The Oyez Project: 1968 Term Decisions

Allen v. State Board Of Elections (No. 3)

No details yet.

B. & O. R. Co. v. Aberdeen & R. R. Co. (No. 13)

No details yet.

Banks v. California (No. 670)

No details yet.

Benton v. Maryland (No. 201)

No details yet.

Bingler v. Johnson (No. 473)

No details yet.

Boulden v. Holman (No. 644)

No details yet.

Boykin v. Alabama (No. 642)

No details yet.

Boyle v. Landry (No. 4)

No details yet.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (No. 492)

No details yet.

Brotherhood Of Railroad Trainmen v. O'connell (No. 158)

No details yet.

Cardinale v. Louisiana (No. 76)

No details yet.

Carroll v. Princess Anne (No. 6)

No details yet.

Chimel v. California (No. 770)

No details yet.

Cipriano v. City Of Houma (No. 705)

No details yet.

Citizen Publishing Co. v. U.S. (No. 243)

No details yet.

Commonwealth Corp. v. Casualty Co. (No. 14)

No details yet.

Crane v. Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co. (No. 791)

No details yet.

Daniel v. Paul (No. 488)

No details yet.

Davis v. Mississippi (No. 645)

No details yet.

Desist v. United States (No. 12)

May the House of Representatives exclude a duly elected member if the member has satisfied the standing requirements of age, citizenship and residence as articulated in Article I Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution?

No. The Court noted that the proceedings against Powell were intended to exclude and not expel him from the chamber. That is an important distinction to recognize since the House does have the power under Article I, Section 5 to expel members. However, expulsion was not the purpose of the proceedings in this case. After analyzing the Framers' debates on this issue, Chief Justice Warren concluded that since Powell had been lawfully elected by his constituents and since he met the constitutional requirements for membership in the House, that the chamber was powerless to exclude him.

Dunbar-Stanley Studios v. Alabama (No. 376)

No details yet.

Duvernay v. United States (No. 814)

No details yet.

Epperson v. Arkansas (No. 7)

No details yet.

Firemen v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. (No. 16)

No details yet.

Fortner Enterprises v. U.S. Steel (No. 306)

No details yet.

Foster v. California (No. 47)

No details yet.

Frank v. United States (No. 200)

No details yet.

Frazier v. Cupp (No. 643)

No details yet.

Ftc v. Texaco (No. 24)

No details yet.

Gardner v. California (No. 73)

No details yet.

Gaston County v. United States (No. 701)

No details yet.

Glover v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co. (No. 38)

No details yet.

Golden v. Zwickler (No. 370)

No details yet.

Gregg v. United States (No. 453)

No details yet.

Gregory v. Chicago (No. 60)

No details yet.

Grunenthal v. Long Island R. Co. (No. 35)

No details yet.

Gunn v. University Committee (No. 7)

No details yet.

Hadnott v. Amos (No. 647)

No details yet.

Harrington v. California (No. 750)

No details yet.

Harris v. Nelson (No. 199)

Do the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations, concerning personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantees?

In a unanimous decision, the Court held that the fairness doctrine was consistent with the First Amendment. Writing for the Court, Justice White argued that spectrum scarcity made it "idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish." The Court held that the FCC's fairness doctrine regulations enhanced rather than infringed the freedoms of speech protected under the First Amendment. With respect to the regulation of personal attacks made in the context of public issue debates, the FCC's requirement that the subject of the attack be provided with a tape, transcript, or broadcast summary, as well as an opportunity to respond without having to prove an inability to pay for the "air-time," insured a balanced and open discussion of contested issues. The requirement that political editorializing be presented for and against both sides of the debated issues also contributed to the balanced discussion of public concerns.

Hunter v. Erickson (No. 63)

No details yet.

Immigration Service v. Stanisic (No. 297)

No details yet.

In Re Herndon (No. None)

No details yet.

In Re Herndon (No. None)

No details yet.

Jenkins v. Delaware (No. 748)

No details yet.

Jenkins v. Mckeithen (No. 548)

No details yet.

Johnson v. Avery (No. 40)

Does a law forbidding the teaching of evolution violate either the free speech rights of teachers or the Establishment clause of the First Amendment?

Yes. Seven members of the Court held that the statute violated the Establishment clause. Writing for the Court, Justice Abe Fortas stated that the law had been based solely on the beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, who felt that evolutionary theories directly contradicted the biblical account of Creation. This use of state power to prohibit the teaching of material objectionable to a particular sect ammounted to an unconstitutional Establishment of religion. Justice Fortas wrote, "The State's undoubted right to prescribe the curriculum for its public schools does not carry with it the right to prohibit, on pain of criminal penalty, the teaching of a scientific theory or doctrine where that prohibition is based upon reasons that violate the First Amendment." The two other members of the Court concurred in the result, writing that it violated either the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment (because it was unconstitutionally vague) or the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment.

Johnson v. Bennett (No. 32)

No details yet.

Kaiser v. New York (No. 62)

No details yet.

Kaufman v. United States (No. 53)

No details yet.

Kirkpatrick v. Preisler (No. 30)

No details yet.

Kramer v. Caribbean Mills (No. 156)

No details yet.

Kramer v. Union School District (No. 258)

No details yet.

Lear, Inc. v. Adkins (No. 56)

No details yet.

Leary v. United States (No. 65)

No details yet.

Marine Terminals v. Shipping Co. (No. 291)

Did Ohio's criminal syndicalism law, prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?

The Court's Per Curiam opinion held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right to free speech. The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action." The criminal syndicalism act made illegal the advocacy and teaching of doctrines while ignoring whether or not that advocacy and teaching would actually incite imminent lawless action. The failure to make this distinction rendered the law overly broad and in violation of the Constitution.

Mattiello v. Connecticut (No. 150)

No details yet.

Maxwell v. Bishop (No. 13)

No details yet.

Mccarthy v. United States (No. 43)

No details yet.

Mcdonald v. Board Of Election (No. 68)

No details yet.

Mckart v. United States (No. 403)

No details yet.

Montgomery v. Burns (No. 438)

No details yet.

Moore v. Ogilvie (No. 620)

No details yet.

Nacirema Co. v. Johnson (No. 9)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co. (No. 573)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Strong (No. 61)

No details yet.

NLRB v. Wyman-Gordon Co. (No. 463)

No details yet.

North Carolina v. Pearce (No. 413)

No details yet.

Noyd v. Bond (No. 830)

No details yet.

O'callahan v. Parker (No. 646)

No details yet.

Oestereich v. Selective Service Bd. (No. 46)

No details yet.

Orozco v. Texas (No. 641)

No details yet.

Palmieri v. Florida (No. 131)

No details yet.

Perez v. California (No. 39)

No details yet.

Perkins v. Standard Oil Co. (No. 624)

No details yet.

Powell v. McCormack (No. 138)

No details yet.

Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (No. 71)

No details yet.

Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co. (No. 69)

No details yet.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC (No. 2)

No details yet.

Robinson v. Johnson (No. 67)

No details yet.

Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty Co. (No. 436)

No details yet.

Rodriquez v. United States (No. 749)

No details yet.

Samuels v. Mackell (No. 7)

No details yet.

Scofield v. NLRB (No. 273)

No details yet.

SEC v. National Securities, Inc. (No. 41)

No details yet.

Shuttle Corp. v. Transit Comm'n (No. 19)

No details yet.

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (No. 42)

No details yet.

Skinner v. Louisiana (No. 44)

No details yet.

Smith v. Hooey (No. 198)

Did the Georgia statute infringe upon the freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment?

The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime. In his majority opinion, Justice Marshall noted that the rights to receive information and to personal privacy were fundamental to a free society. Marshall then found that "[i]f the First Amendment means anything, it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch. Our whole constitutional heritage rebels at the thought of giving government the power to control men's minds." The Court distinguished between the mere private possession of obscene materials and the production and distribution of such materials. The latter, the Court held, could be regulated by the states.

Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp. (No. 130)

No details yet.

Snyder v. Harris (No. 109)

No details yet.

Spinelli v. United States (No. 8)

No details yet.

Stanley v. Georgia (No. 293)

No details yet.

Street v. New York (No. 5)

No details yet.

Sullivan v. United States (No. 610)

No details yet.

Thorpe v. Housing Authority (No. 20)

No details yet.

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. (No. 21)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Montgomery Bd. Of Educ. (No. 798)

No details yet.

U.S. v. Phosphate Export Assn. (No. 29)

No details yet.

United States v. Augenblick (No. 45)

No details yet.

United States v. Bacto-Unidisk (No. 343)

No details yet.

United States v. Container Corp. (No. 27)

No details yet.

United States v. Covington (No. 366)

No details yet.

United States v. Donruss Co. (No. 17)

No details yet.

United States v. Estate Of Grace (No. 574)

No details yet.

United States v. King (No. 672)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Louisiana (No. 9 ORIG)

No details yet.

United States v. Nardello (No. 51)

No details yet.

United States v. Skelly Oil Co. (No. 280)

No details yet.

United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency (No. 5)

No details yet.

Utah Comm'n v. El Paso Gas Co. (No. 776)

No details yet.

Watts v. United States (No. 1107 MISC)

No details yet.

Wells v. Rockefeller (No. 238)

No details yet.

Whyy v. Glassboro (No. 10)

No details yet.

Williams v. Oklahoma City (No. 841)

No details yet.

Williams v. Rhodes (No. 543)

No details yet.

Willingham v. Morgan (No. 228)

No details yet.

Ymca v. United States (No. 517)

No details yet.

Younger v. Harris (No. 2)

No details yet.

Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine (No. 49)

No details yet.