3.2, 3.3, 3.4 - FIRST AMENDMENT

“congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

RELIGION

wall of separation between church+state
establishment clause: prevent federal gov. from establishing national religion (any gov. institution)
free exercise clause: prevent federal gov. from stopping religious practice UNLESS act is illegal/threatens public interest
- religious freedom restoraction act (RFRA) 1993: gov. shouldn’t substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification
  i. was partially struck down in 1997:
  ☐ infringed states’ rights
  ☐ weakened citizen right to religious freedom

everson v. board of education 1947

FACTS. new jersey allowed public school boards to reimburse parents for school transportation, including church schools → argued violated establishment clause
OUTCOME. court upheld law because it gave money equally between all parents regardless of school type and to not give money would be unequal
SIGNIFICANCE. incorporated religious clauses to states

engel v. vitale 1962

FACTS. voluntary prayer at start of each school day → argued violated establishment clause
OUTCOME. court ruled school prayer unconstitutional because it breached wall of separation
SIGNIFICANCE. outlawed school prayers/moments of silence

lemon v. kurtzman 1971

FACTS. rhode island/pennsylvania passed laws paying secular subject teachers in religious schools with state funds
OUTCOME. court overruled laws because they created “excessive entanglement” betewen state+church
SIGNIFICANCE. created lemon test

wisconsin v. yoder 1972

FACTS. amish withdrew children from formal education because it confilcted with their religious beliefs → school mandated attendance
OUTCOME. court ruled free exercise clause (individual’s interest) outweighed state interest of compelling school attendance
SIGNIFICANCE. individual liberty > state interest; sanctioned free exercise

LEMON TEST: measure whether state violated establishment clause via “excessive entanglement.” policies must

☐ have secular purpose
☐ have secular effect
☐ avoid creating relationship between religion/gov.

religious colleges have more freedom (not compelled education+college students less impressionable
public school teachers have limited freedom on religious exercise on duty
vouchers: gov. issues vouchers to ease costs for private parochial students’ parents
i. pay same taxes as public school parents, but don’t receive public school services; instead receive state vouchers
ii. court UPHELD vouchers because
☐ didn’t distinguish between religious/nonreligious private schools
☐ money didn’t go to schools, but to parents (not funding religious institution)
rulings depend on context: state must provide legitimate secular purpose, religious display must be in a place where people aren’t compelled to be, etc.

SPEECH

free speech not absolute, but gov. must show substantial/compelling gov. interest to limit
compelling gov. interest: purpose important enough to justify infringing personal liberties
time, place, manner regulations: gov. cannot suppress speech, but can regulate manner it is expressed. restriction must
☐ be content-netural
☐ serve significant gov. interest
☐ be narrowly-tailored
☐ allow adequate alternatives of expression
symbolic speech protected, but not an absolute defense: cannot invoke symbolic speech to defend illegal acts
obscene speech unprotected
roth v. US 1957: court defined obscene/unprotected speech
i. miller v. california 1973: court revised definition to be more specific
miller test/obscenity standard
☐ average person applying contemporary community standards finds it appeals to prurient interest
☐ depicts/describes in patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law
☐ lacks serious literary, artistic, political, scientific value

US v. o’brien 1968

FACTS. o’brien protested draft by burning draft card and was convincted → argued it was symbolic speech and gov. can’t suppress
OUTCOME. court upheld conviction because o’brien disrupted gov. interest (congress ability to raise an army) and encouraged others to do the same
SIGNIFICANCE. not all symbolic speech protected, time place manner regulations

cohen v. california 1971

FACTS. wore jacket protesting draft and was arrested/charged with peace disruption → argued it violated freedom of expression
OUTCOME. court overruled charge because the message didn’t incite illegal action
SIGNIFICANCE. protected dissenting speech, time place manner regulation

texas v. johnson 1989

FACTS. johnson burned flag in protest of reagan policies and was convicted under texas law outlawing flag desecration → argued it violated freedom of expression
OUTCOME. court overruled conviction/texas law because his act had a political nature and was therefore protected expression. people taking offense to dissenting ideas doesn’t justify speech limitations. law doesn’t serve gov. interest
SIGNIFICANCE. must serve gov. interest, political expression protected

*similar case: US v. eichmann 1990

tinker v. des moines 1969

FACTS. students wore black armbands protesting vietnam war to school and were suspended → argued it violated freedom of expression
OUTCOME. court overruled suspension because students don’t lose constitutional rights in school. schools can only limit conduct when it “materially/substantially interferes” with school operation; fear of possible disruption is not that
SIGNIFICANCE. students have constitutional rights, symbolic speech protected

schenck v. US 1919

FACTS. schenk distributed leaflets urging disregard of war draft and was charged with violating 1917 espionage act by trying to cause insubordination → argued it violated freedom of expression
OUTCOME. court upheld conviction because leaflets were unprotected speech by creating “clear and present danger;” leaflets disrupted conscription and thus interfered with congress’s rightful exercise of wartime authority
SIGNIFICANCE. courts give deference to US during wartime; national security prioritized over individual liberties. clear and present danger standard established

PRESS

free press holds gov. accountable
libel: printing false statements with malicious intent to defame
defame: damage reputation
malicious intent: reckless disregard for truth
high defamation standard: suing party must prove
☐ damages
☐ offenders knowingly printed falsehoods
☐ offenders had malicious intent
public officials (including celebrities) less protected than laypeople
i. cannot recover damages for defamatory falsehoods relating to official conduct unless malice proven

NYT co v. sullivan 1964

FACTS. civil rights group put ads with inaccuracies about sullivan and he sued, winning $500,000 → times argued that slight mistakes protected and are different from intentional defamation
OUTCOME. court ruled that uninhibited debate (free dissenting speech) includes negative attacks on gov/public officials, and an easy libel suit would stifle such debate
SIGNIFICANCE. false statements protected if “freedoms of expression are to have ‘breathing space’ that they need to survive”

NYT co v. US 1971

FACTS. illegal copies of classified military papers “pentagon papers” set to be published and nixon sued to prevent publication under espionage act
OUTCOME. court ruled that prior restraint was almost always unconstitutional. gov. can punish press post-publication but cannot prevent publication
SIGNIFICANCE. established gov. has no prior restraint: right to stop spoken/printed expression in advance

Knowt

0.0(0)

Generate Practice test

Chat with Kai