Cases

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Summary: Some Wisconsin parents who belonged to an Amish group were prosecuted for failing to send their children to school past the eighth grade. They withheld their children on the basis of religion. They believed in a religion oriented society separated from the world and its customs. Their society centered around farming.

• Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Amish on the basis of the Free Exercise Clause

Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing 1947

• Summary: A state law and local rule allowed parents to be reimbursed for money spent transporting their kids to school. Some reimbursement went parents whose children attended Catholic Schools. Taxpayer sued to prevent payment to Catholic Schools parents.

• Ruling: Reimbursement was allowed because the money was not aiding religion. It was assisting a state policy of seeing that all children traveled to and from school safely.

Engel v. Vitale 1962

• School board in Hyde Park, NY; following a state law directed that a prayer be said at the beginning of the school day. No one who objected to the prayer would be forced to recite it.

• Court ruled that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause. A governing body cannot compose a prayer and direct that it be used in schools. According to the Lemon test, this violates the second principle because the law aided religion.

Torcaso v. Watkins 1961

• Governor of Maryland appointed a person to public office. Constitution required that public servants declare their belief in God. The appointee refused.

• Ruling: Law is unconstitutional based on the Free Exercise provision. Lemon test…

Witters v. Washington Department of Services for the Blind (1986)

• A young man was losing his eye sight. He applied to the State Commission for the Blind for vocational rehabilitation aid. He was seeking money to get an education at a Christian school to become a pastor, missionary, or youth minister. Washington law authorized monetary help for the visually handicap for training in in bussiness or trades.

• S.C ruled that the law did not violate the Estabishment Clause. The court noted that the funding was provided to the person not the Christian School

School District of the City of Grand Rapids v. Ball 1985

• Sectarian schools were being funded by government money

• Ruling: Violated the Est. Clause. Teachers may be influenced by the religious environment and influence students. State involvement sent a message of support for religion. Programs did help some religious programs

Village of Scarsdale v. McCreay 1985

• For several years, residents displayed the birth scene of Jesus Christ in a public park during the Christmas season. Paid for by groups of churches and a signed indicated that. For two years the request was denied due to protests that public property was being used for religious purposes. Issue: was the display a violation of the Est. Clause?

• Ruling: Court was split 4-4, ruling went back to the most recent ruling which was that government did not fund the display and was indicated by a sign and the park had no direct role in advancing religion. Court of appeals applied the three prong Lemon Test

Human Resources of Oregon v. Alfred L. Smith 1990

• Two people were fired from their jobs at a drug rehab facility because they were using peyote. They used the drug in connection with religious practices in their Native American Church. They filed for unemployment and were denied because they were fired for misconduct.

• Issue: Was denying their benefits a violation of their right to free exercise?

• Ruling: Denial was Okay. Illegal drugs could not be used even as a religious practice.

McDaniel v. Paty 1978

• Tennessee barred religious leaders from being a delegate to a state constitutional convention. Baptist minister became a candidate to be a delegate. An opponent sued to block him from serving.

• Ruling: Law violated the free exercise clause

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire 1942

• Chaplinsky was a member of a religious group known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses. He was distributing literature and stating that all religion was racket. The crowd became agitated, and a nearby officer led him toward the police station and didn’t say that he was under arrest. On the way to the station, Chaplinsky allegedly made inappropriate comments which was in violation of N.H. law. He was charged and convicted of violating the statue.

• Issue: Was his freedom of speech violated?• Ruling: Words used that tended to incite a breach of the

peace were not protected by the first amendment.

Feiner v. People of the State of New York 1951

• Feiner was protesting the cancellation of a speech permit. While speaking to the crowd, he used derogatory words about the President, the mayor, and others. He urged African Americans to take up arms and fight for equal rights. Some people became angry, policed urged him to stop three times, he refused each time. He was arrested and prosecuted for disorderly conduct.

• Issue: Was this a violation of his freedom of speech? • Ruling: His speech had passed the bounds of argument

or persuasion and became an incitement to riot.

Elrod v. Burns 1976

• As a regular practice, newly elected sheriffs would fire employees who were not part of the same political party. The employees were non-civil service employees. The new sheriff continued the practice. Some people sued to retain their jobs.

• Issue: Freedom of Association• Ruling: Cannot fire based on political affiliation

only on job performance.

Bethel School District v. Fraser 1986

• During a student assembly for student council, a student used sexually explicit language. Some of the students were as young as 14. Prior to the speech, school officials warned that it was not appropriate. After the speech, the student was suspended for three days and would not be considered for graduation speeches.

• Issue: Violation of freedom of speech• Ruling: The suspension was upheld, because

the speech was deemed vulgar.

Texas v. Johnson 1989

• A political demonstration took place during the republican national convention in 1984. As Ronald Reagan was being nominated, Mr. Johnson burned an American Flag. He was arrested for violating a Texas statute making it illegal to desecrate the flag.

• Issue: Is flag burning protected by the First Amendment?

• Ruling: His conduct was symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment

Near v. Minnesota 1931

• A series of articles were published that stated a Jewish gangster was in control of gambling, racketeering, and other criminal activities in Minneapolis. The articles referred to many criminals as Jewish and stated that the mayor was not doing his job. The law allowed public officials to bring lawsuits to stop publication of newspaper articles (prior restraint).

• Issue: Did the law violate the freedom of speech and press by using prior restraint?

• Ruling: It is in violation of the First Amendment to prevent publication of a newspaper. Also stated that if the accusations were false, victims could sue for damages after publication.

Edwards v. South Carolina 1963

• 190 African American students went to the South Carolina State House to protest segregation and discrimination. The peacefully protested for 45 minutes before they were told they would be arrested if they did not leave. They refused to leave and were arrested. They were found guilty of breaching the peace.

• Issue: Was the students’ first amendment rights violated?

• Ruling: Arrest was a clear violation

Nebraska Press Assoc. vs. Nebraska (Stewart)

• Summary: Stuart ordered a pretrial gag order on all press coverage of a murder trial.

• Issue: Is this gag order violation of the freedom of the press?

• Ruling: Gag orders are constitutional only when there is clear and present danger that pretrial publicity would threaten a fair trial.

Schenck vs. United States

• Summary: Mailed leaflets demanding that the public “Assert Your Rights” and peacefully express opposition to the draft during World War One.

• Issue: May the First Amendment protection of expression and criticism be limited?

• Ruling: The First Amendment does not protect the right to free speech when it creates a clear and present danger of substantial harm to important national interests

Oklahoma Publishing vs. Oklahoma

• Summary: Court order was issued prohibiting the press from reporting the name and photograph of a youth involved in a juvenile court proceeding. The material in question was obtained legally from a source outside the court.

• Issue: Is the court denying freedom of the press?

• Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court found the court order to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of the press.