Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
 Dates: Argued-Wednesday, March 29, 2000. Decided-Monday, June 19, 2000
 Background: Prior to 1995, a student elected as Santa Fe High School's student
council chaplain delivered a prayer, described as Christian, over the public address
system before each home varsity football game. One Mormon and one Catholic family
filed suit challenging this practice and others under the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. The District petitioned for a writ of certiorari, claiming its policy did not
violate the Establishment Clause because the football game messages were private
student speech, not public speech.
 Constitutional Issue: Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy
permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
 Decision of the Court: 6 votes for Doe, 3 vote(s) against
 Majority Decision: the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated
prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
Schenck v. United States
 Dates: Argued-Thursday, January 9, 1919. Decided-Monday, March 3, 1919
 Background: During World War I, Schenck mailed circulars to draftees. The
circulars suggested that the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist
system. The circulars urged "Do not submit to intimidation" but advised only peaceful
action such as petitioning to repeal the Conscription Act. Schenck was charged with
conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the
military and to obstruct recruitment.
 Constitutional Issue: Are Schenck's actions (words, expression) protected by the
free speech clause of the First Amendment?
 Decision of the Court: 9 votes for United States, 0 votes against
 Majority Decision: Schenck is not protected in this situation. The character of
every act depends on the circumstances. During wartime, utterances tolerable in
peacetime can be punished.
NAACP v. Alabama


Dates: Argued- January 15-16, 1958. Decided-Monday, June 30, 1958
Background: As part of its strategy to enjoin the NAACP from operating, Alabama
required it to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the
NAACP's members and agents in the state.

Constitutional Issue: Did Alabama's requirement violate the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment?
 Decision of the Court: 9 votes for NAACP, 0 votes against
 Majority Decision: unanimous Court held that a compelled disclosure of the
NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among
the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State,"
something not present in this case, was needed to justify Alabama's actions.
Questions
1.