Court Cases Compiled

SQ1
Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District
A girl created a Myspace profile about her principle that depicted him as a
sex addict and a pedophile, and included his administrative photo. After the
school board punished the girl for her off campus speech, the family brought
suit for violating her First Amendment rights. The Third Circuit Court of
Appeals ruled that the punishment was not unconstitutional because school
authorities could have reasonably forecasted a substantial disruption within
the school, as defined in Tinker v. Des Moines independent Community
School District.

Boucher v. School Board of Greenfield

Justin Boucher, a junior at a school in Wisconsin wrote an article in
underground newspaper on how to hack the schools computer. When the
school board found out, they expelled him, and he appealed the punishment.
The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the expulsion, because they believed
it was reasonable to believe that the article would cause a substantial
disruption of school activities.

Lowery v. Euverard
A player was thrown off the football team after he circulated a petition that
expressed hatred for their coach and wanted him removed. When he
appealed the dismal, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
punishment. They explained that student athletes are subject to more
restrictions than a normal student, and speech about leaders of voluntary
student activities is not protected because it can undermine their authority
among other students.

New York Times v US

The Nixon administration tried to prevent the New York Times from
publishing classified Defense papers about Vietnam. The question to the
court was did the Nixon Administrations efforts to prevent the publication of
materials termed classified violate the First Amendment? The Court held that
the restriction of speech was unconstitutional, because the publication could
not case inevitable, direct, and immediate event that imperials American
forces.

R.A.V v. St Paul
Teenagers were burning a cross on a black familys law, so the police charged
them under a statue that prohibits the display of a symbol which arouses
anger, alarm, or resentment in other on the basis of race, color, creed,
religion or gender. The question to the court was is the ordinance overly
broad and too content based that it violates the free speech clause? The
court unanimously held it was, because it prohibited speech solely based on
the subject it expressed, prohibiting hate speech.

Virginia v. Black
Men were convicted for violating a Virginia Statue that makes it a felony for
anyone to burn a cross, and any such burning would be evidence of intent to
intimidate a person or group. The question to the court was does statue
violate the First Amendment. The court agreed it did, for even though it is
constitutional to ban cross burning with intent to intimidate a group,
asserting that any cross burning is evidence of intimidation is
unconstitutional.

Pickering v. Board of Education

Marvin Pickering, a teacher, wrote a letter complaining about the defeated
school board measure to increase taxes, and the allocation of funds for
athletics over academics. After seeing this letter, the School Board fired the
teacher. The question to the court was if Pickerings letter was
constitutionally protected speech. The court ruled that it was, for speech in
that manner is protected unless the statements are false or recklessly made,
so the teacher has a right to speak on issues of public importance.

Givhan v. Western Line

A teacher was fired after complaining that the newly segregated school in
Mississippi were still sustaining acts of segregation. The court reversed this
suspension, for there was no concrete reason, other than the speech, for the
firing of the teacher.

Garcetti v. Ceballos
Richard Ceballos found a sheriff misrepresented facts in a search warrant,
and was subpoenaed by the defense to explain the facts. When Ceballos was
punished for cooperating with the defense, he sued, claiming that his speech
was protected, so he couldnt be punished. The question to the Supreme
Court was should a public employees job-related speech be protected by the
First Amendment. The Court held that speech is only protected if it is said as
a private citizen, not if it is part of their officials duties. The fact that duties
require people to speak and write does not protect them from supervisors
evaluating performance including the speech

Doninger v. Niehof
A student was barred from student government after calling administrators
douchebags online off campus and encouraging students to call the
administrators more derogatory names. The Circuit court held that the
speech could be regulated because it could foreseeably create a substantial
disruption in the school environment.

Board of Education v. Earls

A policy at school required all students to consent to a drug test in order to
participate in any extracurricular activity. The question to the court was did
the policy violate the fourth amendment. The Supreme Court held that it
didnt, because the policy served the schools interest in deterring drug use.

Bell v. Itawamba
Taylor Bell posted rap on his Facebook and Youtube account containing
threatening statements about two teachers, so he was suspended by the
administration. The Fifth Circuit Court held they did have jurisdiction to
regulate off campus speech, and that the video created enough of a
disruption to be regulated.

McIntyre v. Ohio
McIntyre was fined for passing out leaflets about opinions for the school
board, and signed them anonymously. The question to the court was does
prohibiting the anonymous spread of materials violate the First Amendment?
The court held that the freedom to publish anonymously was protected by
the First Amendment.

Texas v. Johnson
I agree with the holding of the this case because flag burning is a political
act, and political actions are the cornerstone of the protects of the First
Amendment. Just because someone doesnt like the message of the speech
doesnt mean it can be restricted.

In re Gault
Veronica School District v. Acton
Us v. Stevens
SCOTUS held that speech that was animal crush videos are protected

US v. Alvarez

SCOTUS held that false speech was protected under the 1st amendment

SQ2
California v. Greenwood
Police suspected Billy Greenwood was selling drugs, but didnt have enough
evidence for a warrant. Because they couldnt search his home police
searched garbage bags left on the curb, and uncovered evidence of drug
use, allowing for probable cause to search his house. The question to the
court was did the warrantless search and seizure of Greenwoods garage
bags violate the fourth Amendment. The court did not believe it did, for there
was no reasonable expectation of privacy for trash bags on a public street.

Smith v. Maryland
Patricia McDonough was robbed and threatened through phone calls by
Michael Lee Smith. The police, through Smiths license plate, were able to
request a pen register of Smiths calls, and found McDonoughs phone
number multiple places on the call sheet, so Smith was arrested. The
Question to the court was did the use of a pen register without a warrant
violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and
seizures. The court did not believe it did, for Fourth Amendment protections
are only relevant if the individual believes that the government has infringed
on their reasonable expectation of privacy, which does not apply to pen
registers by the phone company, a third party. Justice Steward dissented and
argued that a person who uses a telephone has a reasonable expectation of
privacy for the contents of a call, and the number dialed is an important part
of that.

Saford v. Redding
Savana Redding was strip-frisked by her school because they suspected she
was carrying ibuprofen, which was against school policy. The question to the
court was does the fourth amendment protect against strip-searching
students for drugs and is the school liable for damages. The court held that
Savanas Fourth Amendment rights were violated when they searched her
underwear, for they did not have sufficient suspicion to warrant that search.
The court also held that the school was not liable to pay for damages of the
search, and that the punishment must be proportionate to the crime, as
carrying ibuprofen should not warrant a strip search and expulsion.

U.S. v. Leon
The Exclusionary rule was applied to a case where the police obtained a
warrant and recovered large quantities of drugs, but the warrant was later
found to be insufficient. The court ruled there is a good faith exception to
the exclusionary rule. I agree with the courts holding because they stated
that evidence can be introduced at trial if it was obtained through a
mistakenly issued warrant. The exclusionary rule can be harmful to society,
so finding an exception to it can better protect the people. I disagree with the

holding. The good faith doctrine is arbitrary because it is hard to prove

whether or not the police knew the warrant was insufficient. Also, the
exclusionary rule should always be upheld, because it forces the police to be
mindful of 4th amendment protections and work to follow the law.

Chimel v. California
Police officers arrested Chimel in is home with a warrant, and subsequently
searched his home, using evidence found to further convict him. The
question to the court was if this search was constitutional under the search
incident to arrest doctrine. The court held that the search was unreasonable,
for the search incident to arrest doctrine only applies to the area
immediately around the arrestee, so searching the entire house was
unconstitutional.

Ashcroft v. ACLU
Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act to prevent minors from
accessing pornography online, and the ACLU sued that it violated the free
speech clause in the First Amendment. The question to the court was if the
law violated the First Amendment by restricting too much protected speech
and using a method that is not the least restrictive? The court held that it
did, for the COPA could not prove it was the most effective for preventing
minors, and it prevented online publishers from publishing certain materials.

Ontario v. Quon
Employees of the California police department alleged Fourth Amendment
violations of a policy that allowed the department to monitor all text
messages and emails sent from company devices. The question to the court
was does a city employee have a reasonable expectation of privacy in text
messages on company owned devices and could the department have used
less intrusive methods of reviewing messages. The court held that the
employees Fourt Amendment rights were not violated because the search of
text messages was reasonable. They did not answer if an employee does
have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

United States v. Davis

United States v. Miller
Aptheker v. Secretary of State

SQ3
De Jonge v. Oregon (De Young)
Dirk De Jonge was speaking at a public meeting sponsored by the
Communist Party, and was convicted for advocating violence, because the
Communist Party was thought to be violent. The question to the Court was

did that law De Jonge was convicted under violate the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment. The court agreed that it was, and held that,
peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime.
(Incorporated assembly to the states)

Gregory v. Chicago
Dick Gregory and other social activists were convicted for refusing to end a
protest against racial segregation when asked by the police to disperse after
bystanders began to become unruly. Gregory appealed their conviction to
the Supreme Court, and it was unanimously overturned because petitioners
were denied due process, their convictions were only because of
demonstrating, and the trial judges charge allowed the jury to convince for
acts protected by the First Amendment. (Hugo Black= Hecklers Veto)

Virginia v. Hicks
The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) enacted a
policy forbidding trespassing from people lacking a legitimate business or
social purpose, and Kevin Hicks was convicted under this act. The question
to the Supreme Court was if the RRHAs trespassing policy was invalid under
the First Amendments overbreadth doctrine. The Court ruled in an
unanimous decision that it was not unconstitutional, because Hicks did not
show the policy prohibited a substantial amount of protected speech in
relation to the non-expression applications it was created for.

Whitney v. California
Anita Whitney was convicted in 1919 under Californias Syndicalism Act for
promoting the Communist Labor Party, even though she herself never
advocated for violence. The question to the Court was if this act violated the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. The court upheld the conviction in an
unanimous decision, stating they may restrict the first amendment if the
speech and organization threatened to endanger the government. The
concurring opinion by Justice Brandeis, who argued that only clear and
present danger should warrant a suppression of rights, and that the freedom
of speech and assembly are distinct fundamental rights.

Snyder v. Phelps
The family of a dead marine sues Westboro Baptist Church when they
displayed inflammatory signs against homosexuality in the army at the
funeral. The question to the Supreme Court was does the First Amendment
protect protesters at a funeral from liability when they intentionally inflict
emotional distress on the family of the deceased. The Court ruled that the
protesters were protected, because they were speaking on matters of public
concern, and debate on issues of public land (across from the funeral).
should be uninhibited.

NAACP v. Button
The NAACP was prosecuted for violating a Virginia Law that banned sit ins in
legal or professional business. The Question to the Court was did the law
violate the First Amendment if assembly. In a 6-3 decision, the court held
that the NAACP could not be prosecuted, because their actions were modes
of expression protected by the first amendment. It also stated that litigation
is a type of petition.

NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.

After the death of Martian Luther King Junior, a member of the NAACP named
Charles Evers spoke at a boycott in Mississippi where he states that they
were going to break the necks of anyone going into racist stores. The
stores that were boycotted sued for damages, but the Supreme Court held
that the protesters were not liable for damages because the petitioners
activities were protected under the nonviolent protests in the First
Amendment.

Hess v. Indiana
Anti-war protests on the Campus of Indiana University were cleared off the
streets by police officers, and one by the name of Gregory Hess proclaimed
that they would take the streets later, and was arrested for distortedly
conduct. The Supreme Court overruled his conviction because the statement
only advocated illegal action at some indefinite future time, and thus did not
hold up to the standard of speech censorship established in Brandenburg v.
Ohio.

Feiner v. New York

Irving Feiner made inflammatory speech, and was arrested for breaching the
peace. The court held his speech could be regulated, for police officers
needed some way to prevent riots.

Graham v. Connor
Force against protesters is decided under the reasonable search standard
under the fourth amendment, Which follows judged through the perspective
of a reasomable officer, the facts known, and the knowledge the officer acted
lawfully at the time of the search.