gov pray for me lol

Gitlow v. New York Context

Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for publishing a socialist manifesto that called for the overthrow of the government. New York charged him under a state criminal anarchy law.

Gitlow v. New York Precedent

The Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's free speech protections apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This case established the "bad tendency" test.

Near v. Minnesota Context

Jay Near published a newspaper that accused local officials of corruption, leading to a state law being used to shut it down.

Near v. Minnesota Precedent

The Supreme Court held that prior restraint (prohibiting speech or publication before it occurs) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

Lemon v. Kurtzman Context

Pennsylvania and Rhode Island enacted laws that provided funding to non-public schools, including religious schools.

Lemon v. Kurtzman Precedent

The Court established the "Lemon Test" for determining whether a law violates the Establishment Clause, which requires a secular purpose, not advancing/inhibiting religion, and not resulting in excessive government entanglement.

Engel v. Vitale Context

The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day.

Engel v. Vitale Precedent

The Court ruled that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, emphasizing the separation of church and state in public schools.

Schenck v. U.S. Context

Charles Schenck was convicted for distributing pamphlets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I.

Schenck v. U.S. Precedent

The Supreme Court introduced the "clear and present danger" test, ruling that speech can be restricted if it poses a significant risk of inciting illegal actions.

Brandenburg v. Ohio Context

Clarence Brandenburg, a Ku Klux Klan leader, was convicted under Ohio law for advocating violence.

Brandenburg v. Ohio Precedent

The Court held that inflammatory speech is protected unless it incites imminent lawless action or is likely to produce such action.

New York Times v. United States Context

The Nixon administration attempted to prevent the New York Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers, classified documents related to the Vietnam War.

New York Times v. United States Precedent

The Court ruled that the government could not impose prior restraint on the press, emphasizing the importance of free press in a democratic society.

New York Times v. Sullivan Context

L.B. Sullivan, a public official, sued the New York Times for libel due to an advertisement that contained false statements about him.

New York Times v. Sullivan Precedent

The Court established that public officials must prove "actual malice" in libel cases, which means that the statements were made with knowledge of their falsity or with reckless disregard for the truth.

Texas v. Johnson Context

Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted for burning the American flag as a means of protest during the Republican National Convention.

Texas v. Johnson Precedent

The Court ruled that flag burning is protected symbolic speech under the First Amendment.

Tinker v. Des Moines Context

Students were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War.

Tinker v. Des Moines Precedent

The Court held that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, and the armbands were a form of symbolic speech.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Context

A principal censored articles in the school newspaper, claiming they were inappropriate.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Precedent

The Court ruled that school administrators have the authority to regulate school-sponsored publications as long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.

Reynolds v. U.S. Context

George Reynolds, a member of the Mormon church, was convicted for bigamy despite claiming it was part of his religious beliefs.

Reynolds v. U.S. Precedent

The Court distinguished between religious beliefs, which are protected, and religious practices, which can be regulated.

Wisconsin v. Yoder Context

Amish parents refused to send their children to school after eighth grade, citing religious beliefs.

Wisconsin v. Yoder Precedent

The Court upheld the right of Amish parents to educate their children according to their beliefs, finding that their religious freedom outweighed the state's interest in compulsory education.

U.S. v. Lopez Context

Alfonso Lopez was charged with carrying a concealed weapon on school grounds, and he argued that the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act was unconstitutional.

U.S. v. Lopez Precedent

The Court ruled that the federal government exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause, affirming limits on federal power.

D.C. v. Heller Context

A D.C. law effectively banned handgun ownership, and Dick Heller challenged the law.

D.C. v. Heller Precedent

The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for lawful purposes, such as self-defense.

McDonald v. Chicago Context

Otis McDonald challenged a Chicago handgun ban after the ruling in D.C. v. Heller, seeking to apply the Second Amendment to the states.

McDonald v. Chicago Precedent

The Court ruled that the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, thereby applying the right to bear arms to state and local governments.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Context

A student was searched by school officials, leading to the discovery of drugs, and she argued that the search was unconstitutional.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. Precedent

The Court ruled that school officials can conduct searches of students without a warrant as long as they have reasonable suspicion.

Miranda v. Arizona Context

Ernesto Miranda was not informed of his rights before being interrogated and confessed to crimes.

Miranda v. Arizona Precedent

The Court established the Miranda rights, requiring that individuals in custody be informed of their rights to an attorney and against self-incrimination before interrogation.

Mapp v. Ohio Context

Dollree Mapp's home was searched without a warrant, and evidence obtained was used to convict her.

Mapp v. Ohio Precedent

The Court applied the exclusionary rule to the states, ruling that illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in state courts.

Gideon v. Wainwright Context

Clarence Gideon was charged with a felony and could not afford an attorney; his request for counsel was denied.

Gideon v. Wainwright Precedent

The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in state courts, ensuring fair trials for defendants.

Griswold v. Connecticut Context

The state of Connecticut had a law prohibiting the use of contraceptives, and Griswold challenged it as unconstitutional.

Griswold v. Connecticut Precedent

The Court recognized a right to privacy in marital relations, ruling that the law violated this right.

Brown v. Board of Education Context

African American students were denied admission to public schools based on race, challenging the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Brown v. Board of Education Precedent

The Court unanimously ruled that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.

U.C. Regents v. Bakke Context

Allan Bakke, a white applicant, challenged the affirmative action policy at the University of California, Davis, claiming reverse discrimination.

U.C. Regents v. Bakke Precedent

The Court ruled that while affirmative action is permissible, quotas based solely on race are not, allowing Bakke's admission.

Grutter v. Bollinger Context

Barbara Grutter challenged the University of Michigan Law School's affirmative action policy, arguing it discriminated against her as a white applicant.

Grutter v. Bollinger Precedent

The Court upheld the law school's use of race as one factor in admissions, emphasizing that diversity is a compelling interest.

Gratz v. Bollinger Context

Jennifer Gratz challenged the University of Michigan's undergraduate admissions policy, which awarded points for race.

Gratz v. Bollinger Precedent

The Court struck down the point system as too mechanical, violating the Equal Protection Clause while allowing for consideration of race in admissions.