First Amendment Exam 2 Court Cases

New York Times v. Sullivan

• Full-page ad in the New York Times claiming MLK’s arrest in Alabama was part of a larger, governmental campaign to undermine his efforts

• L.B. Sullivan, the Montgomery city commissioner, claimed he was personally defamed

• Under Alabama law, Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed

• Case created the actual malice test for public officials

  • Knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity 

Curtis Publishing Co v Butts

Expanded actual malice test to public figures

Monitor Patriot Co v Roy

Expanded to public officials/figures’ private lives

Rosenbloom v Metromedia

Expanded to private persons when involved with public issues

Gertz v Welch

• Attorney hired by a family to sue a police officer who had killed the family’s son 

• John Birch Society (via American Opinion) accused Gertz of being a “Leninist” and a “Communist-fronter”

• Lower court found that the magazine had not violated the actual malice test

• The Supreme Court reverses

  • Found that Gertz was neither a public official nor a public figure

  • Argued ordinary citizens should be allowed more protection from libelous statements than individuals in the public eye

Mapp v Ohio

• Started as obscenity

• Supreme Court redirected focus to unwarranted search and seizure 

• Applied federal search criteria to the states (via 14th Amendment) 

Griswold v Connecticut

• Concerned the use of contraception 

• Griswold wanted to test if the statute would be enforced, so opened birth clinic that advised on birth control 

• 7-2 decision grounded in “the right to marital privacy”

• Douglas: privacy is in the “penumbras and emanations” of other constitutional rights 

Roe v Wade

Abortion as an issue of personal privacy and the freedom therein 

Lawrence v Texas

Homosexuality/sodomy not illegal 

Dobbs v Jackson

• “Gestational Age Act” challenges the precedent established in Roe v Wade (and reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992))

• 6-3 overturning Roe

  • Chief Justice Robers somewhat on the fence, although goes along with decision

• Justice Alito’s decision claims Roe is only target, not other privacy issues

  • Justice Thomas’ concurrence targets Griswold, others

Hustler v Falwell

• Parody and published in Hustler magazine

• In mock interview, Falwell claims to have lost his virginity to his mother in an outhouse

• Falwell was a longtime public critic of Falwell (and many others)

• Decision: Unanimous for Hustler 

Snyder v Phelps

• Marine (Mathew Snyder) killed in Iraq: private funeral held in Maryland 

• Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church picketed ~ 1,000ft from church with signs (e.g. “Thank God for Dead Soldiers”)

• Snyder’s father sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress and intrusion on seclusion 

• Decision: 8-1 for Phelps 

  • Speech addressed matters of public concern on public property

  • Alito dissents: the First Amendment does not give license to “brutalize” a private person

Talley v California

• Talley arrested for distributing anonymous handbill for National Consumers Mobilization calling to boycott specific businesses that discriminated based on race

• Law required names/addresses of sponsors

• 6-3 decision for Talley; anonymous pamphlets protected as part of history 

McIntyre v Ohio Election Commission

• McIntyre distributed leaflets outside a public meeting; some identified her and others were signed “Concerned Parents and Taxpayers”

• Law prohibited distribution of campaign literature that did not contain name/address of person or campaign issuing it (fine was $100)

• 7-2 decision for McIntyre; expands Talley; legitimate interest in preventing fraud but law was too broad (all anonymous speech)

Hague v CIO

• Committee for Industrial Organization (CIO) planned to gather for a union recruitment drive, including canvassing city streets/parks to distribute printed material (e.g. info leaflets)

• Mayor Hague labels them “Communists;” enforces city ordinance forbidding public assembly in streets/parks without a permit

• 5-2 decision supporting CIO

  • Public places are open for “assembly, communicating between citizens, and discussing public questions

  • Key aspect: May be regulated, but not prohibited 

Grayned v Rockford

• Black students in Rockford, IL presented their grievances to admin, who ignored them so they organized protest next to school grounds while school in session (~200 people; ~ 100ft from building)

• School argued students were distracted by the protests; encouraged students to leave school; orderly procedure was disrupted

  • Created the “compatible-Use Rule”

    • Content neutral

    • Significant government interest

    • Assembly and speech must be compatible within the space

Perry Education Association v Perry Local Educators’ Association

• Two competing teachers’ unions vying for the interschool mail system (the stakes couldn’t be higher)

  • PEA wins election to represent teachers; PLEA doesn’t have access rights to interschool mail (but they used to)

  • PLEA challenges PEA’s preferential treatment

• School mail system in a “nonpublic forum”

Hill v Colorado

100ft from entrance, 8ft “knowingly approach” OK (6-3 decision)

McCullen v Coakley

35ft buffer not OK; must allow for “sidewalk counseling” (8-0 decision)

U.S. v O’Brien

Burned his Draft card which is not OK and is a form of speech PLUS

Texas v Johnson

Burned a flag which is ok and is a from of symbolic expression

Tinker v Des Moines

• middle/high school students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War 

• 7-2 decision in favor of the students 

• Students have “basic” free speech rights 

  • “It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate”

• School must have good reason for restriction, like disrupting educational experience 

Bethel v Fraser

• Used (not so subtle) sexual innuendo in student speech supporting student council nominee

• Bethel school policy included rule prohibiting conduct which “substantially interferes with the educational process… including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures” 

• 7-2 for the school; considered vulgar and lewd speech 

Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

• Articles on teen pregnancy and experiences with divorce

• 5-3 decision for the school

• School has editorial control, don’t have to support 1st Amendment in school-sponsored events

Morse v Frederick

• AKA “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”

• Students attend school-sponsored event of watching the Olympic torch pass through

• Frederick refused; 10-day suspension for promoting illegal drug use (against school policy)

• Disrupting the educational environment?/ promoting illegal drug use?

• Ruling 5-4 for the school

Mahanoy Area School District v B.L.

• “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything” - Snapchat

• Statement made off-campus (at the Cocoa Hut)

• Ruling: 8-1 for student

  • Justice Thomas does not believe that students have free speech rights in school (or out, apparently)

Pickering v Board of Education

• Criticized school board policy in letter to the editor

• Ruled for teacher (8-1) - “Pickering Test”

• “The problem in any case is to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the State, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employers”

Island Trees Union Free School District v Pico

• Nine “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” books banned

• 5-4 for the students (Pico)

Parker v Levy

Turner v Safley