Civil Liberties Court Cases

Religion

Speech

Property

Rights In General

Religion in school

Santa Fe School Dist. v. Doe This court case was about if a student should be allowed to perform a prayer over the loudspeaker before a football game or other sport games from one of the public schools

Reproductive Rights

Lee vs. Weisman
This court case was taken all the way up to the supreme court considering whether public schools are allowed to invite religious figures to deliver a prayer at a grand ceremony

Engel v. Vitale The court ruled that it was unconstitutional and violated the Establishment Clause and prohibits the government from promoting or endorsing religion.

Religion outside of School

County of Allegheny v. ACLU
There were religious displays in a county courthouse. The court decided that the nativity scene displayed was unconstitutional because it violated the Establishment Clause. But the menorah display was considered constitutional.

Morse v. Frederick
The court ruled the school’s actions as constitutional because they were promoting a drug-free environment and preventing the promotion of illegal drug use. Schools can have the authority to regulate student speech if it is promoting illegal drug use.

Wallace v. Jaffree
The court ruled that the law was unconstitutional because it endorsed prayer in public schools. They said it was a violation of the Establishment Clause because the law lacked secular purpose.

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris The court ruled that the program was constitutional because it had a secular purpose of providing educational choice and not only being based on religion. It did not violate the Establishment Clause as long as the program was neutral.

Lemon v. Kurtzman The court used the “lemon test" and found the financial support to be unconstitutional because they excessively entangled the government with religion.

Schenck v. U.S
Schenck distributed leaflets encouraging resistance to the military draft during WW. Government charged him because they thought his actions posed a clear and present danger to the country. The court ruled against Sckneck and said that the government could limit speech if it presented a “clear and present danger”. This case established the “clear and present danger test”.

Tinker v. Des Moines
Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The students believed that their silent protest should be protected by the First Amendments freedom of expression. The court ruled in favor of the students and stated that students have the right to express their opinions as long as it doesn’t cause disruption.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier
A school principal removed two articles from their school paper and deemed them inappropriate. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that schools have the authority to regulate student speech in school-sponsored activities.

Roth v. U.S.
The Supreme Court had to decide if certain materials were considered obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment - if the material was too offensive. The court ruled that obscenity is not protected speech and can be regulated by the government.

NY Times v. Sullivan
The NY Times published an advertisement criticizing the actions of public officials in the South during the civil rights movement . Sullivan sued the newspaper for libel. The court ruled in favor of NY Times, stating that public officials must prove actual malice in order to win a defamation lawsuit against a media outlet.

Texas v. Johnson
Johnson burned an American flag during a political protest which led to his arrest and conviction under a Texas law. The court ruled in favor of Johnson, stating that flag burning is a form of symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment.

Miller v. California Miller was convicted for distributing explicit adult materials. The prosecution argued that the materials were obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment. However, Miller argued that the materials were not obscene. The court established the “Miller test” to determine what is obscene and what is not. The test ruled that the materials were obscene and therefore not protected by the First Amendment.

U.S. v. Nixon The Watergate scandal led to the subpoena of Nixon's White House tapes that contained potentially incriminating evidence. Nixon argued that he had the right to withhold the tapes based on executive privilege. However, the prosecution argued that the tapes were crucial evidence to a criminal investigation and therefore the executive privilege should not shield Nixon from legal accountability. The court ruled against Nixon, stating that the need for evidence in a criminal trial outweighed the president's claim of executive privilege. Nixon was ordered to release the tapes and it eventually led to his resignation.

Reynolds v. U.S. Reynolds was married to two separate women in 2 separate states. Charged with Bigamy. Was convicted, was a case that held that religious duties were not a valid defense to a criminal indictment.

Reno v. ACLU
Anti indecency provisions of 1996 CDA violated the first amendment. First major internet communication court case. The result was that the CDA did indeed violate the first amendment right to freedom of speech, the CDA restricted freedom of speech

Everson v. Board of Ed.
The case was brought upon a taxpayer in New Jersey who sued the School Board for reimbursing parents whose students used public transportation to public and private schools. Everson argued that students in religious schools being reimbursed was a violation of Due Process Clause. Court upheld that the state did not violate the Establishment Clause since it was neutral between believers and non believers. Treating the same between religious schools and secular schools the same.

Wisconsin v. Yoder
Amish children were forced to go to school after the 8th grade due to religious beliefs of the Amish. The Supreme Court found that Wisconsin's compulsory school attendance law was unconstitutional as applied to the Amish people.

Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert worked as a mill operator, her religion forbids her to work on saturdays. Her boss changed the work week to add Saturdays as well. She was fired for not working on saturdays. She could not find another job and applied for unemployment and was denied. The court found that the government's denial to put Sherbert under unemployment was unconstitutional, that it was a burden on the free exercise of her religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp Schempp sued the school district for requiring her daughter to read and hear portions of the bible in class. Courts were in Schempp’s side 8-1 and declared the schools bible reading and reciting of the Lord’s prayer in public school was unconstitutional

Epperson v. Arkansas
Arkansas prohibited the teaching of human evolution in public schools. The Supreme Court found that the state of Arkansas violated the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Edwards v. Aguillard
Louisiana law required schools to teach creation science where evolutionary science was taught at public schools, so if you taught evolution then you also must teach creation science. The Supreme court found the Louisiana law violated the establishment clause of the first amendment for purposely advancing a specific religion

Elk Grove School District v. Newdow
Newdow sued for the reason of endorsement for religion because the Pledge of Allegiance used the phrase “Under God”. The courts found that Newdow did not have standing in his case because he did not have majority custody over his daughter

Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius
The employee based group health care plan cover contraception violated the free exercise clause of the first amendment and the religious freedom restoration act. The courts allow privately held for- corporations to be exempt from regulations that the owner religiously objects to. This right is only held to privately held corporations

Van Orden v. Perry
Display of the 10 commandments in a Texas government building. Case brought up for possibly violating the establishment clause. The Supreme court ruled 5 to 4 that it was constitutional, the judges looked at the monument as a passive monument and they looked at the nature of it and our country's history

U.S. v. O’Brien
O’Brien was seen burning his white draft card on the steps of a courthouse. O’Brien was seen by multiple FBI agents and was escorted inside and read his rights and was further arrested. The Ruling in U.S. vs. O'Brien. The court ruled 7-1 on behalf of the United States that the government's decision to criminalize the burning of draft cards was not an infringement on O'Brien's constitutional right to free speech. This meant that those who were caught burning their draft cards would still be punished.

Buckley v. Valeo
The prosecution had argued that the FECA's limitations on the use of money for political purposes were in violation of First Amendment protections for free expression, since no significant political expression could be made without the expenditure of money. The Court ruled that the government can directly subsidize political campaigns, but that it cannot require candidates to forgo private fundraising if they choose the subsidy instead.

Snyder v. Phelps
Seven members of the Westboro Baptist Church, led by the church's founder Fred Phelps, picketed the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder, who was killed in a non-combat accident during the Iraq War. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled in favor of Phelps, holding that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis for a claim of tort liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Gun's

Personal Items

DC v. Heller
The D.C ban of handguns and requirement for lawfully owned rifles and shotguns to either be unloaded, disassembled, and or trigger locked this violated the guarantee of the second amendment right to bear arms for self defense.The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment. The courts voted 5-4 in favor of Heller.

Mapp v. Ohio
The exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. The Constitution applies not only to the federal government but also to the state governments. The Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in favor of Mapp that overturned her conviction and held that the exclusionary rule applies to state governments as well as the federal government.

Terry v. Ohio
Argued if it is illegal for a police officer to stop and frisk a suspect if the police officer is suspicious of them about to commit a crime, commiting a crime, or did commit a crime. Supreme Court issued an 8–1 decision against Terry that upheld the constitutionality of the "stop-and-frisk" procedure as long as the police officer has a "reasonable suspicion" that the person is about to commit a crime, has committed a crime or is in the process of committing a crime, and may be "armed and presently dangerous."

Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda was arrested as a suspect of a crime and interrogated and eventually confessed to the crime. But never was Miranda read his Miranda rights or right to counsel by any police official. The Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.

Ashcraft v. Tennessee Ashcraft was charged with hiring John Ware to murder Ashcraft's wife, Zelma Ida Ashcraft. Ashcraft and Ware confessed to the crimes and were sentenced to 99 years in the state penitentiary. Ware and Ashcraft appealed, claiming that their confessions were extorted from them. Ware, a black man, claimed that he confessed because he feared mob violence. Ashcraft, who had been questioned for more than 36 hours, with only one 5-minute break claimed he was threatened and abused. Confessions made after 36 hours of interrogating without rest will have to be made involuntary, this then is a denial of due process of law under the fourteenth amendment

Powell v. Alabama Courts reversed a decision that incriminated 9 black men for commiting crimes against 2 white women. They did not have a lawyer, the court stated if they can not afford one they must be appointed one by the state to make for a fair trial. The Supreme court reversed these sentences holding that due process was violated and they were not given a fair

Gideon v. Wainwright
A pool room was robbed in a hotel and a man was seen leaving the pool room with some items described to be stolen. Off that witness alone Gideon was arrested and charged with breaking and entering with intent of petty larceny. Gideon appeared in court alone since he could not afford a lawyer. The judge would not appoint a council to Gideon stating that it wasn't a capital crime and he didn't need to under Florida law. Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own. The case extended the right to counsel, which had been found under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to impose requirements on the federal government, by imposing those requirements upon the states as well.

Gregg v. Georgia Five men were accused of murder. They were sentenced to death in their own states. The defendants then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review their death sentence, asking the Court to go beyond Furman and declare once and for all the death penalty to be "cruel and unusual punishment" and thus in violation of the Constitution. The Court set out two broad guidelines that legislatures must follow in order to craft a constitutional capital sentencing scheme.First, the scheme must provide objective criteria to direct and limit the death sentencing discretion. The objectiveness of these criteria must in turn be ensured by appellate review of all death sentences. Second, the scheme must allow the sentence (whether judge or jury) to take into account the character and record of an individual defendant.

Roper v. Simmons Christopher Simmons concocted a plan to commit burglary and murder, having previously told friends that he "wanted to kill someone" and that he "believed he could get away with it because he was a minor". Simmons was then heard bragging about the murder and was later arrested. The court tried him as an adult. The court voted 5-4 that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18.

Furman v. Georgia The main argument was about the constitutionality of the death penalty. Furman argued that the death penalty was being applied in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner that was violating the 8th amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court ruled in favor of Furman, ruling that the death penalty as it was being applied at the time was unconstitutional. This decision led to a temporary halt in the use of the death penalty in the US.

Nix v. Williams The main argument was about whether evidence obtained as a result of a statement made by a suspect during an illegal interrogation should be excluded from trial. The court ruled in favor of Nix, stating that the “inevitable discovery” doctrine can be used to admit evidence that would have been discovered lawfully, even if an illegal action occurred.

Duncan v. Louisiana The main argument was about whether the 6th amendment’s guarantee of a jury trial in criminal cases applied to the states through the due process clause of the 14th amendment. The court ruled in favor of Duncan, stating that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right and is applicable to the states. This decision expanded the protections of the 6th amendment to state criminal trials.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.
A teacher found 2 students smoking in the bathroom violating school code. One student denied smoking and was further searched upon, they found marajuana and rolling papers in her purse. They also found a list of people and plastic bags, this implied that she would sell marijuana on the school grounds.The court ruled in favor of New Jersey, stating that while students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school, searches conducted by school officials must still be reasonable. This decision established the “reasonable suspicion” standard for searches in public schools.

Weeks v. U.S.
The main argument was about whether evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure by federal agents should be excluded from trial. The court ruled in favor of Weeks, stating that the 14th amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, and evidence obtained in violation of their right should be excluded.

Dickerson v. U.S. The main argument was about whether the Miranda warning, which informs suspects of their rights during custodial interrogations, can be overridden by a federal statute. The court ruled in favor of Dickerson, stating that the Miranda warning is a constitutional requirement and cannot be superseded by a federal law.

U.S. v. Leon The main argument was about whether evidence obtained through a search warrant that was later found to be invalid should be excluded from the trial. The court ruled in favor of the US, stating that the evidence obtained in “good faith” reliance on a search warrant, even if it is later found to be invalid, can still be used in court. This decision established the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule.

Wolf v. Colorado
The main argument was about whether evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure by state law enforcement should be admissible in state courts. The defendant argued that it violated their 4th amendment. The court ruled in favor of the state and allowed the evidence to be used against the defendant.

Penry v. Johnson
The argument centered around whether it was constitutional to execute individuals with intellectual disabilities. The defendant argued that it violated the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. They believed that their intellectual disability should be taken into account during punishment. The court ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that executing intellectually disabled individuals was unconstitutional.

Katz v. U.S. The government wiretapped a public telephone booth. The argument was about whether warrantless wiretapping was a violation of the 4th amendment. Katz argued that his right to privacy was violated, as he had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the phone booth. The court ruled in favor of Katz, stating that the 4th amendment protects individuals’ reasonable expectations of privacy, even in public spaces.

Vernonia School District v. Acton
The school district argued that random drug testing was necessary to deter drug use and protect the health and safety of students. Acton argued that it was a violation of their 4th amendment right to privacy. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that the drug testing policy was reasonable and served a legitimate interest.

Board of Education v. Earls
The school board argued that it was necessary to randomly drug test students in order to deter drug use and maintain a safe and drug-free environment. Earls argued that it was a violation of her 4th amendment privacy rights. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that the drug testing policy was reasonable and served a legitimate interest in protecting students’ safety and well-being.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters The argument was about whether an Oregon law that required all children to attend public schools violated the 14th amendment. The society of sisters argued that the law infringed upon parents’ rights to direct the education of their children. The court ruled in favor of the sisters, stating that the law was unconstitutional because it interfered with parents' rights to choose alternative forms of education for their children.

Florida v. Bostick
The main argument was about whether the police’s practice of approaching bus passengers and asking for consent to search their belongings violated the 4th amendment. The court ruled in favor of Florida, stating that the encounter did not amount to a seizure under the 4th amendment because Bostick was free to decline the search and leave the bus.

Illinois v. Caballes
The main argument was about whether the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a routine-traffic stop violated the 4th amendment. Caballes argued that the use of the dog without reasonable suspicion was an unreasonable search. The court ruled in favor of Illinois, stating that the use of a drug-sniffing dog during a lawful traffic stop does not constitute a search under the 4th amendment.

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
The main argument was about whether the indefinite detention of a US citizen designated as an “enemy combatant” without a trial violated the 5th amendment’s due process clause. Hamdi argued that he had the right to challenge his detention and have access to legal representation. The court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that us citizens detained as enemy combatants have the right to challenge their detention through habeas corpus and have access to a fair hearing

Escobedo v. Illinois
The main argument was about whether the police’s denial of Escobedo’s request to speak with his attorney during custodial interrogation violated his 6th amendment right to counsel. The court ruled in favor of Escobedo, stating that once a suspect requests to speak with an attorney, they have a right to have their attorney present during questioning.

Raich v. Gonzales
The main argument was about whether the federal government’s enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act, which criminalized the cultivation and use of marijuana even for medical purposes, exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause. The court ruled in favor of Gonzales, stating that the federal government had the authority to regulate marijuana even if it was grown and used solely within a state.

Kelo v. City of New London
The main argument was about whether the city’s use of eminent domain to take private property for economic development purposes violated the 5th amendment taking clause. The court ruled in favor of the city, stating that the taking of private property for economic development qualified as a public use and was therefore constitutional.

Griswold v. Connecticut The main argument was about whether a state law that criminalized the use of contraceptives violated the right to privacy. The court ruled in favor of Griswold, stating that the right to privacy is protected by the Constitution and that individuals have the right to make private decisions about contraception.

Roe v. Wade
The main argument was whether a state law that criminalized abortion except to save the life of the mother violated a woman’s constitutional right to privacy. The court ruled in favor of Roe, stating that a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion is protected by the 14th amendment’s right to privacy. This case established the legal framework for abortion rights in the US.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services The main argument was about whether a state law that urged restrictions on the use of public facilities and public employees in performing or assisting abortions violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. The court ruled in favor of Webster, stating that the restrictions did not impose an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to have an abortion. The decision did not overturn Roe v. Wade and allowed for further state regulation of abortion.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey The main argument was about whether a Pennsylvania law that imposed certain restrictions on abortion, such as mandatory counseling, informed consent, and a 24-hour waiting period, violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. The court ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood, stating that a woman has a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion. The decision introduced the “undue burden” standard, which clarified that state regulations could not place a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion.

Government Involvement

New York Times v. U.S. NY Times published the Pentagon Paper, a classified study on the Vietnam War. The government tried to prevent the newspaper from publishing the papers because it would harm national security. The court ruled in favor of the newspaper, stating that the government did not meet the high burden required to justify restraint.

Protected Speech

Non Protected Speech

Gitlow v. New York
The 14th amendment exceeded the first amendments provisions of freedom of speech and freedom of press to apply to the state governments of the U.S. The president at the time was assassinated and an author wrote a manifesto after his death. The Supreme court decided 7-2 in Gitlow’s favor on the grounds of indefinite advocacy of overthrowing should be protected speech. But it is illegal to advocate to unlawfully and violently overthrow the government.

Brandenburg v. Ohio
Bradenburg was a leader of the ku klux klan who was using threatening words like revenge against certain races, and even against our government for supporting those races and taking away privileges from whites in the nation.The supreme court ruled that Ohio law violated Brandenburgs first amendment, the right to free speech. Court found Ohio's criminal syndicalism could not prove his speech invoked lawless actions.

Virginia v. Black
The court ruled that the law was constitutional but had limitations. Cross burning with the intent to intimidate was not protected by the First Amendment. However, cross burning without the intent to intimidate was protected by the First Amendment.

Near v. Minnesota
This was a law in Minnesota allowed the government to shut down newspapers if they were considered harmful or defamatory. The court ruled the law as unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendments freedom of expression. They cannot censor or stop newspapers from publishing.

Bethel v. Fraser
Fraser sued Bethel School district after they disciplined him for giving a speech full of sexual innuendos during a school assembly. The court ruled in favor of the school, stating that schools have the authority to regulate vulgar speech to maintain a proper educational environment.

Grayned v. City of Rockford
Appellant Richard Grayned was convicted for his part in a demonstration in front of West Senior High School in Rockford, Illinois. After his arrest approximately 200 people, students, their family members, and friends gathered next to the school grounds to protest. The Supreme Court ruled that a city’s anti-picketing ordinance was overbroad and violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The Court upheld the anti-noise ordinance, finding that it was narrowly tailored to meet the city’s compelling interest in having undisrupted schools.

Hustler v. Falwell
A newspaper segment known for having rude characteristics made a parody ad that targeted Falwell. The Court held that parodies of public figures, even those intending to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

West Virginia v. Barnette
Barnette argued that their children did not have to stand for the pledge of allegiance or salute the American flag in school. The courts decided 6-3 in favor of Barnette. Justice Robert H. Jackson stated that “the right to life, liberty, property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights” were placed beyond the reach of government officials

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
Jehovah witnesses used the public sidewalk to hand out religious pamphlets and was making a lot of noise and attracted a crowd. The marshall then came to escort him to the headquarters safely and Chaplinsky shouted “fighting words” at the marshall. The Court upheld the arrest in favor of the State of New Hampshire. Stating certain and narrow words that did not contribute to Chaplinsky’s ideas or possess any social value in the search of truth.