Siomara Rosales

CASE STUDY
NEAR V. MINNESOTA (1931)

1. Background of the case: Jay Near published a “scandal sheet”

in 1920’s Minneapolis. This paper was devoted to sensational
news and “exposé” reports on corruption. Near regularly
criticized elected officials and accused them of dishonesty.
Near was eventually stopped from publishing his newspaper
in 1925 on the basis of the Minnesota law.
2. Constitutional Issue: Whether or not prior restraint is allowed.
3. Supreme Court’s decision: In a 5-4 decision, The Court ruled
that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious"
or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

GRISWOLD V. CONNECTICUT (1965)

1. Background of the case: In 1879, Connecticut passed a law

that banned the use of any drug, medical device, or other
instrument in furthering contraception. A gynecologist at the
Yale School of Medicine, C. Lee Buxton, opened a birth
control clinic in New Haven in conjunction with Estelle
Griswold, who was the head of Planned Parenthood in
Connecticut. They were arrested and convicted of violating
the law, and their convictions were affirmed by higher state
courts. Their plan was to use the clinic to challenge the
constitutionality of the statute under the Fourteenth
Amendment before the Supreme Court.
2. Constitutional Issue: Does the Constitution protect the right of
marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability
to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?
3. Supreme Court’s decision: In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice
Douglas, the Court ruled that the Constitution did in fact
 Siomara Rosales

protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions

on contraception.

TEXAS V. JOHNSON (1989)

1. Background of the case: In 1984, in front of the Dallas City

Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a
means of protest against Reagan administration policies.
Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing
flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and
assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal
Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme
Court.
2. Constitutional Issue: Is the desecration of an American flag,
by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected
under the First Amendment?
3. Supreme Court’s decision: In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held
that Johnson's burning of a flag was protected expression
under the First Amendment.