousness (1992)

Events: Society for Krishna Consciousness soliciting donations in New York airport, violating a statute banning this solicitation.

[Does the regulation violate the First Amendment free speech clause?] No.

An airport is a nonpublic forum. Therefore, restrictions are permitted if they are reasonable and viewpoint neutral.

Irizarry v. Yehia (2022) U.S. Court of Appeals for 10th Circuit

Event: Private journalist began filming a DUI stop in Lakewood, Ohio. Officers on scene called Officer Yehia in; Yehia blocked filming with his body, shone a bright light into Irizarry’s camera, and drove cruiser at him before swerving out of the way.

[Did Officer Yehia’s behavior towards appelant Irizzary violate his First Amendment rights to free speech and press?] Yes. [Is Officer Yehia entitled to qualified immunity?] No.

Irizzary’s behavior was constitutionally protected; Yehia’s actions caused the plaintiff to suffer an injury that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that activity; and his action was motivated by the exercise of protected conduct. His violation was also determined to be under clearly established law; therefore, he was not entitled to qualified immunity,

Massimino v. Benoit (2026) U.S. Court of Appeals for 2nd Circuit

Event: Massimino filmed the exterior Waterbury Police Department in Conneticuit for around 6 minutes. He was approached and asked for I.D., and after he refused, he was legally detained under a Terry stop. After continuing to refuse to answer questions or provide I.D., he was arrested and held in the police station. Massimino sued the police officers under a 42 USC 1983 claim, alleging 1st amendment free speech and 4th amendment due process violations.

[Did the officers who arrested Massimino violate his 1st Amendment and 4th Amendment rights?] Yes to 1st, no to 4th.

The Court of Appeals recognizes Massimino’s right to film police activity under the 1st Amendment’s free speech clause, but claims the law was not clearly established, and so a reasonable defendant could not have known their conduct was unlawful. Additionally, the court ruled that the officers had reasonable suspicion to detain Massimino: therefore, his 4th Amendment right to due process was not violated.

Cox Broadcasting Corp v. Cohn (1975)

Event: Apellee’s 17 daughter was raped, and did not survive. A Georgia code made it a misdemeanor to publish the name of a rape victim; a reporter learned the name of the name of the victim from publicly available indictments, and named her in a report. Cohn sued Cox BC for damages, and the apellants claimed their rights to free speech and free press under the 1st and 14th Amendments.

[Can a state extend a cause of action for damages for invasion of privacy caused by the publication of the name of a deceased rape victim who was publicly revealed in connection with the crime?] No.

The court determined that information and details of crimes and criminal trials are of public interest, and the information surrounding the victim’s name was already made publicly available; therefore the Georgia code was ruled to be unconstitutional.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

EVENT: In a Minnesota newspaper, Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being affiliated with gangsters. A Minnesota law provided that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance and could be enjoined from further committing or maintaining the nuisance.

[Does the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the First Amendment?] Yes.

By incorporating the free press clause of the 1st Amendment to the states through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, the court determined that the Minnesota statute constituted a prior restraint because the injunction it would apply to “nuisance committers” restricted speech before it was produced. It would result in punishment for contempt of court before even considering 1st Amendment protections of speech.

Abrams v. United States (1919)

PARTIALLY OVERRULED BY BRANDENBURG V. OHIO

Event: Russian immigrants circulated literature that called for a strike in ammunition plants to overthrow the war effort. They threw these pamphlets out of a window and were sentenced to 20 years in prison.

[Do the amendments to the Espionage Act or the application of those amendments in this case violate the free speech clause of the First Amendment?] No.

The messages spread by the leaflets were determined to satisfy the clear and present danger test established in Schenck v. U.S.

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Event: Jehovah’s Witness Walter Chaplinsky was distributing leaflets promoting his religion and attacking other forms of religion. Chaplinsky insulted the town marshal. He was convicted under a state law that prohibited intentionally offensive, derisive, or annoying speech to any person who is lawfully in a street or public area.

[Did Chaplinsky’s conviction violate the First Amendment?] No

The court determines