Stafford Final

Case H&S

Schenck v. United States

H: Speech creating a clear and present danger during wartime is not protected by the First Amendment. The decision was influenced by Patterson v. Colorado, which interpreted the First Amendment as protecting against prior restraint, not punishment.

S: It established the “clear and present danger” test, highlighting that national security and public safety is prioritized over free speech.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

H: Ohio’s law violated the 1st and 14th Amendments. Protecting abstract advocacy of violence and controversial speech. Overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which allowed the government to punish speech if it advocated violent means to effect political and economic change.

S: Controversial new standard to assess clear and present danger by asserting that there must be incitement to imminent lawless action. It overturned the precedent of Whitney v. California

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

H: held that a prohibition against the expression of opinion, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Relied on the ruling in Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967). dissent argue that the burden must be on the petitioner to prove ulterior motives for suppressing their speech other than legitimate school concerns.

S: Tinker established that students and teachers have a constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression while on the school campus, limiting the power of schools.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

H: Johnson's act was protected under the 1st Amendment and justified it as symbolic speech. Utilized the O’Brien test established in United States v. O’Brien to regulate symbolic speech. Dissent argued that the strong symbolism and history of the flag mark its need for protection and its desecration is a type of “fighting words”.

S: It expanded the protection of free speech by tolerating disagreeable speech and preventing government and state overreach into civil liberty

Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union 1997

H: due to the vagueness in the definition of obscene materials the act was unconstitutional under the 1st amendment. Referred to Ginsberg v. New York (1968) to highlight differences in acts “protecting” the youth.

S: Encouraging freedom of expression outweighs any theoretical benefits of censorship. In response, Congress passed an Act to protect children from exposure to sexual materials

Citizens United v. FEC 2010

H: Corporations, nonprofits, and unions have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited money on independent political expenditures. Overturned McConnell v. Federal Election Commission

S: Overturned most of McConnell, removed most restrictions on corporate and union expenditures except for disclosure requirements, opening the floodgates for corporate money to enter the political system.

Reed v. Town of Gilbert (2015)

H: The sign code restrictions were subject to strict scrutiny because they were content-based restrictions

S: impacted all government regulations, emphasizing content-based regulations on speech are presumptively unconstitutional and must meet strict scrutiny — a very high bar

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

H: New Jersey Statute was constitutional because it did not violate the Establishment Clause. Used the language in Murdock v Pennsylvania which states that no state shall make a law respecting the establishment of a religion.

S: reaffirmed in its opinion the importance of the separation of church and state high. The bussing system cannot be made to discriminate against religious schools

Abington School District v. Schempp

H: Reversed Murray, upheld shempp. The organized bible readings, even if students can opt out, encroached on both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment since the readings and recitations were essentially religious ceremonies and were "intended by the State to be so”

S: Firm Ban on School-Sponsored Religion. Emphasized the state as a neutral body due to the separation of church and state. Reversed precedent

Lemon v. Kurtzman

H: state funded financial aid for religious schools is unconstitutional and a violation of the First Amendment. Referenced Walz decision which upheld a property tax exemption for religious institutions, because it limited gov. interaction

S: established the Lemon Test, which was to be used to dictate how to decide future establishment clause cases

Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

H: Louisiana Act did violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st amendment. Based on the the Lemon Test established in Lemon v Kurtzman. there was no clear secular purpose for the Act.

S: Court declined to acknowledge that Creationism could be taught as an alternative or side by side to religion because it was not an actual science because in order to be considered a science

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

H: The law was unconstitutional, and the state could not require the children of Amish families to attend school until they were 16. Referenced Prince v Massachusetts to determine that additional years of schooling for Amish children would not give rise to a substantial benefit that would outweigh the cost of diminishing a citizen's right to practice their Amish religion

S: Asserted a parents right to determine their child's education. individual's right to exercise their religion superseded compelling state interests in cases of education.

Mueller v. Allen (1983)

H: upheld Minnesota’s tax-dedication program for tuition, textbook, and transportation costs because the law did not violate the Establishment Clause, and it passed the Lemon test made in Lemon v. Kurtzman. Justice Marshall dissented, arguing tax deduction was of primary benefit to parents who paid tuition to parochial schools

S: established government fostered aid to religious schools could be religiously neutral as long as the purpose of the law was secular in nature and did not directly go to religious instruction.

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

H: Held that the school commencement invocation/benediction ceremony was an unconstitutional departure from Establishment Clause. government promotion of religious activity in the context of a public school is “persuasive coercion”. applied the three-part Establishment Clause test set forth in Lemon v. Kurtzman

S: Upheld the lemon test

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

H: the state’s action imposed an unconstitutional burden on the free exercise of religion by not allowing members of the Seventh Day Adventist faith unemployment benefits. Dissent argued it strayed away from Braunfeld precedent

S: established a requirement of strict scrutiny. Made it harder for the government to restrict religious practices, even with generally applicable laws.

Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

H: The Free Exercise and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment protect an individual engaging in a personal religious observance from government reprisal. Rejected Lemon v Kurtz. Dissent argued religious practice in view of students compromised the separation of church and state.

S: Reaffirmed protection for individual religious expression, especially when done in a private, non-disruptive way. Rejected the lemon test

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado (2018)

H: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Cited Wisconsin v Yoder which protected amish parents from being forced to send their students to public schools because it infringed on their religious beliefs.

S: state enforcement agencies must avoid showing bias or hostility toward religious beliefs. Must be neutral