Things in the Book

List of Cases:
https://www.oyez.org/

Schenck v. United States (1919) (First Amendment)

United States won!!!
- Question: Does the government’s prosecution and punishment for expressing
opposition to the military draft during wartime violate the First Amendment’s free
speech clause?
- Speech representing “a clear and present danger” is not protected
- The Espionage Acts prevented publications that criticized the government, that advocated
treason or insurrection, or that incited disloyal behavior in the military.
- United States convicted Charles Schenck, secretary of the socialist party for printing
anti-draft leaflets in Philadelphia, in an effort to dissuade people from complying with the
draft.
- Schenck was found guilty
- The Clear and Present Danger test became the balancing act between competing
demand of free expressions and a government needing to protect a free society

Engel v. Vitale (1962) (First Amendment)

Engel won!!!
- Question: Does allowing a state-creates nondenominational prayer voluntarily
recited in public schools violate the First Amendment’s establishment clause?
- The parents of ten pupils organized and filed suit against the locan school board because
this official prairie was contrary to the beliefs, religion, or religious practices of both
themselves and their children. (Engel’s side)
- Reasoning: A public school institution developed the prayer and since it as used in a
public school with mandatory attendance, the Regents board had made religion its
business, a violation of the establishment clause
- Including the word “God” was denominational - not all religions believe in God
- Even though participation was voluntary, students would likely feel reluctant to not take
part in a teacher-led activity

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District

Tinker won!!!
- Question: Does a public school ban on students wearing armbands in symbolic,
political protest violate a student’s First Amendment freedom of speech?
- A group of students organized a protest of U.S involvement in the conflict in Vietnam
- Wore black armbands for a period of time as well as having two days of fasting
 - When they arrived at school, the principal instructed them to remove them, on the basis
that it would be distracting and interfere with learning, when the students didn’t comply,
they were suspended.
- Reasoning: No disruption actually took place, the student’s right to political and
symbolic speech overrode the school administrators’ concerns from potential disorder.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

The New York Times won!!!
- Question: Can the executive branch block the printing of reporter-obtained classified
government information in an effort to protect national secrets without violating the
First Amendment’s free press clause?
- Facts: Daniel Ellsberg, a high-level Pentagon analyst, released a massive report known as
the “Pentagon Papers” to the New York times
- Papers questioned the government’s credibility and, President Niccon claimed, hampered
the president’s ability to manage the war.
- The ruling assures that the hasty cry of national se curity does not justify censorship in
advance and that the government does not have the power of prior restraint of
publications.
- Reasoning: The court just didn’t explain their reasoning. They based their decision on
past cases

Wisconsin v. Yoeder (1972)

Yoeder won!!!
- Question: Does a state’s compulsory school law for children age 16 and younger
violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause for parents whose religious
beliefs and customs dictate they keep their children out of school after a certain age?
- Facts: Wisconsin statute required parents of children age 16 and under to send their
children to formal school
- Three Amish parents did not send their children to school, and were charged, tried, found
guilty, and fined.
- Parents appealed the case to the state supreme court, arguing their religion prevented
them from sending their children to public schools at their age.
- State court agreed with Yoeder
- Reasoning: The Court found that making the Amish attend schools would expose them
to attitudes and values that ran counter to their beliefs. The Court also decided that
stopping schooling a couple of years early and continuing informal vocational educations
did not make members of this community burdens on society
McDonald v. Chicago (1972) (Second Amendment)
McDonald won!!!
- Question: Does the Second Amendment apply to states, by way of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and thus prevent states or their political subdivisions from banning
citizen ownership of handguns?
- Facts: Citizens in chicago and Oak Park challenged policies in their cities that were
similar to ones struck down in Washington
- Required all gun owners to register guns, but a ban didn’t allow citizens to register
handguns
- McDonald believed that the ban rendered him defenceless in his crime-ridden
neighborhood
- Reasoning for end result: Court applied the Second Amendment’s Due Process clause,
arguing that the right to individual self defense is at the heart of the Second Amendment

Gideon v. Wainwright
Gideon Won!!!
- Question: Does a state’s prosecution of a criminal defendant without a counsel
constitute a violation of the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel?
- Facts: Gideon was a drifter who had served jail time in four previous instances, he had
gotten caught entering a Flotifs pool hall and stealing some packages drinks and coins
from a cigarette machine.
- Came to the trial expecting the local court to appoint him a lawyer because he had been
provided one in other states in previous trials
- Supreme court ruled that states must provide counsel in the case of an indigent defendent
facing the death penalty, or in a case in which the defendant facing the death penalty, or
in a case which the defendant has special circumstances. At the time of his trial, 45 states
had appointed attorneys to all indigent defendants, Florida was not one of them.

Roe v. Wade
Roe won!!!
- Question: Does Texas’s anti-abortion statute violate the due process clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment and a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion?
- Facts: A circus worker got pregnant for the third time at age 21 and sought an abortion.
States had developed anto-abortion laws since the early 1900s, and this case reached the
Court as the national debate over morality.
- To protect her identity, the plaintiff was dubbed “Jane Roe”
- At the time, Texas only allowed abortions in cases where the mother’s life was at stake
- They changed the law because of this case
- Reasoning: The legal principle on which the case rests was new and somewhat
revolutionary, the plaintiff argued that Texas had violated Roe’s “right to privacy” and
 that it was not a governmental decision to determine a pregnant woman’s medical
decision.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (pg. 270)

Lemon won!!!
- Question: Do statutes that provide state funding for non-public, non-secular schools
violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
- Facts of case: Rhode Island and Pennsylvania passed laws to pay teachers of secular
subjects in religious schools with state funds.
- The states mandated such subjects as English and math and reasoned that it should assist
the parochial schools in carrying out a state requirement
- In trying to determine the constitutionality of the statute, the Court decided these laws
created an “excessive entanglement” between the state and the church because teachers in
these parochial schools may improperly involve faith in their teaching
- Decision further articulated the “wall of separation” concept (pg. 6 on doc)

Miller v. California (pg. 281)

California won!!!
- Question: Is the sale and distribution of obscene materials by mail protected under
the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee?
- A man named Marvin Miller promoted adult materials through mass mailing, and
multiple people complained
- Authorities persecuted Miller under the state’s obscenity laws
- On appeal, the justices reaffirmed that obscene material was not constitutionally
protected, but they stated that a local judge or jury should define obscenity by applying
local community standards

Baron v. Baltimore (1833)

Baltimore won!!!
- Question: Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national
government the right to take private property for public use without justly
compensating the property's owner?
- Facts: Baltimore wharf owner John Barron alleged that construction by the city had
diverted water flow in the harbor area.
- He argued that sand accumulations in the harbor deprived Barron of deep waters, which
reduced his profits.
- Sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.
- Trial court awarded him $4,500 in damages, which the state appellate court struck down.
- Marshall reasoned that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth
Amendment was not applicable to the states.
 - Meant that Barron was not entitled to damages for his property loss from the city under
the Fifth Amendment provision on just compensation for a government taking.
- Beginning of selective incorporation
Gitlow v. New York
- Question: Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech
that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow?
- Facts: Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto"
that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form.
- Gitlow was convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law, which punished
advocating the overthrow of the government by force. At his trial, Gitlow argued that
since there was no resulting action flowing from the manifesto's publication, the statute
penalized utterances without propensity to incitement of concrete action.
-

McCollum v. Board of Education

- Question: Did the use of the public school system for religious classes violate the first
Amendment’s establishment Clause or the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment?
- Tested the Principle of “release time” where public schools set aside time for religious
instruction
- The Champaign County Board of Education authorized a program in which outside
religious teachers hired by private third parties provided weekly religious instruction in
public schools
- The classes were not mandatory. McCollum, an atheist, complained that her son was
ostracized for not attending the classes.
- McCollum eventually sued the school board in 1945, arguing that the religious
instruction in the public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

West Virginia State BOE v. Barnette

- Question: Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First
Amendment?
- In 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education required public schools to include salutes
to the flag by teachers and students as a mandatory part of school activities.
- The children in a family of Jehovah's Witnesses refused to perform the salute and were
sent home from school for non-compliance. They were also threatened with reform
schools used for criminally active children, and their parents faced prosecutions for
causing juvenile delinquency.
- The Court found that the First Amendment cannot enforce a unanimity of opinion on any
topic, and national symbols like the flag should not receive a level of deference that
trumps constitutional protections.
Mapp v. Ohio
Dolree won!!!
- Question: Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth
Amendment?
- Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal
police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of
freedom of expression.