Unit 5 Court Cases
Establishment / Free Exercise
Everson v. Board of Education (1947)
 Court ruled that a New Jersey law granting
travel reimbursements to parents of children
attending catholic school did not violate the 1st
Amendment’s establishment clause.
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
 The Court upheld the conviction and concluded
New York’s Criminal Anarchy law was
constitutional. Rationale of the majority is
sometimes called the “dangerous tendency” test.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
 Court ruled that RI and PA statutes making
state financial aid available to “church-related
educational institutions” violated the
Establishment clause.
Roth v. United States (1957)
 Court ruled that obscenity was not “within the
area of constitutionally protected speech or
press.”
Smith v. Oregon (1990)
 Court ruled that a state can deny
unemployment benefits to a worker fired for
using illegal drugs for religious purposes.
Board of Education of the Westside Community
Schools v. Mergens (1990)
 Court ruled that equal access to any afterschool club cannot be denied based on the
content of its speech.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of
Hialeah (1993)
 Court ruled that a city ordinance prohibiting
ritual animal sacrifices violated the free
exercise clause.
Expression
Trial of John Peter Zenger (1735)
 This early American case established an
important right of the freedom of press as well
as the importance of the jury as a check on
arbitrary government power.
Ex parte Milligan (1866)
 Court ruled that martial law cannot exist
where the civil courts are operating.
Shenck v. United States (1919)
 Court ruled that speech can be limited if it is “of
such nature as to create a clear and present danger
that will bring about the substantive evils that
Congress has a right to prevent.” Also, utterances
tolerable in peacetime can be punished.
Bradenburg v. Ohio (1969)
 Court rules against constitutionality of Ohio’s
criminal syndicalism law, stating that speech
can only be prohibited if it is (1) "directed at
inciting or producing imminent lawless action"
and it is (2) "likely to incite or produce such
action."
Madsen v. Women’s Health Center (1994)
 Court ruled that a 36 ft. buffer zone in the front
of abortion clinics was not an infringement
upon free speech, but the barring of protesters
from approaching patients within a 300 ft
radius was.
Assembly, Petition, Association
Hague v. Congress of Industrial Organizations
(1939)
 New Jersey’s city ordinance that forbid
gatherings of groups that advocated
obstruction of the government by unlawful
means was ruled in violation of the right to
assembly.
NAACP v. Alabama (1958)
 Court ruled that Alabama’s requirement for
NAACP members to reveal names and
addresses to State’s Attorney General was in
violation of the 14th Amendment. Disclosure of
such lists would have the effect of suppressing
legal association among the group’s members.
Court Case Summaries from Oyez: US Supreme Court Media (http://www.oyez.org/) & “We the People: The Citizen
and the Constitution” Level 3 Textbook.
Page 1
Unit 5 Court Cases
Barenblatt v. United States (1959)
 Court ruled that the First Amendment does not
protect a witness from all lines of questioning,
as long as the Congressional inquiry is pursued
to “aid the legislative process” and to protect
important government interests.
Rights Within the Judicial System
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community
School District (1969)
 Prohibiting students from wearing of
armbands in public school as a form of
symbolic protest was ruled in violation of free
speech.
Coker v. Georgia (1977)
 Court ruled that imposition of the death
penalty for the crime of rape was “grossly
disproportionate” punishment for the crime
and was a form of cruel and unusual
punishment forbidden by the 8th Amendment.
Protection Against Unreasonable Search &
Seizure
Roper v. Simmons (2005)
 Court ruled that the execution of minors
violated the prohibition of “cruel and unusual
punishment.”
Weeks v. United States (1914)
 Court ruled that the warrantless search and
seizure of Week’s home violated the Fourth
Amendment. Eventually became known as
“exclusionary rule.”
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
 This historic and controversial decision places
the requirement of excluding illegally obtained
evidence from court at all levels of the
government.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
 Court ruled that the police practice of
interrogating individuals without notifying
them of their right to counsel and their
protection against self-incrimination violated
the 5th Amendment.
Katz v. United States (1967)
 Court ruled that the warrantless wiretapping
of a public payphone was in violating of the 4th
Amendment’s protections against
unreasonable searches and seizures.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
 As a result of this case, states were required to
provide attorneys for poor criminals charged with
serious crimes.
2nd Amendment
United States v. Miller (1939)
 Court ruled that the 2nd Amendment does not
protect the right to possess a sawed-off double
barrel shotgun since it does not have a
reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia.
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
 Court reversed the handgun ban and ruled
that the 2nd amendment does protect an
individual right to possess a firearm
unconnected with service in a militia, and to
use that firearm for traditionally lawful
purposes, such as self-defense within the
home.
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
 Court held that the 14th Amendment makes the
2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms
for the purpose of self-defense applicable to
the states.
New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985)
 Principal’s search of a 14-year-old girl accused
of smoking did not violate the 4th and 14th
amendments. As opposed to “probable cause,”
court used less strict standard of
“reasonableness” to conclude constitutionality
of search.
Court Case Summaries from Oyez: US Supreme Court Media (http://www.oyez.org/) & “We the People: The Citizen
and the Constitution” Level 3 Textbook.
Page 2