Cases - 1968 term

United States v. Skelly Oil Co.

Wed, 15 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

280

Petitioner

United States

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Skelly Oil Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 678 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Gaston County v. United States

Wed, 23 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

701

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Gaston County

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 285 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, April 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for United States, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

None

Whyy v. Glassboro

Thu, 17 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Glassboro

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Whyy

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 117 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 17, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Whyy, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Zenith Corp. v. Hazeltine

Wed, 22 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Zenith Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hazeltine

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 100 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 22, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Zenith Corp., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Younger v. Harris

Tue, 01 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

City of Los Angeles Los Angeles, CA

United States

34° 3' 8.0424" N, 118° 14' 37.266" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Harris

Respondent

Younger

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 37 (1971)

Argued

Tuesday, April 1, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 29, 1970, Monday, November 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Advocates

Sam Rosenwein (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Clifford K. Thompson, Jr. (Argued the cause for the appellant on the second reargument)

Albert W. Harris, Jr (Argued the cause for the appellant, Reargued the cause for appellant)

A. L. Wirin (Argued the cause for the appellees)

Facts of the Case

California's Criminal Syndicalism Act prohibited advocating, teaching, or aiding the commission of a crime or unlawful acts of violence or terrorism. John Harris, a socialist, was indicted under the statute. Harris claimed the law had a "chilling effect" on his freedom of speech. After a California state court upheld Harris' conviction, a federal district court struck down the Act because of vagueness and overbreadth.

Question

Did the federal court, in stopping a prosecution in a state court, violate constitutional principles of federalism?

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Younger, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that "settled doctrines" of federalism narrowly confined the availability of injunctive relief against state criminal prosecutions. Specifically, the Court found that a federal court could not properly enjoin enforcement of a statute "solely on the basis of showing that the statute 'on its face' abridges First Amendment rights." The Court referred to "the basic doctrine of equity jurisprudence," under which federal courts were required to show proper respect for state functions and notions of comity.

Davis v. Mississippi

Wed, 26 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

645

Petitioner

Davis

Respondent

Mississippi

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 721 (1969)

Argued

February 26-27, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, April 22, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Davis, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 4: Fourth Amendment

None

United States v. Louisiana

Mon, 14 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

9 ORIG

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Louisiana

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 11 (1969)

Argued

October 14-15, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Submerged Lands Acts

None

Maxwell v. Bishop

Tue, 04 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Maxwell

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Bishop

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1969-1970)

Opinion

398 U.S. 262 (1970)

Argued

Tuesday, March 4, 1969

Reargued:

Monday, May 4, 1970

Decided

Monday, June 1, 1970

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Maxwell, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Johnson v. Bennett

Wed, 13 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Johnson

Respondent

Bennett

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 253 (1968)

Argued

November 13-14, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 16, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Johnson, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Commonwealth Corp. v. Casualty Co.

Tue, 22 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Commonwealth Corp.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Casualty Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 145 (1968)

Argued

Tuesday, October 22, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 18, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Commonwealth Corp., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 9 U.S.C. 10

None

Gardner v. California

Wed, 20 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gardner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

California

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 367 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Gardner, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Allen v. State Board Of Elections

Tue, 15 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Allen et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

State Board Of Elections et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Consolidation

Fairley et al. v. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, et al., No. 25

Bunton et al. v. Patterson, Attorney General of Mississippi, et al., No. 26

Whitley et al. v. Williams, Governor of Mississippi, et al., No. 36

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 544 (1969)

Argued

October 15-16, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Advocates

Norman C. Amaker (for the appellants in No. 3)

Armand Derfner (for the appellants in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Elliott C. Lichtman (appellants the in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

R. D. McIlwaine, III (First Assistant Attorney General of Virginia, for the appellees in No. 3)

William A. Allain (Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, for the appellees in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Will S. Wells (Assistant Attorney General of Mississippi, for the appellees in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Stephen J. Pollak (Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice, as amicus curiae, urging reversal in Nos. 25, 26, and 36)

Facts of the Case

Voters and candidates in Mississippi and Virginia filed four separate cases seeking judgments that certain amendments to their states' election laws and procedures were subject to the pre-approval requirements of section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and hence were not enforceable until the state complied with the requirements. The district courts found that the Voting Rights Act did not apply to the voting changes in the four cases and dismissed the complaints. The voters and candidates filed direct appeals, and the cases were consolidated.

Question

1. May a private litigant bring a suit to determine whether a voting change falls under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act?

2. If so, should these private litigants bring their suits in their local districts (even though certain suits under the Act must be brought in the District of Columbia)?

3. Did Congress intend for these suits to be heard before three-judge district courts with direct appeals to the Supreme Court?

4. Did the statutory and rules changes involved deal with “a voting qualification or prerequisite for voting, or standard, practice or procedure with respect to voting” within the meaning of section 5?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Allen, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Voting Rights Act of 1965

Yes, Yes, Yes. And Yes. The Supreme Court held that § 5 authorized a private right of action based on the remedial aims of the Voting Rights Act. The Court also interpreted the Act to provide that litigants bring these suits in their local district courts, and that three-judge district courts be convened (as was true at that time in constitutional challenges).

As to the substantive issue in the case, Chief Justice Earl Warren explained that the Voting Rights Act was "aimed at the subtle, as well as the obvious, state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of their race." Therefore, the Court concluded that Congress intended that "all changes, no matter how small, be subjected to §5 scrutiny." The judgments were reversed, and all four cases were remanded to the district courts with instructions to issue injunctions restraining further enforcement of the enactments until such time as the states adequately demonstrated compliance with the approval requirements of the Act.

Justice John Marshall Harlan II, concurring in part and dissenting in part, argued that the language of § 5 referred only to laws by which voters registered to vote and had their ballots counted, and he therefore agreed that several of the disputed voting changes at issue were covered by the Act but disagreed as to several others. Justice Hugo Black dissented on the ground that § 5, in his view, is unconstitutional.

Mckart v. United States

Thu, 27 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

403

Petitioner

Mckart

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 185 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Mckart, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Kramer v. Caribbean Mills

Thu, 23 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

156

Petitioner

Kramer

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Caribbean Mills

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 823 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 23, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Caribbean Mills, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 28 U.S.C. 1359

None

Jenkins v. Mckeithen

Tue, 25 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

548

Appellee

Mckeithen

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Jenkins

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 411 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Jenkins, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Red Lion Broadcasting Co.v. FCC

Wed, 02 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Red Lion Broadcasting

2900 Windsor Rd. Red Lion PA 17356

Red Lion, PA 17356

United States

39° 54' 12.7476" N, 76° 34' 51.294" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Red Lion Broadcasting Co.

Respondent

FCC

Consolidation

No. 717

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 367 (1969)

Argued

April 2-3, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Advocates

Archibald Cox (Argued the cause for the respondents in US v. Radio TV News Directors Assn)

Roger Robb (Argued the cause for the petitioners, Red Lion Broadcasting)

Erwin N. Griswold (Argued the cause for the United States as petitioner in US v. Radio TV News Directors Assn and the FCC as respondent in Red Lion)

Facts of the Case

The Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) fairness doctrine requires radio and television broadcasters to present a balanced and fair discussion of public issues on the airwaves. The doctrine is composed of two primary requirements concerning personal attacks in the context of public issue debates and political editorializing. The FCC conditioned its renewal of broadcast licenses on compliance with its regulations. Red Lion Broadcasting challenged the application of the fairness doctrine with respect to a particular broadcast. In a companion case (United States v. Radio Television News Directors Association (RTNDA)), the fairness doctrine's requirements concerning any broadcast were challenged.

Question

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?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for , 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

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.

Montgomery v. Burns

Thu, 17 May 2012 14:52:32 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

438

Appellee

Burns

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Montgomery

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 848 (1969)

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Burns, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Boyle v. Landry

Mon, 24 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellant

Boyle et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Lawrence Landry et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 77 (1971)

Argued

Monday, March 24, 1969

Reargued:

Wednesday, April 29, 1970, Monday, November 16, 1970

Decided

Tuesday, February 23, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Boyle, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Railroad Trainmen v. Terminal Co.

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Railroad Trainmen

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Terminal Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 369 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for Railroad Trainmen, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

U.S. v. Phosphate Export Assn.

Thu, 24 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Phosphate Export Assn.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

U.S.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 199 (1968)

Argued

Thursday, October 24, 1968

Decided

Monday, November 25, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for U.S., 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 15 U.S.C. 62

None

Gregg v. United States

Tue, 25 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

453

Petitioner

Gregg

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 489 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, February 25, 1969

Decided

Wednesday, April 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (or relevant rules of a circuit court)

None

United States v. Nardello

Tue, 12 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Nardello

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

United States

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 286 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 18 U.S.C. 1952

None

Carroll v. Princess Anne

Mon, 21 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Carroll

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Princess Anne

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 175 (1968)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, November 19, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Carroll, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

United States v. U.S. Coin & Currency

Tue, 25 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

U.S. Coin & Currency

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Burger Court (1970-1971)

Opinion

401 U.S. 715 (1971)

Argued

February 25-26, 1969

Reargued:

Tuesday, October 20, 1970

Decided

Monday, April 5, 1971

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for U.S. Coin & Currency, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: retroactive application of a constitutional right

None

NLRB v. Strong

Tue, 10 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

National Labor Relations Board

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Strong

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 357 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1968

Decided

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for NLRB, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: National Labor Relations, as amended

None

Duvernay v. United States

Thu, 27 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

814

Petitioner

Duvernay

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 309 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, February 27, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 24, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 4 votes for United States, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Selective Service, Military Selective Service, or Universal Military Service and Training Acts

None

Boykin v. Alabama

Tue, 04 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

642

Petitioner

Boykin

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Alabama

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 238 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, March 4, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Boykin, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Ymca v. United States

Mon, 03 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

517

Petitioner

Ymca

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

United States

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 85 (1969)

Argued

Monday, March 3, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Takings Clause

None

Street v. New York

Mon, 21 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

New York

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Street

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 576 (1969)

Argued

Monday, October 21, 1968

Decided

Monday, April 21, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Street, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Stanley v. Georgia

Tue, 14 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Stanley's Home

"280 Springside Drive**** S.E." Atlanta GA 30354

Atlanta, GA 30354

United States

33° 40' 38.4312" N, 84° 22' 48.0324" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

293

Petitioner

Georgia

Respondent

Stanley

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 557 (1969)

Argued

January 14-15, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1969

Advocates

J. Robert Sparks (Argued the cause for the appellee)

Wesley R. Asinof (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

Law enforcement officers, under the authority of a warrant, searched Stanley's home pursuant to an investigation of his alleged bookmaking activities. During the search, the officers found three reels of eight-millimeter film. The officers viewed the films, concluded they were obscene, and seized them. Stanley was then tried and convicted under a Georgia law prohibiting the possession of obscene materials.

Question

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

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Stanley, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

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.

Robinson v. Johnson

Thu, 17 May 2012 14:52:33 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Appellee

Johnson

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Robinson

Respondent Type

Appellant

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 847 (1969)

Decided

Monday, May 5, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Johnson, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Gregory v. Chicago

Tue, 10 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Gregory

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Chicago

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 111 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Gregory, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Due Process

None

Citizen Publishing Co. v. U.S.

Wed, 15 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

243

Appellee

U.S.

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Citizen Publishing Co.

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 131 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, January 15, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for U.S., 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Sherman

None

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.

Tue, 12 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Location

Des Moines Independent Community School District

1801 16th Street Des Moines IA 50314

Des Moines, IA 50314

United States

41° 36' 41.8212" N, 93° 38' 17.5452" W

See map: Google Maps

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Tinker

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, November 12, 1968

Decided

Monday, February 24, 1969

Advocates

Allan A. Herrick (Argued the cause for the respondents)

Dan L. Johnston (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

John Tinker, 15 years old, his sister Mary Beth Tinker, 13 years old, and Christopher Echardt, 16 years old, decided along with their parents to protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to their Des Moines schools during the Christmas holiday season. Upon learning of their intentions, and fearing that the armbands would provoke disturbances, the principals of the Des Moines school district resolved that all students wearing armbands be asked to remove them or face suspension. When the Tinker siblings and Christopher wore their armbands to school, they were asked to remove them. When they refused, they were suspended until after New Year's Day.

Question

Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Tinker, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

The wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment. School environments imply limitations on free expression, but here the principals lacked justification for imposing any such limits.The principals had failed to show that the forbidden conduct would substantially interfere with appropriate school discipline.

United States v. Donruss Co.

Tue, 22 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

United States

Respondent

Donruss Co.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 297 (1969)

Argued

October 22-23, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for United States, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Internal Revenue Code

None

Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham

Mon, 18 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Shuttlesworth

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Birmingham

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 147 (1969)

Argued

Monday, November 18, 1968

Decided

Monday, March 10, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Shuttlesworth, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Amendment 1: Speech, Press, and Assembly

None

Golden v. Zwickler

Thu, 16 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

370

Appellee

Zwickler

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Golden

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 103 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Golden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

Thorpe v. Housing Authority

Wed, 23 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Thorpe

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Housing Authority

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 268 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, October 23, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 13, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Thorpe, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None

North Carolina v. Pearce

Mon, 24 Feb 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

413

Petitioner

North Carolina

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Pearce

Respondent Type

Respondent

Consolidation

No. 418

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 711 (1969)

Argued

Monday, February 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 23, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Pearce, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Double Jeopardy

None

Daniel v. Paul

Mon, 24 Mar 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

488

Petitioner

Daniel

Respondent

Paul

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 298 (1969)

Argued

March 24-25, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 2, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Daniel, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II

None

Wells v. Rockefeller

Mon, 13 Jan 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

238

Appellee

Rockefeller

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Wells

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 542 (1969)

Argued

Monday, January 13, 1969

Decided

Monday, April 7, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Wells, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Composition of the House of Representatives

None

Palmieri v. Florida

Wed, 20 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

131

Petitioner

Palmieri

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Florida

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 218 (1968)

Argued

Wednesday, November 20, 1968

Decided

Monday, December 9, 1968

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Florida, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Hadnott v. Amos

Fri, 18 Oct 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

647

Appellant

Sallie M. Hadnott, et al.

Petitioner Type

Appellant

Appellee

Mabel S. Amos, et al.

Respondent Type

Appellee

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 358 (1969)

Argued

Friday, October 18, 1968, Tuesday, January 21, 1969

Decided

Tuesday, March 25, 1969

Advocates

Charles Morgan, Jr. (for the appellant)

L. Drew Redden (Special Assistant Attorney General of Alabama, for the appellees)

Louis Claiborne (for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal)

Facts of the Case

The National Democratic Party of Alabama (NDPA) sought to place the names of minority candidates on the ballot for local and state-wide offices. Alabama election officials denied the NDPA request under the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act. The NDPA then brought suit in a special three-judge U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama claiming constitutional violations. NDPA lost and appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Initially, the Court heard arguments on October 18 in support of a temporary restraining order which it had granted on October 14. The day after oral argument, the Court granted the order and subsequently addressed the merits of the controversy on March 25.

Question

Does the application of the Alabama Corrupt Practices Act (1) violate the Fifteenth Amendment provides guaranteeing the right to vote and (2) violate the First Amendment's right to band together to advance political beliefs?

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Hadnott, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Yes and yes. In an opinion authored by Justice William O. Douglas, the Court acknowledged that "the regulation of corrupt practices in state and federal elections is an important governmental function, [but] we refuse to accept a reading of an Act which gives such a loose meaning to words and such discretionary authority to election officials as to cause Fifteenth and First Amendment rights to be subject to disparate treatment."

Justice Byron R. White, joined by Justice Potter Stewart, dissented in part, arguing that the district court should have had the opportunity to rule on the constitutionality of the Corrupt Practices Act.

Justice Hugo L. Black took no part in the consideration or decision in this case.

Skinner v. Louisiana

Tue, 10 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Skinner

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Louisiana

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 473 (1969)

Argued

Tuesday, December 10, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Louisiana, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Writ Improvidently Granted

None

Crane v. Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co.

Thu, 24 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

791

Petitioner

Crane

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 164 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, April 24, 1969

Decided

Monday, May 26, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for Cedar Rapids & I. C. R. Co., 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: 45 U.S.C. 2

None

Glover v. St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.

Thu, 14 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Glover

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

St. Louis-S. F. R. Co.

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 324 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, November 14, 1968

Decided

Tuesday, January 14, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Glover, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Abstention Doctrine

None

Smith v. Hooey

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

198

Petitioner

Smith

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Hooey

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 374 (1969)

Argued

Wednesday, December 11, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 20, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Smith, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Speedy Trial

None

Williams v. Oklahoma City

Tue, 01 Apr 1969 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

841

Petitioner

Williams

Respondent

Oklahoma City

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 458 (1969)

Argued

April 1-2, 1969

Decided

Monday, June 9, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Williams, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

None

Leary v. United States

Wed, 11 Dec 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Leary

Respondent

United States

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

395 U.S. 6 (1969)

Argued

December 11-12, 1968

Decided

Monday, May 19, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for Leary, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Self-Incrimination

None

SEC v. National Securities, Inc.

Mon, 18 Nov 1968 13:00:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

Petitioner

Securities and Exchange Commission

Respondent

National Securities, Inc.

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

393 U.S. 453 (1969)

Argued

November 18-19, 1968

Decided

Monday, January 27, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 8 votes for SEC, 1 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Securities Act of 1933, the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Williams Act

None