COURT CASE BRIEFINGS XAVIER CUMMINS MICHAEL VIZZI CHRISTIAN DALUSUNG ALYSSA NEWSOM

MILLER V. CALIFORNIA 1972 ARGUED: JAN 17-18, 1972 DECIDED: JUN 20, 1973

IMPORTANT POINTS  Marvin Miller had sent a mass mailing campaign to advertise for ‘adult’ material.  Was considered to be violating a California statue prohibiting such distribution.  Mostly started due to complaints from some recipients, calling for his arrest.

THE QUESTION  Miller believed he was protected under the First Amendment.  Is this true? Did the court agree that the sale and distribution of such materials was protected under the First Amendment?  What was their decision?

THE DECISION  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of California.  The Supreme Court argued that selling such obscene materials wasn’t protected under the First Amendment, as the material itself didn’t really ‘matter.’  However, the definition of such materials was altered and further explained to fix any confusion.  This created the Miller Test, which essentially determines how obscene something is.

TEXAS V. JOHNSON (1989) ARGUED ON: MARCH 20 DECIDED ON: JUNE 20

IMPORTANT POINTS  In 1984, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag in a Dallas protest against President Ronald Reagan.  Johnson was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $2,000.  The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, prompting it to go to the Supreme Court.

THE QUESTION  Johnson believed that the burning of the American flag was a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution.  It was argued against Johnson that burning the flag was not an act of speech therefore is not protected by the Constitution.  What do you believe the Supreme Court ruled in favor of?

DECISION  In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Johnson.  His burning of the flag was in disrespect of Ronald Reagan, but was an act of political protest and was in fact constitutional.  Brennan, Marshall, Blackmun, Scalia, and Kennedy were the five that ruled in favor of Johnson`s case.

THE NEW YORK TIMES COMPANY V. L.B. SULLIVAN ARGUED JANUARY 6TH, 1964 DECIDED MARCH 9TH, 1964

IMPORTANT POINTS  New York Times Co. v. Sullivan was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established the Actual Malice standard.  Public officials can be considered to be defamation and libel.  Before this decision, there were nearly $300 million in libel actions outstanding news organizations.

THE QUESTION  Sullivan filed a libel action against the newspaper.  Sullivan did not have to prove that he had been harmed.  A defense claimed that the ad was truthful but was unavailable since the ad contained factual errors.  What was the court’s decision?

THE COURT DECISION  The Court ruled in favor of the Times, 9-0.  The rule of law applied by the Alabama courts was found constitutionally deficient or failure safeguards for freedom of speech and of the press. ( First and 14th Amendments)  The decision further held that even with the proper safeguards, the evidence presented in this case was insufficient to support a judgement for Sullivan.  The Court ruled that the First Amendment protect the publication of all statements.

THE NEW YORK TIMES V. U.S ARGUED: JUNE 26, 1971 DECIDED: JUNE

IMPORTANT POINTS  Under the First Amendment, the New York Times and Washington Post were able to publish information coming from the Pentagon and other now classified information.  The government wanted to keep that information secret, because they were at war in Vietnam.

THE QUESTION  “The real question for the Court was whether there was a sufficient justification for prior restraint, which would be suspension of newspapers’ First Amendment rights to Freedom of Press.”  The Courts were deciding upon if the government has the right to infringe upon Freedom of the Press if the press is publishing illegally pertained information.  What do you think the court decision was?

THE DECISION  The Supreme Court gave a 6-3 decision in favor of the New York Times.  It decided that the government had not met it’s ‘heavy burden’ of showing justification for a prior restraint.  The government must show sufficient evidence that the information can cause ‘grave and irreparable’ danger to warrant a censorship

REFERENCES 1Miller v. California. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from 2 Texas v. Johnson. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrived May 6, 2016 from 3 New York Times Company v. Sullivan. (n.d). Oyez. Retrived May 7, 2016 from New York Times Company v. United States. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 9, 2016, from