The Oyez Project: First Amendment Issues - Miscellaneous Arguments

Airport Commissioners v. Jews for Jesus - Oral Argument

Tue, 03 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

The Board of Airport Commissioners of Los Angeles adopted an ordinance which prohibited all "First Amendment activities" in the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX). Alan Snyder, a minister with Jews for Jesus, was instructed by an airport officer to refrain from distributing free religious literature on a walkway in the central terminal of LAX.

Arcara v. Cloud Books, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Apr 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Arkansas Ed. Television Comm. v. Forbes - Oral Argument

Wed, 08 Oct 1997 12:00:00 -0500

During the 1992 race for Arkansas' Third Congressional District, the Arkansas Educational Television Commission (AETC) -- a state-owned public television broadcaster -- sponsored a debate between the major party candidates. Running as an independent candidate with little popular support, Ralph Forbes sought to participate in the debate but was denied permission. After unsuccessfully challenging AETC's refusal in district court, Forbes appealed and won a reversal. AETC then appealed and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Beard v. Banks - Oral Argument

Mon, 27 Mar 2006 12:00:00 -0500

Pennsylvania houses "incorrigible, recalcitrant" prisoners in the Long Term Segregation Unit (LTSU). Ronald Banks was one of about 40 prisoners in level 2 of the LTSU, which is reserved for the most dangerous, worst-behaved inmates. It is the policy of the LTSU to impose severe restrictions on the privileges of level 2 inmates. In particular, level 2 prisoners are the only ones denied newspapers, magazines, and photographs. Beard, the Secretary of the PA Department of Corrections, argued that this policy was necessary to promote rehabilitation and ensure prison safety. Banks brought a suit challenging the policy as a violation of the First Amendment. On the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge, the District Court ruled in favor of Beard. On appeal, however, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The Circuit Court found that the prison's policy failed to meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley. The Third Circuit held that the First Amendment rights of the prisoners took precedence, because the policy was unrelated to the goal of rehabilitation, and an ineffective method of increasing prison safety.

Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Mar 1986 12:00:00 -0500

At a school assembly of approximately 600 high school students, Matthew Fraser made a speech nominating a fellow student for elective office. In his speech, Fraser used what some observers believed was a graphic sexual metaphor to promote the candidacy of his friend. As part of its disciplinary code, Bethel High School enforced a rule prohibiting conduct which "substantially interferes with the educational process . . . including the use of obscene, profane language or gestures." Fraser was suspended from school for two days.

Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr - Oral Argument

Tue, 28 Nov 1995 12:00:00 -0500

Umbehr was an independent trash-hauling contractor for Wabaunsee County, Kansas. He frequently criticized the County's Board of Commissioners (the Board). When the Board voted to terminate his contract, supposedly because the Board grew tired of his constant criticisms, Umbehr filed suit against two of the Board's members. Umbehr alleged that his termination resulted from his criticisms of the Board and, therefore, infringed on his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. On appeal from the District Court's grant of summary judgment to the Board, the Tenth Circuit reversed and the Supreme Court granted Umbehr's petition for certiorari.

Board Of Ed. v. National Gay Task Force - Oral Argument

Mon, 14 Jan 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Board Of Education v. Pico - Oral Argument

Tue, 02 Mar 1982 12:00:00 -0500

The Island Trees Union Free School District's Board of Education (the "Board"), acting contrary to the recommendations of a committee of parents and school staff, ordered that certain books be removed from its district's junior high and high school libraries. In support of its actions, the Board said such books were: "anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy." Acting through his friend Francis Pico, and on behalf of several other students, Steven Pico brought suit in federal district court challenging the Board's decision to remove the books. The Board won; the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. The Board petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.

Board of Regents Univ. Wisc. v. Southworth - Oral Argument

Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:00:00 -0500

The University of Wisconsin, a public university, requires students to pay an activity fee. The fee supports various campus services and extracurricular student activities including the Future Financial Gurus of America; the International Socialist Organization; the College Democrats and Republicans; and the American Civil Liberties Union Campus Chapter. Scott Harold Southworth filed suit against the University, alleging that the fee violated his rights of free speech, free association, and free exercise under the First Amendment. Southworth argued that the University must grant him the choice not to fund registered student organizations (RSO) that engage in political and ideological expression offensive to his personal beliefs. In granting Southworth judgment, the Federal District Court concluded that the fee program compelled students to support political and ideological activities with which they disagree in violation of their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and association. The court declared the fee program invalid and enjoined the University from using the fees to fund any RSO engaging in political or ideological speech. In affirming, the Court of Appeals concluded that the fee program was "not germane to the University's mission, did not further a vital University policy, and imposed too much of a burden on [Southworth's] free speech rights."

Brandenburg v. Ohio - Oral Argument

Thu, 27 Feb 1969 12:00:00 -0500

Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism."

Branzburg v. Hayes - Oral Argument

Wed, 23 Feb 1972 12:00:00 -0500

After observing and interviewing a number of people synthesizing and using drugs in a two-county area in Kentucky, Branzburg, a reporter, wrote a story which appeared in a Louisville newspaper. On two occasions he was called to testify before state grand juries which were investigating drug crimes. Branzburg refused to testify and potentially disclose the identities of his confidential sources. Similarly, in the companion cases of In re Pappas and United States v. Caldwell, two different reporters, each covering activity within the Black Panther organization, were called to testify before grand juries and reveal trusted information. Like Branzburg, both Pappas and Caldwell refused to appear before their respective grand juries.

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation Inc. - Oral Argument

Wed, 14 Oct 1998 12:00:00 -0500

Colorado practices an initiative-petition process in which citizens can make laws directly through balloting initiatives. Acting on behalf of ballot petitioners, the American Constitutional Law Foundation (Foundation) challenged the constitutionality of six limitations imposed by Colorado on the petitioning process. After mixed rulings in both trial and appellate courts, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review three of the six original restrictions. The first required petition circulators to be registered voters. The second required them to wear identification badges with their names, status as "volunteer" or "paid," and if the latter then their employer's phone number. The third required initiative proponents to report names, addresses, and registration voting counties for all paid circulators, as well as salary per petition signature, and each circulator's total salary. Proponents also had to report, on a monthly basis, all proponent names, names and addresses of circulators, circulators' monthly salary and debt totals, and the name of each proposed ballot measure.

Burson v. Freeman - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500

Freeman, a Tennessee political campaign treasurer, challenged the constitutionality of the Tennessee Code forbidding the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of entrances to polling facilities. On appeal from a lower court's dismissal, the Tennessee Supreme Court reversed, finding that the 100-foot ban was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court granted Burson certiorari.

Butterworth v. Smith - Oral Argument

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

City Council v. Taxpayers For Vincent - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing - Oral Argument

Wed, 04 Nov 1987 12:00:00 -0500

Plain Dealer Publishing challenged the constitutionality of a Lakewood city ordinance that authorized its mayor to grant or deny applications, made by publishers, seeking permission to place newsracks on public property. The ordinance merely required Lakewood's mayor to provide an explanation, in the event of a permit denial, while empowering him to subject all permit approvals to whatever "terms and conditions" which he "deemed necessary and reasonable." On appeal from a district court ruling that found the ordinance constitutional, the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court granted Lakewood's request for certiorari.

Clingman v. Beaver - Oral Argument

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 12:00:00 -0500

Oklahoma's election laws created a primary system in which a party could invite only its own members and Independents to vote in its primary. The Libertarian Party and voters registered in other parties argued the laws violated the First Amendment freedoms of expression and association by preventing the Libertarian Party from inviting members of other parties to vote in its primary elections. The district court ruled for Oklahoma. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and ruled Oklahoma's election laws violated the First Amendment.

Cohen v. Cowles Media Co. - Oral Argument

Wed, 27 Mar 1991 12:00:00 -0500

Cohen was a campaign associate in the 1982 Minnesota gubernatorial race. He gave court records concerning another party's candidate for lieutenant governor to the St. Paul Pioneer Press and the Minneapolis Star and Tribune. Though he had received a promise of confidentiality from the reporters, the papers identified Cohen in their stories. He was fired as a result. Cohen sued the papers in state court, alleging a breach of contract. At trial, Cohen won compensatory damages and the state appellate court upheld the award. But the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Cohen's claim relied on state "promissory estoppel" law, a law that essentially prevented a promisor from breaking a promise. The court ruled that the First Amendment's free press guarantee prevented promissory estoppel from applying to the newspapers.

Connick v. Myers - Oral Argument

Mon, 08 Nov 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund - Oral Argument

Tue, 19 Feb 1985 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Dallas v. Stanglin - Oral Argument

Wed, 01 Mar 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Dawson v. Delaware - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Nov 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Democratic Party Of U.S. v. Wisconsin - Oral Argument

Mon, 08 Dec 1980 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Denver Area Consortium v. FCC - Oral Argument

Wed, 21 Feb 1996 12:00:00 -0500

Sections 10(a) and 10(c) of the 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act (the Act) empower leased access channel cable operators to control programming that they believe is indecent and obscene. Section 10(b) of the Act requires public access channel cable operators to restrict "patently offensive" programming to a single channel, access to which must be restricted to those subscribers who submit written requests. Petitioners, television access programmers and cable television viewers, filed suit alleging that the Act's empowerments and restrictions violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. This case was consolidated with Alliance for Community Media v. FCC.

Eu v. San Francisco Democratic Comm. - Oral Argument

Mon, 05 Dec 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

FCC v. League of Women Voters of California - Oral Argument

Mon, 16 Jan 1984 12:00:00 -0500

The Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 allocated federal funds to noncommercial television and radio stations to support operations and educational programming. The act did not allow stations receiving money under the act to "engage in editorializing."

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Apr 1978 12:00:00 -0500

During a mid-afternoon weekly broadcast, a New York radio station aired George Carlin's monologue, "Filthy Words." Carlin spoke of the words that could not be said on the public airwaves. His list included shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. The station warned listeners that the monologue included "sensitive language which might be regarded as offensive to some." The FCC received a complaint from a man who stated that he had heard the broadcast while driving with his young son.

Forsyth County, Georgia v. Nationalist Movement - Oral Argument

Tue, 31 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Freedman v. Maryland - Oral Argument

Thu, 19 Nov 1964 12:00:00 -0500

Maryland required that all films be submitted to a board of censors before being exhibited. The board could disapprove films that were obscene, debased or corrupted morals, or tended to incite crime. There was no time limit on the decision-making process. Ronald Freedman challenged the law as unconstitutional due to the procedures to obtain approval. He did not suggest that prior approval itself was unconstitutional.

Frisby v. Schultz - Oral Argument

Wed, 20 Apr 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas - Oral Argument

Wed, 04 Oct 1989 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Garcetti v. Ceballos - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Oct 2005 12:00:00 -0500

Richard Ceballos, an employee of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office, found that a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant affidavit. Ceballos notified the attorneys prosecuting the case stemming from that arrest and all agreed that the affidavit was questionable, but the D.A.'s office refused to dismiss the case. Ceballos then told the defense he believed the affidavit contained false statements, and defense counsel subpoenaed him to testify. Seeking damages in federal district court, Ceballos alleged that D.A.s in the office retaliated against him for his cooperation with the defense, which he argued was protected by the First Amendment. The district court ruled that the district attorneys were protected by qualified immunity, but the Ninth Circuit reversed and ruled for Ceballos, holding that qualified immunity was not available to the defendants because Ceballos had been engaged in speech that addressed matters of public concern and was thus protected by the First Amendment.

Garcetti v. Ceballos - Oral Reargument

Tue, 21 Mar 2006 12:00:00 -0500

Gentile v. State Bar Of Nevada - Oral Argument

Mon, 15 Apr 1991 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court - Oral Argument

Mon, 29 Mar 1982 12:00:00 -0500

A Massachusetts law required trial courts to exclude members of the press and public from certain cases involving sexual offenses and testimony of victims less than eighteen years old. In a trial involving a male who was accused of raping three minors, the court, acting in reference to the Massachusetts statute, conducted a closed trial.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School - Oral Argument

Wed, 28 Feb 2001 12:00:00 -0500

Under New York law, Milford Central School policy authorizes district residents to use its building after school for certain activities. Stephen and Darleen Fournier were district residents eligible to use the school's facilities. They sought approval of their proposed use and sponsorship of the Good News Club, a private Christian organization for children. The Fourniers submitted a request to hold the Club's weekly afterschool meetings at the school. Milford denied the request reasoning that the proposed use, including singing songs, hearing Bible lessons, memorizing scripture, and praying, was the equivalent of religious worship prohibited by the community use policy. The Club filed suit alleging that the denial violated its free speech rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Ultimately, the District Court granted Milford summary judgment. In affirming, the Court of Appeals held that because the subject matter of the Club's was "quintessentially religious", and the activities "fall outside the bounds of pure 'moral and character development,'" Milford's policy of excluding the Club's meetings was constitutional subject discrimination, not unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination.

Gravel v. United States - Oral Argument, Part 1

Wed, 19 Apr 1972 12:00:00 -0500

In 1971, Senator Mike Gravel received a copy of the Pentagon Papers: a set of classified documents concerning U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war. Gravel then introduced the study, in its entirety, into the record of a Senate Subcommittee meeting. Gravel also arranged for the private publication of the papers by the Beacon Press. A federal grand jury subpoenaed Leonard Rodberg, one of Gravel's aides, to testify about his role in the acquisition and publication of the papers.

Gravel v. United States - Oral Argument, Part 2

Wed, 19 Apr 1972 12:00:00 -0500

Greer v. Spock - Oral Argument

Wed, 05 Nov 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hartman v. Moore - Oral Argument

Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:00:00 -0500

William Moore sued six postal inspectors in federal court, alleging that they had brought criminal charges against him in retaliation for lobbying efforts he undertook on behalf of his company. The inspectors claimed that they had qualified immunity (that is, because they filed the charges in their official capacity on good faith, they could not be sued) and also that the case should be dismissed because they had probable cause to charge Moore. The district court sided with Moore, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia agreed, finding that, even with probable cause, they must show that that the prosecution was not motivated by a desire for retaliation.

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - Oral Argument

Tue, 13 Oct 1987 12:00:00 -0500

The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate, and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court.

Houchins v. KQED Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Nov 1977 12:00:00 -0500

KQED Inc., owner of a number of licensed television and radio broadcasting stations, requested permission to inspect and take pictures of the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita. KQED sought to investigate a recent suicide that had occurred at the facility. Houchins, the Sheriff of Alameda County, denied access to the media.

Hudgens v. NLRB - Oral Argument

Tue, 14 Oct 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Hynes v. Mayor Of Oradell - Oral Argument

Wed, 10 Dec 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

In re Pappas - Oral Argument

Wed, 23 Feb 1972 12:00:00 -0500

Pappas, a television newsman and photographer working out of a Providence RI office of a New Bedford MA television station, was called to New Bedford to report on civil disorders involving fires and other turmoil. Pappas intended to cover a Black Panther news conference. Pappas was admitted inside the Panther headquarters after agreeing that he would not disclose anything he saw or heard. Pappas stayed for three hours. He did not write a story based on his experience. Pappas was later summoned before a grand jury but he refused to answer questions about events that took place inside Panther headquarters.

Int. Society for Krishna Consciousness v. Lee - Oral Argument

Wed, 25 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500

New York City's airport authority banned repetitive solicitation of money within airline terminals. Solicitation was permitted outside the terminals. The International Society for Krishna Consciousness solicits funds in public places. It challenged the regulation. A federal district court granted an injunction against the airport authority. The authority appealed.

Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union - Oral Argument

Tue, 19 Apr 1977 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Keller v. State Bar of California - Oral Argument

Tue, 27 Feb 1990 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Kelley v. Johnson - Oral Argument

Mon, 08 Dec 1975 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Ladue v. Gilleo - Oral Argument

Wed, 23 Feb 1994 12:00:00 -0500

Margaret Gilleo placed a 24-by-36-inch sign calling for peace in the Persian Gulf on her front lawn. The original sign disappeared and a subsequent sign was knocked down. She reported these incidents to the police who advised her that such signs were prohibited in Ladue. She sued the city and the District Court ordered a preliminary injunction. Ladue repealed the law and replaced it with a new one which also banned window signs. Gilleo then placed another anti-war sign in her second-story window and amended her complaint to challenge the new ordinance.

Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia - Oral Argument

Wed, 11 Jan 1978 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Leathers v. Medlock - Oral Argument

Wed, 09 Jan 1991 12:00:00 -0500

In 1987, Arkansas amended its Gross Receipts Act (GRA), imposing a tax on cable television but not on print media. Cable companies and others filed suit in the State Chancery Court, alleging that taxing cable services, but not print and satellite broadcast services, violated their First Amendment expressive rights and 14th Amendment equal protection rights. In 1989, after the Chancery Court upheld the amendment, Arkansas again amended the GRA, extending the tax to satellite broadcast services. On appeal, the State Supreme Court upheld the GRA. However, the court ruled that the First Amendment prohibits differential taxation among members of the same medium. Therefore, because cable and scrambled satellite television services are essentially the same, the tax was unconstitutional when it applied only to cable services.

Lebron v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Nov 1994 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Lee v. Int. Soc. for Krishna Consciousness - Oral Argument

Wed, 25 Mar 1992 12:00:00 -0500

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey banned the distribution of flyers, brochures, pamphlets and other printed material at its airport terminals. Members of a religious group wanted to perform a ritual involving the distibution of literature at these airports. The group challenged the regulation on free expression and and free exercise grounds of the First Amendment.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez - Oral Argument

Wed, 04 Oct 2000 12:00:00 -0500

The Legal Services Corporation Act authorizes the Legal Services Corporation (LSC) to distribute funds, appropriated by Congress, to local grantee organizations, which provide free legal assistance to indigent clients in welfare benefits claims. The Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 prohibited the LSC from funding any organization that represented clients in an effort to amend or challenge existing welfare law, among other things. The prohibition was such that grantees could not continue representation in a welfare matter even where a constitutional or statutory validity challenge became apparent after representation was well under way. LSC grantee lawyers and others filed suit to have the restriction declared unconstitutional. The District Court denied a preliminary injunction. However, the Court of Appeals invalidated the restriction, concluding that it was impermissible viewpoint discrimination that violated the First Amendment.

Los Angeles v. Preferred Communications, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 29 Apr 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Mar 2003 12:00:00 -0500

VietNow National Headquarters, a charitable nonprofit corporation, retained for-profit fundraising telemarketing corporations to solicit donations to aid Vietnam veterans. The contracts provided that the telemarketers would retain 85 percent of the gross receipts from Illinois donors. The Illinois Attorney General filed a complaint in state court, alleging that the telemarketers represented to donors that a significant amount of each dollar donated would be paid over to VietNow for charitable endeavors and that such representations were knowingly deceptive and materially false and constituted a fraud. The trial court granted the telemarketers' motion to dismiss on First Amendment grounds. In affirming, the Illinois Supreme Courts relied on U.S. Supreme Court precedent that held that certain regulations of charitable solicitation barring fees in excess of a prescribed level effectively imposed prior restraints on fundraising and were therefore incompatible with the First Amendment.

Madison Sch. Dist. v. Wisconsin Emp. Rel. Comm'n - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Oct 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Oct 1994 12:00:00 -0500

On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre distributed leaflets to persons attending a public meeting in Ohio expressing her opposition to a proposed school tax levy. Though they were independently produced, she signed them as the views of "Concerned Parents and Tax Payers." Mrs. McIntyre was subsequently fined $100 for violating Section 3599.09(A) of the Ohio Elections Commission Code prohibiting the distribution of campaign literature that does not contain the name and address of the person or campaign official issuing the literature.

Meese v. Keene - Oral Argument

Tue, 02 Dec 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Meyer v. Grant - Oral Argument

Mon, 25 Apr 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Minnesota Bd. For Community Colleges v. Knight - Oral Argument

Tue, 01 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Mt. Healthy City Board Of Ed. v. Doyle - Oral Argument

Wed, 03 Nov 1976 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

NAACP v. Button - Oral Argument

Wed, 08 Nov 1961 12:00:00 -0500

The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute which banned "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business."

NAACP v. Button - Oral Reargument

Tue, 09 Oct 1962 12:00:00 -0500

The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia statute which banned "the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business."

National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley - Oral Argument

Tue, 31 Mar 1998 12:00:00 -0500

The National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act entrusts the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) with discretion to award financial grants to the arts. The NEA's broad decision guidelines are: "artistic and cultural significance," with emphasis on "creativity and cultural diversity professional excellence," and the encouragement of "public education and appreciation of the arts." In 1990, Congress amended the criteria by requiring the NEA to consider "artistic excellence and artistic merit taking into consideration general standards of decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public." After suffering a funding rejection, Karen Finely, along with three other performance artists and the National Association of Artists' Organizations, challenged the NEA's amended statutory review proceedings as unconstitutionally vague and discriminatory. After consecutive district and appellate court rulings in favor of Finley, the Supreme Court granted the NEA certiorari.

Nebraska Press Assoc. v. Stuart - Oral Argument

Mon, 19 Apr 1976 12:00:00 -0500

A Nebraska state trial judge, presiding over a widely publicized murder trial, entered an order restraining members of the press from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions made by the accused to the police. The judge felt that this measure was necessary to guarantee a fair trial to the accused.

New York Times v. United States - Oral Argument

Sat, 26 Jun 1971 12:00:00 -0500

In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. The President argued that prior restraint was necessary to protect national security. This case was decided together with United States v. Washington Post Co.

O'Hare Truck Service v. Northlake - Oral Argument

Wed, 20 Mar 1996 12:00:00 -0500

O'Hare Truck Service was one among several towing companies employed by the city of Northlake. Northlake kept a list of available towing companies and would only remove a company from its list after a showing of cause. In the present case, however, Northlake removed O'Hare Truck Service from its list because O'Hare's owner did not support Northlake's mayoral candidate in his reelection campaign. Instead, O'Hare's owner supported the opposition candidate. Upon removal from Northlake's employment list, O'Hare Truck Service filed suit alleging that its dismissal was a retaliation for its lack of support for Northlake's mayoral candidate. The dismissal was the cause of substantial loss in income. On appeal from the District Court's dismissal for failure to state a First Amendment violation, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Overton v. Bazzetta - Oral Argument

Wed, 26 Mar 2003 12:00:00 -0500

In 1995, after the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) banned visits to inmates by little brothers and sisters, nieces, nephews and other minors, a group of prisoners sued. They claimed that the ban violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and that it restricted their First Amendment right to association. The district court agreed, ruling against the ban. On appeal, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the district court's ruling.

Perry Ed. Assn. v. Perry Local Educators' Assn. - Oral Argument

Wed, 13 Oct 1982 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court - Oral Argument

Wed, 26 Feb 1986 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court Of Cal. - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Rankin v. McPherson - Oral Argument

Mon, 23 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

Ardith McPherson was a clerical employee in the Harris County, Texas constable's office. After hearing on the office radio that there had been an attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan, McPherson, who thought she was alone with one other office worker, stated "if they go for him again, I hope they get him." Another co-worker overheard the comment and reported it to the Constable, Walter H. Rankin. Rankin subsequently fired McPherson.

Regan v. Taxation With Representation Of Wash. - Oral Argument

Tue, 22 Mar 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Regan v. Time, Inc. - Oral Argument

Wed, 09 Nov 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Republican Party of Minnesota v. White - Oral Argument

Tue, 26 Mar 2002 12:00:00 -0500

Minnesota's Constitution provides for the selection of all state judges by popular election. The announcement clause of the Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibits a candidate from announcing his or her views on disputed legal or political issues. While running for associate justice of the Minnesota Supreme Court, Gregory Wersal filed suit, seeking a declaration that the announce clause violates the First Amendment and an injunction against its enforcement. Wersal alleged that he was forced to refrain from announcing his views on disputed issues during the 1998 campaign, to the point where he declined response to questions put to him by the press and public, out of concern that he might run afoul of the announce clause. The District Court found that the announcement clause did not violate the First Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Virginia - Oral Argument

Tue, 19 Feb 1980 12:00:00 -0500

After a series of mistrials in a murder case in the state of Virginia, a trial judge closed the trial to the public and the media. Defense counsel brought the closure motion; the prosecution did not object. Two reporters of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. challenged the judge's action.

Riley v. National Federation Of Blind - Oral Argument

Wed, 23 Mar 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Rotary Int. v. Rotary Club - Oral Argument

Mon, 30 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

When the Duarte chapter of Rotary International violated club policy by admitting three women into its active membership its charter was revoked and it was expelled. The California Court of Appeals, however, in reversing a lower court decision, found that Rotary International's action violated a California civil rights act prohibiting sexual discrimination.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights (FAIR) - Oral Argument

Tue, 06 Dec 2005 12:00:00 -0500

The Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. 983(b)(1), withholds some federal funding from colleges and universities that deny U.S. military recruiters the same access to students that other employers are given. The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights challenged the law, arguing that it violated the schools' First Amendment rights to expressive association by requiring them to assist in military recruitment. The district court rejected the suit, but a Third Court of Appeals panel reversed. It held that, while the schools still had the right to forfeit funds so as to avoid unwanted endorsement of military policy under the amendment, forcing the schools to make such a decision was unconstitutional. Congress could not require them to forfeit a constitutional right in order to receive federal funds.

Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois - Oral Argument

Tue, 16 Jan 1990 12:00:00 -0500

In November 1980, Governor James Thompson of Illinois issued an order that prohibited state officials from hiring new employees, promoting state employees, or recalling state employees after layoffs without the approval of the Governor's Office of Personnel. The Office of Personnel based hiring and promotion decisions on factors such as the applicant's contributions to the Republican Party, the applicant's record of service to the Republican Party, and the support of local Party officials. In the jointly decided case of Frech v. Rutan, Cynthia B. Rutan and a number of other potential and current state employees challenged this patronage system, alleging that the Governor was violating their First Amendment rights by practicing unfair political patronage and party-based discrimination.

San Francisco Arts & Athletics v. US Olympic Committee - Oral Argument

Tue, 24 Mar 1987 12:00:00 -0500

Currently unavailable.

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Feb 1984 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Secretary Of State Of Md. v. J. H. Munson Co. - Oral Argument

Mon, 31 Oct 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Shaw v. Murphy - Oral Argument

Tue, 16 Jan 2001 12:00:00 -0500

While incarcerated in Montana State Prison, Kevin Murphy sent a letter to an inmate to assist him with his defense after he assaulted a correctional officer. In accordance with prison policy, the letter was intercepted. Based on the letter's content, the prison sanctioned Murphy for violating prison rules prohibiting insolence and interfering with due process hearings. Murphy sought relief, alleging that the disciplinary action violated his First Amendment rights, including the right to provide legal assistance to other inmates. Ruling against Murphy, the District Court, based on precedent, found that reasonably related penological interests allowed the prison regulations to impinge on an inmate's constitutional rights. In reversing, the Court of Appeals found that an inmate's First Amendment right to give legal assistance to other inmates outweighed the government's interests.

Simon & Schuster v. NY Crime Victims Board - Oral Argument

Tue, 15 Oct 1991 12:00:00 -0500

To keep criminals from profiting from crimes by selling their stories, New York State's 1977 "Son of Sam" law ordered that proceeds from such deals be turned over to the New York State Crime Victims Board. The Board was to deposit the money into escrow accounts which victims could later claim through civil suits. In 1987 the Board ordered Henry Hill, a former gangster who sold his story to Simon & Schuster, to turn over his payments from a book deal.

Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. - Oral Argument

Tue, 20 Mar 1979 12:00:00 -0500

A West Virginia statute made it a crime for a newspaper to publish, without approval of juvenile court, the name of any youth charged as a juvenile offender.

Thomas v. Chicago Park District - Oral Argument

Mon, 03 Dec 2001 12:00:00 -0500

The Chicago Park District is responsible for operating public parks and other public property in Chicago. Pursuant to its authority, the Park District adopted an ordinance requiring individuals to obtain a permit before conducting large-scale events in public parks. The ordinance provides that the Park District may deny a permit on any of 13 specified grounds, must process applications within 28 days, and must explain its reasons for a denial. An unsuccessful applicant may appeal, first, to the Park District's general superintendent and then to state court. The Windy City Hemp Development Board applied on several occasions for permits to hold rallies advocating the legalization of marijuana. Some permits were granted and others were denied. Ultimately, the Board filed suit, alleging that the ordinance is unconstitutional on its face. The District Court granted the Park District summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Thornburgh v. Abbott - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Nov 1988 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

Tinker v. Des Moines Ind. Comm. School Dist. - Oral Argument

Tue, 12 Nov 1968 12:00:00 -0500

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.

Turner Broadcasting System v. FCC - Oral Argument

Mon, 07 Oct 1996 12:00:00 -0500

The 1992 Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act required cable television systems to set aside some of their channels for local broadcast television. In 1994, the Supreme Court held that these must-carry provisions pass constitutional muster. (See Turner Broadcasting v. FCC, decided June 27, 1994). The Court then remanded the case to determine whether Congress had adequate factual support for its conclusion that the must-carry provision is necessary. A special three-judge district court held that there was sufficient evidence that the must-carry provision furthered important governmental objectives and that the provision was narrowly tailored to promote those interests. The broadcasters appealed directly to the Supreme Court.

Turner Broadcasting v. FCC - Oral Argument

Wed, 12 Jan 1994 12:00:00 -0500

In 1992, Congress passed the Cable Television Consumer Protection and Competition Act of 1992. Sections 4 and 5 of this Act required cable systems to allocate a percentage of their channels to local public broadcast stations, the must-carry rules. The rules limit the cannels available for exclusive control by cable programmers and increase competition for the remaining channels.

Turner v. Safley - Oral Argument

Tue, 13 Jan 1987 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

U.S. Postal Service v. Greenburgh Civic Assns. - Oral Argument

Tue, 21 Apr 1981 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Grace - Oral Argument

Tue, 18 Jan 1983 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.

United States v. Kokinda - Oral Argument

Mon, 26 Feb 1990 12:00:00 -0500

Marsha Kokinda and Kevin Pearl were volunteers for the National Democratic Policy Committee. They set up a table on a sidewalk near a post office to solicit contributions and sell political literature. After post office employees received a large number of complaints, Kokinda and Pearl were asked to leave. They refused, at which point postal inspectors arrested them. They were charged and convicted of violating 39 CFR 232.1(h)(1)(1989), which prohibits "soliciting alms and contributions ... on postal premises." They appealed the convictions, arguing that they violated the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment. The District Court, ruling that the sidewalk in question (which was entirely on Postal Service property and was intended only for traffic to and from the Post Office) was not a public forum, found that the restrictions were reasonable and therefore did not violate the First Amendment. On appeal, however, a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the sidewalk was a traditional public forum and that the government's regulations were therefore subject to strict scrutiny. Because the government had no significant interest in banning solicitation, the convictions were unconstitutional.

United States v. National Treasury Employees Union - Oral Argument

Tue, 08 Nov 1994 12:00:00 -0500

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, amended by the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, prohibits members of Congress, federal officers, and other government employees from accepting an honorarium for making an appearance, speech, or writing an article. The prohibition applies even when neither the subject of the speech or article nor the person or group paying for it has any connection with the employee's official duties. The National Treasury Employees Union filed suit challenging the honorarium ban as an unconstitutional abridgement of its freedom of speech. A District Court held the ban unconstitutional and enjoined the government from enforcing it against Executive Branch employees. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. - Oral Argument

Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:00:00 -0500

In 1996, Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act, of which section 505 required that cable operators, providing channels "primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming," either to "fully scramble or otherwise fully block" those channels or to broadcast those channels during the "safe-harbor" hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. - times when young children were unlikely to be watching. The purpose of section 505 was to protect non-subscribers, and their children, from "signal bleed," or when audio and visual portions of the scrambled programs might be heard or seen. In February 1996, Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc. filed suit challenging section 505's constitutionality. A three-judge District Court panel found that section 505's content-based restriction on speech violated the First Amendment because the Government might further its interests in less restrictive ways. The court also found that the Act provided for a less restrictive alternative than section 505, in that section 504 stated that cable operators had an obligation to block channels at a customer's request.

University of Pennsylvania v. EEOC - Oral Argument

Tue, 07 Nov 1989 12:00:00 -0500

Rosalie Tung was an Asian-American professor who believed that she was denied tenure because of her sex and her race. To investigate her claim, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission asked the University for access to Tung's confidential peer review file. Citing the protection of academic freedom, the University refused to cooperate so as to avoid breaching the confidentiality promised to reviewers.

Virginia v. Hicks - Oral Argument

Wed, 30 Apr 2003 12:00:00 -0500

The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), a political subdivision of Virginia, owns and operates Whitcomb Court, a low-income housing development. In 1997, the Richmond City Council conveyed Whitcomb Court's streets to the RRHA. Subsequently, the RRHA enacted a policy authorizing the Richmond police to serve notice on any person lacking "a legitimate business or social purpose" for being on the premises and to arrest for trespassing any person who remains or returns after having been notified. After the RRHA gave Kevin Hicks, a nonresident, written notice barring him from Whitcomb Court, he trespassed there and was arrested and convicted. At trial, Hicks claimed that RRHA's policy was unconstitutionally overbroad and void for vagueness. The Virginia en banc Court of Appeals vacated his conviction. In affirming, the Virginia Supreme Court found the policy unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment.

Ward v. Rock Against Racism - Oral Argument

Mon, 27 Feb 1989 12:00:00 -0500

New York City, responding to complaints of high-decibel concerts adjoining residential neighborhoods, mandated the use of city-provided sound systems and technicians for concerts in Central Park. Members of rock group claimed that the inability to use their own sound equipment and technicians in a concert in a public forum interfered with their First Amendment rights of expression.

Waters v. Churchill - Oral Argument

Wed, 01 Dec 1993 12:00:00 -0500

A public hospital fired an obstetrics nurse, Cheryl Churchill, for insubordination after she allegedly complained about her superiors to a nurse trainee during a dinner break in the hospital's obstetrics unit. Churchill claimed that the hospital fired her because she opposed its policy of nurse cross-training and said it was leaving certain units understaffed.

Wisconsin v. Mitchell - Oral Argument

Wed, 21 Apr 1993 12:00:00 -0500

No details yet.