Year: 1833

Subject: BOR Incorporation

Facts:As Baltimore became a major economic hub, a group of wharf owners saw that the city-building altered the flow of streams coming into the harbor, leading to the accumulation of sand and earth near the wharves, causing surrounding water to become too shallow for large ships. The owners wanted the city to dredge the harbor at its own expense, but the officials didn’t listen and Barron and Craig asked for $20,000 in damages at a county court. The court ordered the city to pay $4,500, a state appellate court reversed the decision, and

Holding: Barron appealed to the USSC, where the unanimous Marshall Court ruled in favor of Baltimore, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment.

Year: 1937

Subject: BOR Incorporation

Facts:Frank Palka robs a store and shoots and kills two police. He was arrested and confessed, but at the trial the judge refused to admit his confession, and therefore the jury found him guilty of 2nd degree murder, for which he received a life-sentence. State prosecutors appealed the case to the Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors, which reversed the judge’s ignorance of the confession and ordered a new trial. Palka’s attorney objected, saying it violated the 5th Amendment’s prohibition of double-jeopardy, but he was tried anyway and convicted of 1st degree murder with a death sentence. He then brought his case to the USSC asking it to incorporate double jeopardy.

Holding: The 5th Amendment right to protection against double-jeopardy isn’t a fundamental right incorporated by the 14th Amendment to each state.

Year: 1968

Subject: Selective Incorporation

Facts:Gary Duncan sees his cousins on the side of the road with four white youths, and thought that there was a “racial incident.” He asked that his cousins get in the car with him, there was a dispute, and the white youths asserted that Duncan slapped one of them. The principal called the police and they questioned Duncan, then let him go, thinking he hadn’t committed the offense, but he was later arrested anyway. He went t state court, saying that Louisiana law permitted a cruelty to juveniles conviction only against an individual having supervision over the juveniles, which did not apply to Duncan. Duncan was rearrested on charges of simple battery, and so he requested to be tried by jury, but the judge refused saying that was only possible in cases involving punishments of hard labor and death. The state affirmed, so Duncan argued at the Supreme Court level that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment should be used to apply the Sixth Amendment’s jury trial guarantee to all state prosecutions where a sentence of two or more years could be imposed. The state argues that according to the precedent set by Maxwell v. Dow, the Fundamental Fairness Standard does not include access to a jury as a fundamental right.

Holding: • A crime carrying a two-year sentence, such as the case of Duncan, is sufficiently serious to require the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

STANDARD: FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS. there are certain rights that are so fundamental to democracy that ordered liberty and justice could not exist without them.

Year:1908

Subject: Selective Incorporation

Facts: Twining was arrested for crime, and at the trial he refused to testify. When the judge asked why, and the attorney said the self-incrimination of the Fifth Amendment applied to the states via the Fourteeth Amendment Due Process Clause, and the Court says it doesn't apply, but they create Fundamental Fairness.

Year: 1940

Subject: Free Exercise

Facts: The Cantwell father and sons, members of Jehovah’s Witness were playing records and distributing pamphlets to citizens on the street in New Haven in an area that was predominantly Catholic. The police arrested them for violating a state law prohibiting individuals “from soliciting money for any charitable cause” and deemed it not to be a bonafide religion, and they were soliciting without a license. The Cantwells argued that this was an infringement on their free exercise rights. Holding: • The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment is incorporated against the states by the Fourteenth Amendment.

STANDARD: FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS VALID SECULAR POLICY: if there are legitimate legislative purposes and law must be neutrally and generally applied

Year: 1963

Subject: Free Exercise

Facts:The State of South Carolina did not give Adell Sherbert unemployment benefits one she was fired for misbehavior – she did not go to work on Saturdays because she wanted to observe the Sabbath. The state’s denial, she said, infringed on the territory of beliefs and violates the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause.

Holding: • The First Amendment Free Exercise Clause mandates strict scrutiny for unemployment compensation claims.

STANDARD: STRICT SCRUTINY OVERTURNS VALID SECULAR POLICY: must have a compelling governmental interest and apply the least restrictive means.

Year: 1879

Subject: Free Exercise

Facts: Monogamy in Utah, and so Reynolds believed that the inability to practice polygamy violates the free exercise clause.

Holding: Um, no polygamy for you Reynolds. STANDARD: right to believe is absolute, but the right to act is NOT absolute!

Year: 1972

Subject: Free Exercise

Facts: Wisconsin’s compulsory education law mandated that children attend public or private school until age 16, but the Amish did not want to permit their children to attend after 8th grade since they would be adversely exposed to “worldly influences in terms of attitudes, goals, and values contrary to their beliefs” and therefore preferred to home school their children after age 14. There was a specific controversy where the school district administrator brought a complaint against Amish families for not sending their children to school, and when the parents were fined $5 by the county court, the claimed theur First and Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated. The Burger Court ruled in favor of Yoder, in accordance with the First Amendment.

Holding: • The WCSA Law violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment since it required students to attend school past the eighth grade, thus conflicting with the right of the Amish to control the religious upbringing of their children.

STANDARD: STRICT SCRUTINY: must have compelling governmental interest and applied through the least restrictive means.

Year: 1990

Subject: Free Exercise

Facts:Peyote is an illegal substance (unless from doctor) under OR Law, but the Native American Church uses it as a sacramental substance, necessary for religious practices. Because OR has a law criminalizing the general use of peyote, Smith and Black were fired from their jobs as counselors of a private drug and alcohol abuse clinic for ingesting peyote at a religious ceremony. When they applied for unemployment benefits, the state deemed them ineligible since they had been fired for “misconduct.” In state court, Black and Smith argued that the state could not deny them benefits according to Sherbert and Thomas (cannot deny benefits bc of unwillingness to give up a religious act according to the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.) The state said it could deny those benefits since the use of peyote was prohibited by a general claim statute, not aimed at inhibiting religion, and that it was already using the least intrusive means of attaining that end. The ORSC favored the appellants, but the state appealed the USSC, which sent it back to the State to see whether religious use of peyote violated criminal laws. They said it did not exempt the religious use of peyote, but this prohibition also violated the free exercise clause, so it went back to the USSC which favored the Employment Division, Department of HR of Oregon.

Holding: • The Free Exercise Clause allows the State to prohibit the religious use of peyote and deny unemployment benefits to individuals fired for their use. These neutral laws of general applicability do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

STANDARD: VALID SECULAR POLICY ish... SMITH STANDARD APPLIED must be compelling governmental interest and must be neutrally and generally applied... right to believe vs. right to act are separate... Reynolds case.

Year: 1997

Subject: Free Exercise

Facts: St. Peter the Apostle Church was to demolish its existing structure and erect a bigger building, but the city rejected the project since a historic preservation law covered the existing church. Archbishop Flores argued that building their new church was a form of religious exercise protected against governmental interference by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The city argued that this was unconstitutional and Congress did not have authority to restrict the power of the states to regulate religious exercise. District courts agreed with the city, but appeal courts decided otherwise. In the USSC, the city argued that the statute impermissibly interfered with the power of local governments and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The church said Congress acted within its scope of power under the 14th Amendment to protect religious liberty against government encroachment.

Holding: • The enactment of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to build a larger church regardless of historic preservation laws exceeded Congressional power as set out in section 5 of the 14th Amendment.

STANDARD: SMITH STANDARD: law was neutrally applied to all citizens of state bc it applies equally to persons regardless of religion! and has compelling governmental interest in historic connection to past.

Year: 1947

Subject: Establishment Clause

Facts:When New Jersey passed a law letting school boards that provided transportation for public schools to also provide transportation to nonprofit, religious private schools (like 15 other states that had similar legislation), Ewing Township decided to use tax dollars to reimburse parents for transportation costs incurred in sending their kids to school. Since Ewing had no public schools, the reimbursements went to parents of neighboring public schools AND the private schools. Everson, a taxpayer of Ewing said that the reimbursements going to parents with kids in private schools violated the establishment clause of the 14th Amendment.

Holding: • The New Jersey reimbursement policy is not in violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

STANDARD: FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS certain rights are so fundamental to democracy that order, liberty and justice could not exist without them... money is going to parents, not schools.

Year: 1970

Subject: Establishment Clause

Facts:Lemon brought suit against the state superintendent of schools, David Kurtzman because he believe an unconstitutional Pennsylvania law that authorized Kurtzman to purchase secular educational services for nonpublic schools. The superintendent was able to use state taxes levied on cigarettes to reimburse nonpublic schools for supplies costs. But the funding had to go towards secular purposes only, and the schools had to keep secular records separate. By the time the USSC heard the case, PN had already spent $5 million annually – reimbursing about 20% of the school pop, while 96% of the nonpublic school students attended religious schools. Holding:

• The Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education act violates the Establishment Clause.

STANDARD:

LEMON TEST ESTABLISHED: secular legislative purpose, neither advances not inhibits religion, no fostering of excessive entanglement with religion.

Year: 1987

Subject: Establishment Clause

Facts: Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution Science in Public School Instruction Act was passed, meaning schools have to teach both evolutionism and creationism. To support legislation, they said that evolutionary theory is a religious tenent to secularhumanism, and creationism has literal text in Genesis. Also, they considered creationism to be a science just like evolutionary theory. Assist. Principal Don Aguillard (and other parents and teachers) said this law violated the establishment clause since it gave equal time to another religion’s view of the origins of humankind. Holding:

• Teaching creationism alongside evolution in public schools is unconstitutional in its advancement of one particular religion, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

LEMON TEST: FIRST PRONG VIOLATED: there is no secular legislative purpose (neither advances nor inhibits religion, no fostering of excessive entanglement with religion)

Year: 1963

Subject: Establishment Clause

Facts: Separationists found a Pennsylvania family that was willing to serve as plaintiffs in a case in the South, a region where it was common for Bible readings and the recitation of the Lord’s prayer to take place daily. Members of the Unitarian church, the Schempp children also attended a public school where bible verses and the Lord’s prayer were recited daily. Although they were permitted to leave during the announcements, the parents were concerned that their kids would be labeled and ridiculed by the other students. Separationist groups claimed that Bible readings inherently favored some religions over others and thus violated religious establishment, while the school board officials argued that the recitation was necessary for moral purposes.

Holding:

• The court ruled in favor of Schempp in that organized Bible reading and recitation of prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.

STANDARD:

SCHEMPP STANDARD ESTABLISHED first 2 prongs of Lemon: must have a secular legislative purpose and neither advance nor inhibit religion.

Year: 1985

Subject: Establishment Clause

Facts: Alabama allows a moment of silence each day for prayer, contemplation, meditation, but the problem is that the person who wrote bill said he intentionally wanted to return prayer to education. Holding:

yes, it is in violation of the Establishment Clause because of the intent.

Year: 1992

Subject: Establishment Clause

Facts: During a traditional graduation ceremony at Nathan Bishop Middle School, Rabbi Gutterman was asked to give an invocation and benediction prayer that were meant to be nonsectarian and held to standards of “inclusiveness and sensitivity.” Graduating from the school, Deborah Weisman, complained to her father about the prayer, and he filed suit challenging the school policy allowing prayers at graduation as a violation of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. A trial court found for Weisman and a federal appellate court affirmed. Principal Lee appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that prayers were important and offered profound meaning and divine guidance to students and parents in an event as important as graduation. Lee asked for the Lemon Test to be reconsidered.

Holding:

• The court ruled that clergy-led prayer at public school graduation events violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is thereby unconstitutional.

STANDARD:

COERSION TEST established: the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it 1)provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church OR it 2) coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will. This is accomodationist.

Year: 2009

Subject: Freedom of Speech

Facts: Doe said that high schoolers should not be able to pray before a football game, even if it is voted on by the students and not necessarily sanctioned by the administration. He felt that there was too much peer pressure.

Holding:

The USSC says prayer, even organized by students, is in violation of the Establishment Clause.

STANDARD:

COERSION TEST as established in Lee v. Weisman (cannot coerce anyone to participate in a religios event.)

Year: 1919

Subject: Free Speech
Facts: Charles Schenck, the secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia decided to print and distribute pamphlets urging resistance to the draft to all the men listed in the newspaper as eligible for service. Schenck was charged with violating the Espionage Act and the US argued that he had attempted to obstruct recruitment and illegally used mail to do so. Schenck argued that the Espionage Act violated the First Amendment’s free speech clause in that it prohibited speech or publication before the words are even said.

Holding:

• The Espionage Act does not violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment on the grounds that it is necessary in times of clear and present danger. STANDARD:

CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER: when words are used in war circumstances and create a clear and present danger based upon their proximity and degree.

Year: 1919

Subject: Free Speech

Facts: Right before the end of WWI, Russian immigrant Jacob Abrams and others were convicted of violating the Espionage Act. They published and distributed leaflets criticizing President Wilson for sending troops to Russia, calling capitalism the enemy, and describing the US government as hypocritical and cowardly. Thus, he was charged with the intent to hinder the US in the prosecution of the war.
Holding:

• The Court ruled that Abram’s publication and distribution of the pamphlets was not protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

STANDARD:

BAD TENDENCY TEST: do words have a tendency to bring about evil consequences? (ignores clear and present danger)

Year: 1925

Subject: Free Speech

Facts: During a period of widespread fear of communism in the US, several states created commissions to investigate “subversive organizations.” In New York, a commission arrested Benjamin Gitlow for distributing a pamphlet “The Left Wing Manifesto” which called for mass action to overthrow the capitalist system in the US. He was prosecuted in NY for violating the state’s criminal anarchy law, and his defense attorney said the statute violated the First Amendment’s Freedom of Expression clause.

Holding:

• Gitlow’s distribution of communist pamphlets is not protected by First Amendment Freedom of Expression Clause.

STANDARDS:

FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS: certain rights are so fundamental to democracy that ordered liberty and justice could not exist without it, so it is applied to states. DIRECT INSIGHTMENT: if the speech is likely to cause a direct insightment of violence, then the speech is not protected.

Year: 1951

Subject: Free Speech

Facts: Eleven leaders of the National Board of the Communist Party were conspiring to advocate the overthrow of government by violent means and organize the Communist party, and thus were indicted for violating the Smith Act. It was found that much of their core involved Marxist-Leninist ideology, and the defense said that their intentions were only to work to improve conditions under capitalism and to avoid chaos and depression. The USSC heard the case, Dennis arguing that the Smith Act was an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

Holding:

• The Smith Act is not in violation of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause and Dennis is not protected.

STANDARD:

CLEAR AND PROBABLE DANGER established: the gravity of evil discounted improbability justifies free speech

Year: 1968

Subject: Free Speech (symbolic)

Facts: O’Brien and others burned their draft cards on the steps of a South Boston courthouse, and in response, a hostile crowd gathered. The FBI took the protestors to court saying that they were in violation of the 1965 Selective Service Act of 1948 which made it illegal to “destroy or mutilate” draft cards, btu O’Brien said he burned his with pacifist intentions. The US held his actions hindered government from capabilities to draft men by fostering anti-war beliefs, but O’Brien said it was protected symbolic speech.

Holding:

• The 1965 Selective Service Act is not in violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. STANDARD:

STRICT SCRUTINY: compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means... 4 reasons of application: 1)if supports armies 2)issuance of certificates 3)registration/raising of troops 4) no alternative means

Year: 1969

Subject: Free Speech (symbolic)

Facts/Holding: Flag burning is protected under free speech.

Year: 1974

Subject: Free Speech (symbolic)

Facts: some people didn't like the Cambodia sitch, so they hung the US flag and peace signs outside to burn, and the court ruled this was constitutionally permissible

Year: 1969

Subject: Freedom of Speech (symbolic)

Facts: A group of adults and high schoolers in Des Moines planned two strategies to demonstrate opposition in the Vietnam War: to fast on December 16th and New Year’s Day and wear black armbands every day in between. The school threatened to suspend the students, but the parents permitted the students – the 5 students were suspended. The students argued that the bands were legitimate symbolic speech and the principals were engaging in illegal prior restraint.

Holding:

This symbolic speech is protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

STANDARD:

does not materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school. More educational interest than government interest.

Year: 1989

Subject: Free Speech (symbolic)

Facts: Outside the Republican National Convention in Dallas supporting the re-election of Reagan, there was a demonstration in which Gregory Johnson unfurled an American flag, doused it in kerosene, and set it on fire as they chanted. A state court of appeals affirmed his sentence to prison but the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed.

 Holding:

Johnson is protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

STANDARD:

STRICT SCRUTINYY: compelling governmental interest and least restrictive means

Year: 1942

Subject: Free Speech (Fighting Words)

Facts: Chaplinsky, a member of Jehova’s witness, was selling biblical pamphlets and literature on public streets until a crowd gathered and started to attack him, until the police arrived and handcuffed Chaplinsky. When he asked why they had arrested him and not the mob, the officer answered, “Shut up, you damn bastard.” In response, Chaplinsky called the officer a fascist and racketeer. The state charged him with breaking a law prohibiting the use of “offensive, derisive” or “annoying” words to any other person who is lawfully in the street. In the lower courts, he argued that just because speech might cause violence doesn’t mean it should be suppressed, despite the use of the State’s police powers.

Holding:

• The Court holds that Chaplinsky is not protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

STANDARD:

fighting words that are likely to provoke the average person to retaliation should not be allowed.

Year: 1992

Subject: Free Speech (vs. Civil Rights)

Facts: The City of St. Paul alleged that between 1am and 3am, Robert Viktora, a 17-year old drop-out and friends “assembled a crudely made cross by taping together broken chair legs” and then burned the cross inside the fenced backyard of a neighboring black family. St. Paul charged him with violating the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance, but his lawyer said the ordinance violated the 1st Amendment since it was “substantially overbroad and impermissibly content-based” and the judge granted the motion. The state supreme court overruled this decision, saying it did not violate free expression, but that the ordinance was a “narrowly tailored means towards accomplishing the compelling governmental interest in protecting the community against the bias-motivated threats to public safety and order. Holding: •

The Court holds that St. Paul’s Bias-Motivated Crime ordinance is in violation of the First Amendment Free Speech Clause.

STANDARD:

cannot be regulated bc it is being punished for views, not the action itself.

Year: 1977

Subject: Free Speech (vs. Civil Rights)

Facts: In the town of Skokie, where 50% of the residents are jewish, the National Socialist Party (basically a neo-nazi party) wanted to walk around town peacefully protesting. USSC upholds their rights to do so.

Year: 1971

Subject: Free Speech

Facts:During the height of the protest against the Vietnam War, Cohen visited some friends in LA and while they were discussing their opposition to the war, someone wrote “F*** the Draft” and “Stop the War.” He wore his jacket to the LA county courthouse the next morning, and a police sergeant noticed it sitting in the corner since Cohen took it off. The officer asked the judge to cite Cohen for contempt of court, but the judge refused, and the officer arrested him anyway charging him with “willfully and unlawfully and maliciously disturbing the peace and quiet by engaging in tumultuous and offensive conduct.” The case gained momentum and attention and the SoCal court said his jacket indeed present a form of protected, symbolic expression. The Cal Court of Appeal said it was a reasonably foreseeable that it might cause someone to commit a violent act. Holding: •

Cohen’s four-letter word bearing jacket is protected under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

STANDARD:

none applied, although is SS, not fighting words, not against any individual, not morally wrong (can avert eyes), government cannot make distinctions.

Year: 1993

Subject: Free Speech/ Expression

Facts: Todd Mitchell and other black men were discussing the scene in Mississippi Burning in which a white man beats a black boy. In response, Mitchell asked, “Do you all feel hyped up to move on some white people?” When they saw a white boy, Mitchell challenged his friends to “go get him” and the group beat him and stole his sneakers, leaving him unconscious for four days. Jury found Mitchell guilty under aggravated battery, but the penalty would be greater should he be found in violation on basis of selection by race or color among other possibilities (sexual orientation, disability, ancestry, etc). He was found guilty of this and was sentenced to prison, but asked that this penalty enhancement law violated freedom of expression, and based on RAV, the WI SC ruled in his favor.

Holding:

• The Court holds that the Wisconsin penalty enhancement law is not in violation of Mitchell’s First Amendment Freedom of Expression Clause. STANDARD:

idea of the law is to protect the individual from societal harm.