The Oyez Project: 1956 Term Decisions

Achilli v. United States (No. 430)

No details yet.

Alberts v. California (No. 61)

Did the California Penal Code's obscenity provisions, criminalizing the selling and distribution of obscene literature, violate the freedoms of speech and press as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court, speaking through Justice William J. Brennan, Jr. held 6 to 3 that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press" (Brennan would later reverse his position on this issue in Miller v. California (1973)). The majority noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance." The Court held that the test to determine obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." The Court held that such a definition of obscenity gave sufficient fair warning and satisfied the demands of Due Process. Justice John Marshall Harlan II concurred in Alberts but dissented in Roth.

Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co. (No. 36)

No details yet.

Arnold v. Panhandle & S. F. R. Co. (No. 240)

No details yet.

Automobile Club v. Commissioner (No. 89)

No details yet.

Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Jackson (No. 370)

No details yet.

Bank Of America v. Parnell (No. 21)

No details yet.

Benz v. Compania Naviera Hidalgo (No. 204)

No details yet.

Blackburn v. Alabama (No. 426)

No details yet.

Breithaupt v. Abram (No. 69)

No details yet.

British Transport Comm'n v. U.S. (No. 247)

No details yet.

Brown v. United States (No. 43)

No details yet.

Brownell v. Chase National Bank (No. 24)

No details yet.

Brownell v. Tom We Shung (No. 43)

No details yet.

Butler v. Michigan (No. 16)

No details yet.

California v. Taylor (No. 385)

No details yet.

Carroll v. United States (No. 571)

No details yet.

Ceballos v. Shaughnessy (No. 71)

No details yet.

Chessman v. Teets (No. 893)

No details yet.

Civil Aeronautics Board v. Hermann (No. 540)

No details yet.

Curcio v. United States (No. 260)

No details yet.

Delli Paoli v. United States (No. 33)

No details yet.

F. T. C. v. National Lead Co. (No. 63)

No details yet.

Ferguson v. Moore-Mccormack Lines (No. 59)

No details yet.

Fikes v. Alabama (No. 53)

No details yet.

Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp. (No. 310)

No details yet.

Fowler v. Wilkinson (No. 620)

No details yet.

General Electric Co. v. Local 205 (No. 276)

No details yet.

Gold v. United States (No. 137)

No details yet.

Goodall-Sanford v. Textile Workers (No. 262)

No details yet.

Government Employees v. Windsor (No. 423)

No details yet.

Green v. United States (No. 46)

No details yet.

Grunewald v. United States (No. 183)

No details yet.

Guss v. Utah Labor Board (No. 280)

No details yet.

Haynes v. United States (No. 257)

No details yet.

Herdman v. Pennsylvania R. Co. (No. 46)

No details yet.

Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy (No. 205)

No details yet.

In Re Groban (No. 14)

No details yet.

Jackson v. Taylor (No. 619)

No details yet.

Jaffke v. Dunham (No. 60)

No details yet.

Jencks v. United States (No. 23)

No details yet.

Johnson v. United States (No. 531 MISC)

No details yet.

Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown (No. 107)

No details yet.

Konigsberg v. State Bar (No. 5)

No details yet.

Kremen v. United States (No. 162)

No details yet.

La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. (No. 27)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Lion Oil Co. (No. 4)

No details yet.

Labor Board v. Truck Drivers Union (No. 103)

No details yet.

Lake Tankers Corp. v. Henn (No. 445)

No details yet.

Lambert v. California (No. 47)

No details yet.

Leedom v. International Union (No. 57)

No details yet.

Lehmann v. Carson (No. 72)

No details yet.

Leiter Minerals, Inc., v. United States (No. 26)

No details yet.

Leslie Miller, Inc., v. Arkansas (No. 51)

No details yet.

Libson Shops, Inc. v. Koehler (No. 64)

No details yet.

Lightfoot v. United States (No. 4)

No details yet.

Mallory v. United States (No. 521)

Did the questioning of Mallory prior to his appearance before a commissioner violate Due Process and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the arraignment of Mallory was not accomplished "without unnecessary delay," violating the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court noted that Mallory was not told of his rights to counsel or to a preliminary examination before a magistrate, nor of his right to remain silent. "Not until he had confessed, when any judicial caution had lost its purpose, did the police arraign him." The Court held that it was not the function of the police to arrest people at large and interrogate them at police headquarters in order to determine whom they should charge before approaching a commissioner.

Massachusetts Bonding Co. v. U.S. (No. 31)

No details yet.

Meat Cutters v. Fairlawn Meats (No. 41)

No details yet.

Meat Cutters v. Labor Board (No. 40)

No details yet.

Mesarosh v. United States (No. 20)

No details yet.

Morey v. Doud (No. 475)

No details yet.

Mulcahey v. Catalanotte (No. 435)

No details yet.

National Lead Co. v. Commissioner (No. 124)

No details yet.

Nelson v. New York City (No. 30)

No details yet.

Nilva v. United States (No. 37)

No details yet.

Nishikawa v. Dulles (No. 19)

No details yet.

Office Employes v. Labor Board (No. 422)

No details yet.

Pan-Atlantic Corp. v. Atl. Coast Line (No. 408)

No details yet.

Peak v. United States (No. 491)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rychlik (No. 56)

No details yet.

Pennsylvania v. Board Of Trusts (No. 769)

No details yet.

Perez v. Brownell (No. 44)

No details yet.

Pollard v. United States (No. 38)

No details yet.

Prince v. United States (No. 132)

No details yet.

Putnam v. Commissioner (No. 25)

No details yet.

Rabang v. Boyd (No. 403)

No details yet.

Radovich v. Nat. Football League (No. 94)

No details yet.

Rayonier, Inc., v. United States (No. 45)

No details yet.

Rogers v. Missouri Pacific R. Co. (No. 28)

No details yet.

Roth v. United States (No. 582)

Did either the federal or California's obscenity restrictions, prohibiting the sale or transfer of obscene materials through the mail, impinge upon the freedom of expression as guaranteed by the First Amendment?

In a 6-to-3 decision written by Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press." The Court noted that the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance or form of expression, such as materials that were "utterly without redeeming social importance." The Court held that the test to determine obscenity was "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to prurient interest." The Court held that such a definition of obscenity gave sufficient fair warning and satisfied the demands of Due Process. Brennan later reversed his position on this issue in Miller v. California (1973).

Roviaro v. United States (No. 58)

No details yet.

Rowoldt v. Perfetto (No. 5)

No details yet.

S. E. C. v. Louisiana Pub. Ser v. Comm'n (No. 466)

No details yet.

San Diego Unions v. Garmon (No. 50)

No details yet.

Scales v. United States (No. 3)

No details yet.

Schware v. Board Of Bar Examiners (No. 92)

No details yet.

Senko v. Lacrosse Dredging Corp. (No. 62)

No details yet.

Service v. Dulles (No. 407)

No details yet.

Smith v. Sperling (No. 316)

No details yet.

Soriano v. United States (No. 49)

No details yet.

Swanson v. Traer (No. 149)

No details yet.

Sweezy v. New Hampshire (No. 175)

No details yet.

Teamsters Union v. Vogt, Inc. (No. 79)

No details yet.

Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills (No. 211)

No details yet.

Theard v. United States (No. 68)

No details yet.

Thompson v. Coastal Oil Co. (none) (No. 20)

No details yet.

Trainmen v. Chicago R. & I. R. Co. (No. 313)

No details yet.

Trop v. Dulles (No. 70)

Did Section 401(g) of the amended 1940 Nationality Act (the "Act") allow for an unconstitutional punishment by authorizing the expatriation of a citizen convicted of wartime desertion?

Yes. After finding that Section 401(g) of the amended Act was penal in nature, since it punished convicted deserters with denationalization, the Court held that expatriation was barred by the Eighth Amendment as a cruel and unusual penal remedy. Citizenship, the Court stated, is not a license that expires upon misbehavior. Rather, it can only be voluntarily renounced by express language and, or, conduct. Since Trop did not involve himself in any way with a foreign state, so as to demonstrate disloyalty to the United States, his court martial conviction of desertion did not justify his expatriation.

U.S. Gypsum Co. v. Nat. Gypsum Co. (No. 11)

No details yet.

United States v. Allen-Bradley Co. (No. 78)

No details yet.

United States v. Auto. Workers (No. 44)

No details yet.

United States v. Bergh (No. 17)

No details yet.

United States v. Calamaro (No. 304)

No details yet.

United States v. Carter (No. 48)

No details yet.

United States v. Chesapeake & O. R. Co. (No. 19)

No details yet.

United States v. Du Pont & Co. (No. 3)

No details yet.

United States v. Howard (No. 52)

No details yet.

United States v. I. C. C. (No. 12)

No details yet.

United States v. Korpan (No. 596)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 11 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Plesha (No. 39)

No details yet.

United States v. Turley (No. 289)

No details yet.

United States v. Union Pacific R. Co. (No. 97)

No details yet.

United States v. Western Pac. R. Co. (No. 18)

No details yet.

United States v. Witkovich (No. 295)

No details yet.

Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt (No. 302)

No details yet.

Walker v. Hutchinson City (No. 13)

No details yet.

Watkins v. United States (No. 261)

Did the activities of the Un-American Activities Committee constitute an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power?

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the activities of the House Committee were beyond the scope of congressional power. The Court held that both the authorizing resolution of the Committee and the specific statements made by the Committee to Watkins failed to limit the Committee's power. The Court found that because Watkins had not been given sufficient information describing the pertinency of the questions to the subjects under inquiry, he had not been accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment thus invalidated Watkins' conviction.

Webb v. Illinois Central R. Co. (No. 42)

No details yet.

West Point Grocery Co. v. Opelika (No. 478)

No details yet.

Yates v. United States (No. 6)

Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?

In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court reversed the convictions and remanded the cases to a District Court for retrial. The Court interpreted the Smith Act in the following manner: First, the term "organize" was construed to mean the creation of a new organization, making the Act inapplicable to subsequent organizational acts. Second, the Court drew a distinction between the "advocacy and teaching of forcible overthrow as an abstract principle" and the "advocacy and teaching of concrete action for the forcible overthrow of the Government." The Court recognized that instances of speech that amounted to "advocacy of action" were "few and far between."

Yates v. United States (No. 2)

No details yet.