Presentation on theme: "Chapters 4&5 Court Cases By Anabelle Espinoza, Brianna Watkins, Emma Grundy, Jason Patrick, Jeremy Lee, Jordan Susac, Lauren Love, and Summer Florida."— Presentation transcript:
Chapters 4&5 Court Cases By Anabelle Espinoza, Brianna Watkins, Emma Grundy, Jason Patrick, Jeremy Lee, Jordan Susac, Lauren Love, and Summer Florida
MILLER V. CALIFORNIA (1973) Marvin Miller was arrested under California law for mass- mailing brochures containing graphic advertisements for pornographic books and films Miller was convicted under a California statute which banned “obscene matter” Though found guilty in Orange County’s Superior Court, Miller appealed the Supreme Court, who granted him a hearing Is mature content protected under the 1 st Amendment?
MILLER V. CALIFORNIA DECISION Ruled 5-4 that Miller was guilty and that the 1 st Amendment rights to speech and press did not protect porn, but found the definition of “obscene” to be too broad Defined obscenity to be any work that 1) is offensive to the average person, 2) has explicit and offensive content “defined by the applicable state law”, and 3) has no other literary, scientific, political, or artistic merit
MORSE V. FREDERICK (2007) Did Morse violate Frederick’s right to free speech by punishing him? Joseph Frederick, at a school- sponsored event in Juneau, Alaska, held up a sign saying “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” Principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for 10 days for his reference to illegal drugs Frederick won in Ninth District court, but the school board appealed the case to D.C.
MORSE V. FREDRICK DECISION Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Morse was not violating Frederick’s rights by punishing him Established that free speech for teenagers was not as extensive as the same right for adults, and that if a student went against a school’s anti- drug mission, that student could be punished
NEAR V. MINNESOTA (1931) Jay Near published an attack against local officials in Minneapolis, saying they were affiliated with gangsters Near was barred from publishing thereafter by the Minnesota “gag law,” which prevented slander of public figures After losing in both District and Minnesota’s Supreme Court, Near appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court Does the “gag law” violate freedom of the press?
NEAR V. MINNESOTA DECISION Ruled 5-4 that the gag law was unconstitutional due to Near’s right to free press Press would always be protected by 1 st Amendment, except in rare cases
NEW YORK TIMES V. U.S. (1971) Does “national security” forgo freedom of the press? The Nixon administration attempted to prevent the Washington Post and New York Times from publishing information about the Watergate scandal Nixon argued that he had prior restraint because the information was on matters of national security After many court battles with no clear victor, the Supreme Court took the case
NEW YORK TIMES V. U.S. DECISION Ruled 6-3 that prior restraint did not permit the violation of freedom of the press Since the nation was not in immediate danger due to the publication of the “Pentagon Papers,” Nixon could not stop the presses
ROTH V. U.S. (1957) Samuel Roth ran a literary business in New York City and was convicted of sending content to a monthly erotica magazine The statute under which he was convicted outlawed “obscene” materials, and Roth took it up with the Supreme Court after he submitted a writ of certiorari Was Roth’s 1 st Amendment right to free speech infringed upon by New York’s ordinance?
ROTH V. U.S. DECISION Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Roth was guilty, and that “lewd” materials were not constitutionally protected Because the word “lewd” was poorly-defined, the same conflict in Miller v. California later established guidelines for prohibited materials
SHEPPARD V. MAXWELL (1966) Sam Sheppard was convicted of 2 nd -degree murder for bludgeoning his pregnant wife to death Sheppard called for a retrial after he saw the massive negative publicity his trial drew After being acquitted in Appeals court and appealing again, the case went to the Supreme Court Was Sheppard’s right to a fair trial compromised?
SHEPPARD V. MAXWELL DECISION Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Sheppard had not been given a fair trial due to the media’s attacks on Sheppard, rendering his jury biased
TEXAS V. JOHNSON (1989) Is the desecration of an American flag permitted under freedom of speech? Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in front of Dallas City Hall to protest Reagan’s policies He was sentenced to 1 year in prison and given a $2000 fine The Texas Criminal Appeals court overturned his arrest, and the State appealed to the Supreme Court
TEXAS V. JOHNSON DECISION Ruled 5-4 that Johnson’s symbolic speech was granted under the 1 st Amendment Said that the public’s offense to a form of speech does not justify taking it from the speaker
TINKER V. DES MOINES (1969) Does forbidding students’ symbolic protest infringe on freedom of speech? A group of Des Moines students planned to wear black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War Their school’s principals heard of this plan and created a policy: any students wearing the bands must be asked to remove them Mary Beth Tinker was sent home due to this policy, and after losing in Appeals, went to the Supreme Court
TINKER V. DES MOINES DECISION Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the armbands were pure speech which was separate from the actions or conduct of the participants wearing them
BOY SCOUTS V. DALE (2000) The Boy Scouts of America revoked scoutmaster James Dale’s membership after discovering he was gay Dale sued and won in New Jersey Superior and Supreme Court on grounds of discrimination Boy Scouts appealed to the Supreme Court Does New Jersey’s anti- discrimination law violate BSA’s right to assembly?
BOY SCOUTS V. DALE DECISION Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that because the Boy Scouts were a private group, they did not have to conform to New Jersey’s anti-discrimination laws, which violated their right to private assembly Because allowing LGBT members is against the Boy Scouts’ philosophy, they do not have to admit them
LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. HIALEAH (1993) Did Hialeah’s ordinance violate the Free Exercise Clause? Santería is a religion from the Caribbean in which animal sacrifice is frequently used Hialeah, Florida passed an ordinance forbidding animal sacrifice when it was announced that a church of Santería was forming in town Lower courts upheld the law, but the Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye appealed the case to Washington and was granted a trial
LUKUMI BABALU AYE V. HIALEAH DECISION Ruled 9-0 that Hialeah’s law violated Lukumi Babalu Aye’s right to expression of religion The fact that Hialeah singled out elements of Santería killed their case and turned it into one of discrimination
SMITH V. COLLIN (1978) Also known as National Socialist Party v. Skokie Skokie, Illinois rejected the request of a group of Neo-Nazi protesters to demonstrate due to the town’s high number of Holocaust survivors Party’s leader, Frank Collin, called for hearings but was rejected in Illinois court until he contacted the Supreme Court Did the Illinois courts improperly deny the Party’s right to protest?
SMITH V. COLLIN DECISION Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the National Socialist Party’s use of Nazi imagery was not an issue of clear and present danger, so protest was allowed due to 1 st Amendment rights The NSP did not march through Skokie, in the end; they received permission to do so in Chicago instead
EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD (1987) Did Louisiana’s law violate the Establishment Clause of the 1 st Amendment? Louisiana passed a law saying that if creationism was taught at a school, then evolution was required as well, and vice versa District and Appeals courts ruled against Louisiana, saying the law promoted religious tenets Governor Edwin Edwards of Louisiana took the case to D.C. against a civil suit led by Don Aguillard, a Louisiana high school biology teacher
EDWARDS V. AGUILLARD DECISION Ruled 7-2 that Louisiana’s law was unconstitutional because its requiring of creationism advanced the viewpoint of one particular religion in a secular setting, violating the Establishment Clause
ENGEL V. VITALE (1962) A state board of regents in New York wrote a prayer to be recited at the beginning of class by schoolchildren A Jewish family took offense to this, and their suit was given an amicus curiae to the Supreme Court signed by the governments of 22 states Did the reading of the prayer violate the Establishment Clause?
ENGEL V. VITALE DECISION The Supreme Court ruled 6-1 (two justices did not participate) that the prayer violated the Establishment Clause of the 1 st Amendment Neither the voluntary nor nondenominational natures of the prayer saved it from unconstitutionality
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.