Parouse.com
 Parouse.com



Abington School District
Abington School District
v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided 8–1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school-sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during this case was Earl Warren.

Contents

1 Background

1.1 Origin of case 1.2 District court arguments 1.3 District court ruling 1.4 Precedents for case

2 Opinions of the Court

2.1 Decision 2.2 Brennan's concurrence 2.3 Stewart's dissent

3 Subsequent developments 4 See also 5 References 6 External links 7 Further reading

Background[edit] Origin of case[edit] The Abington case began when Edward Schempp, a Unitarian Universalist and a resident of Abington Township, Pennsylvania, filed suit against the Abington School District
Abington School District
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
to prohibit the enforcement of a Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
state law that required his children, specifically Ellery Schempp, to hear and sometimes read portions of the Bible as part of their public school education.[2] That law (24 Pa. Stat. 15-1516, as amended, Pub. Law 1928) required that "[a]t least ten verses from the Holy Bible [be] read, without comment, at the opening of each public school on each school day." Schempp specifically contended that the statute violated his and his family's rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.[1] Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
law, like that of four other states, included a statute compelling school districts to perform Bible readings in the mornings before class. Twenty-five states had laws allowing "optional" Bible reading, with the remainder having no laws supporting or rejecting Bible reading. In eleven of those states with laws supportive of Bible reading or state-sponsored prayer, the state courts had declared them unconstitutional.[3] More famous than Schempp was Madalyn Murray O'Hair, mother of plaintiff William J. Murray III (b. 1946) in Murray v. Curlett, who founded the group American Atheists
American Atheists
(originally Society of Separationists) in 1963. Since Unitarians allegedly outnumbered atheists at the time, the Murray case was consolidated with Schempp's on appeal to the Supreme Court. District court arguments[edit] During the first trial in federal district court, Edward Schempp and his children testified as to specific religious doctrines purveyed by a literal reading of the Bible "which were contrary to the religious beliefs which they held and to their familial teaching" (177 F. Supp. 398, 400). The children testified that all of the doctrines to which they referred were read to them at various times as part of the exercises. Edward Schempp testified at the second trial that he had considered having his children excused from attendance at the exercises but decided against it for several reasons, including his belief that the children's relationships with their teachers and classmates would be adversely affected. District court ruling[edit] The district court ruled in Schempp's favor, and struck down the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
statute. The school district appealed the ruling, and while that appeal was pending, the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
legislature amended the statute to allow children to be excused from the exercises upon the written request of their parents. This change did not satisfy Schempp, however, and he continued his action against the school district, charging that the amendment of the law did not change its nature as an unconstitutional establishment of religion. Because of the change in the law, the Supreme Court had responded to the school district's appeal by vacating the first ruling and remanding the case to the district court. The district court again found for Schempp. The school district appealed to the Supreme Court again, and, on appeal, the case was consolidated with a similar Maryland
Maryland
case launched by Madalyn Murray.[4] The district court ruling in the second trial, in striking down the practices and the statute requiring them, made specific findings of fact that the children's attendance at Abington Senior High School
Abington Senior High School
was compulsory and that the practice of reading 10 verses from the Bible was also compelled by law. It also found that:

The reading of the verses, even without comment, possesses a devotional and religious character and constitutes in effect a religious observance. The devotional and religious nature of the morning exercises is made all the more apparent by the fact that the Bible reading is followed immediately by a recital in unison by the pupils of the Lord's Prayer. The fact that some pupils, or theoretically all pupils, might be excused from attendance at the exercises does not mitigate the obligatory nature of the ceremony for ... Section 1516 ... unequivocally requires the exercises to be held every school day in every school in the Commonwealth. The exercises are held in the school buildings and perforce are conducted by and under the authority of the local school authorities and during school sessions. Since the statute requires the reading of the 'Holy Bible,' a Christian document, the practice ... prefers the Christian religion. The record demonstrates that it was the intention of ... the Commonwealth ... to introduce a religious ceremony into the public schools of the Commonwealth. (201 F. Supp., at 819; quoted in 374 U.S. 203 (1963))

Precedents for case[edit] The Court explicitly upheld Engel v. Vitale, in which the Court ruled that the sanctioning of a prayer by the school amounted to a violation of the Establishment Clause
Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Abington court held that in organizing a reading of the Bible, the school was conducting "a religious exercise," and "that cannot be done without violating the 'neutrality' required of the State by the balance of power between individual, church and state that has been struck by the First Amendment" (374 U.S. 203 (1963)). Over the previous two decades, the Supreme Court, by incorporating specific rights into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, had steadily increased the extent to which rights contained in United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
were applied against the states.[5] Abington was a continuation of this trend with regard to the Establishment of Religion Clause of the First Amendment, and specifically built upon Supreme Court precedents in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940), Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947), and McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948). Opinions of the Court[edit] The Supreme Court granted certiorari in order to settle the persistent and vigorous protests resulting from its previous decision in Engel v. Vitale regarding religion in schools.[6] Henry W. Sawyer
Henry W. Sawyer
argued the case for Schempp. Decision[edit] The Supreme Court upheld the District Court's decision and found the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
prayer statute unconstitutional by virtue of the facts in the case, as well as the clear line of precedent established by the Supreme Court. In writing the opinion of the Court, Justice Tom C. Clark stated, "This Court has decisively settled that the First Amendment's mandate [in the Establishment Clause] has been made wholly applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment ... in a series of cases since Cantwell (Eastland, 1993, p. 151; Davis, 1991, 91). What was unexpected, however, were the ideas expressed in the second portion of Justice Clark's opinion written for the majority. The Court's recognition of religious ideals as valuable to the culture of the United States in that opinion are generally not cited much by either side of the church-state debate when discussing the case and the effect it had on the United States.[citation needed] His opening thoughts explicitly spelled out that view in past jurisprudence with cases similar to Abington v. Schempp. Clark continued that the Court was of the feeling that no matter the religious nature of the citizenry, the government at all levels, as required by the Constitution, must remain neutral in matters of religion "while protecting all, prefer[ring] none, and disparag[ing] none." The Court had clearly rejected "the contention by many that the Establishment Clause
Establishment Clause
forbade only governmental preference of one faith over another."[7] Citing Justice Hugo Black
Hugo Black
in Torcaso v. Watkins, Justice Clark added, "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.' Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Such prohibited behavior was self-evident in the Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
law requiring Bible reading (and allowing recitation of the Lord's Prayer) in its public schools. The Court recognized the value of such ideal neutrality from lessons of history when government and religion were either fully fused or cooperative with one another and religious liberty was nonexistent or seriously curtailed. Brennan's concurrence[edit] Justice Brennan filed a lengthy and historically significant concurrence, taking seventy-three pages to elaborate his ideas about what the Framers intended in the formation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, gauging the value of religion in American culture, reviewing legal precedents, and suggesting a course for future church-state cases. Brennan focused on the history of the Establishment Clause
Establishment Clause
to counter numerous critics of the Court's Engel decision, who pointed out that prayer in public schools, as well as in many other areas of public life, was a longstanding practice going back to the framing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. He professed to be aware of the "ambiguities in the historical record",[8] and felt a modern-day interpretation of the First Amendment was warranted. In defense of that approach, Brennan stated:

Whatever Jefferson or Madison would have thought of Bible reading or the recital of the Lord's Prayer
Lord's Prayer
in ... public schools ..., our use of the history ... must limit itself to broad purposes, not specific practices. ... [T]he Baltimore and Abington schools offend the First Amendment because they sufficiently threaten in our day those substantive evils the fear of which called forth the Establishment Clause. ... [O]ur interpretation of the First Amendment must necessarily be responsive to the much more highly charged nature of religious questions in contemporary society. A too literal quest for the advice of the Founding Fathers upon the issues of these cases seems to me futile and misdirected.

In answer to critics of a broad interpretation of the prohibitions against government in the realm of religion, Brennan said, "nothing in the text of the Establishment Clause
Establishment Clause
supports the view that the prevention of the setting up of an official church was meant to be the full extent of the prohibitions against official involvements in religion". In the third section of his exhaustive concurrence, Justice Brennan charted the course that led to the incorporation of the First Amendment's religion clauses by way of answering the charge of Abington Township's counsel that Pennsylvania's Bible reading statute was a state issue, outside the purview of the federal court system, including that of the Supreme Court. He labeled the daily recitals of the Lord's Prayer
Lord's Prayer
and reading of the Bible as "quite [clear] breaches of the command of the Establishment Clause". He noted the long history of such practices, even before the "founding of our Republic". Additionally, he stated that most of those who demanded reading of the Bible and prayer in schools were hoping to serve "broader goals than compelling formal worship of God or fostering church attendance". He cited the 1858 words of the Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Superintendent of Public Instruction, who saw the Bible as aptly suited to "teaching the noblest principles of virtue, morality, patriotism, and good order". Justice Brennan took great pains to also show that many states, such as South Dakota, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Ohio
Ohio
and Massachusetts, had already enacted and revoked laws similar to Pennsylvania's by the first half of the 20th century. In addition, many political leaders including attorneys general and presidents like Ulysses S. Grant
Ulysses S. Grant
and Theodore Roosevelt
Theodore Roosevelt
insisted that "matters of religion be left to family altars, churches and private schools" and "[It] is not our business to have the Protestant
Protestant
Bible or the Catholic Vulgate or the Talmud read in [public] schools" . Brennan's concurrence also recognized the plurality of religious thought in the nation as basis enough for restriction of church and state relations. He cited this lack of appreciation of that pluralism as the "basic flaw" of Pennsylvania's Bible reading statute and Abington Township's defense of it:

There are persons in every community—often deeply devout—to whom any version of the Judaeo-Christian Bible is offensive. There are others whose reverence for the Holy Scriptures demands private study or reflection and to whom public reading or recitation is sacrilegious.... To such persons it is not the fact of using the Bible in the public schools, nor the content of any particular version, that is offensive, but the manner in which it is used.

Stewart's dissent[edit] Justice Potter Stewart
Potter Stewart
filed the only dissent in the case. In it, he was critical of both the lower court opinions and the decision the Supreme Court had reached regarding them. He wished to remand the case to lower courts for further proceedings. Stewart had dissented in Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale
and viewed the doctrine relied on in that case as implausible, given the long history of government religious practice in the United States, including the fact that the Supreme Court opens its own sessions with the declaration, "God Save this Honorable Court" and that Congress opens its sessions with prayers, among many other examples. Stewart believed that such practice fit with the nation's long history of permitting free exercise of religious practices, even in the public sphere. He declared the cases consolidated with Schempp as "so fundamentally deficient as to make impossible an informed or responsible determination of the constitutional issues presented"—specifically, of whether the Establishment Clause
Establishment Clause
was violated. As to the intent and scope of the religion clauses of the First Amendment:

It is, I think, a fallacious oversimplification to regard the [religion clauses] as establishing a single constitutional standard of "separation of church and state", which can be applied in every case to delineate the required boundaries between government and religion.... As a matter of history, the First Amendment was adopted solely as a limitation upon the newly created National Government. The events leading to its adoption strongly suggest that the Establishment Clause was primarily an attempt to insure that Congress not only would be powerless to establish a national church, but would also be unable to interfere with existing state establishments. ... So matters stood until the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, or more accurately, until this Court's decision in Cantwell....

He stated his agreement with the doctrine of the Fourteenth Amendment's embrace and application of the Bill of Rights, but pointed out the irony of such an amendment "designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy".[9] Other critics of the Court's findings in Abington v. Schempp often quote the following excerpt from Justice Stewart's opinion:[9]

If religious exercises are held to be an impermissible activity in schools, religion is placed in an artificial and state-created disadvantage.... And a refusal to permit religious exercises thus is seen, not as the realization of state neutrality, but rather as the establishment of a religion of secularism, or at least, as governmental support of the beliefs of those who think that religious exercises should be conducted only in private.

Subsequent developments[edit] The public was divided in reaction to the Court's decision; the decision has sparked persistent and ongoing criticism from proponents of prayer in school. In 1964, Life magazine declared Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the mother of the plaintiff in one of the cases, "the most hated woman in America."[10] Newspapers were no exception. The Washington Evening Star, for example, criticized the decision, declaring that "God and religion have all but been driven from the public schools. What remains? Will the baccalaureate service and Christmas carols be the next to go? Don't bet against it."[11] In contrast, the New York Times was more accepting of the Court's ruling. The paper printed significant portions of the opinions with no significant comments, either supportive or critical.[12] Opponents characterized the decision as the one which "kicked God and prayer out of the schools".[13] The views of various religious entities on the decision split between mainline Protestants and Jews, who in general strongly supported the decision, and evangelical Protestants and conservative Catholics, who strongly opposed the decision. Speaking from the conservative Protestant
Protestant
perspective, the Reverend
Reverend
Dr. Billy Graham said, "[i]n my opinion ... the Supreme Court ... is wrong. ... Eighty percent of the American people want Bible reading and prayer in the schools. Why should a majority be so severely penalized ...?"[14] The mainline denominations, with the exception of the Roman Catholic Church, registered less critical opinions of the verdict, in fact seeing it as a boon to religious freedom by its very limiting of governmental authority in the sphere of public schools.[15] The United States Congress reacted to the decision by drafting over 150 resolutions to overturn it by amending the Constitution.[16] Abington v. Schempp was used as precedent for similar cases like Board of Education v. Allen and Lemon v. Kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman
in the decades that followed. The three part Lemon test had its basis in the jurisprudence of Abington v. Schempp. Under the test, the constitutionality of a given church-state law is weighed by three criteria: sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the government in religious activity. See also[edit]

Edgerton Bible Case List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 374 School prayer

References[edit]

^ a b Abington School District
Abington School District
v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963). ^ Dierenfield, Bruce J. "The Most Hated Woman in America: Madalyn Murray and the Crusade Against School Prayer" Journal of Supreme Court History 32, no.1 (2007), 62-84 ^ Boston 1993, p. 101 ^ Boston 1993, p. 106 ^ The process of incorporation (also known as "nationalization") of the United States Bill of Rights
United States Bill of Rights
began with cases Missouri Pacific Railway Co. v. State of Nebraska Board of Transportation, 164 U.S. 403 (1896) and Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897) pitting the railroads against the government over just compensation for the taking of private property, due all persons (and corporations) under the Fifth Amendment. Next was First Amendment Freedom of Speech, in Fiske v. Kansas, 274 U.S. 380 (1927). Freedom of Religion was first incorporated (albeit in dictum) in Hamilton v. Regents of the University of California, 293 U.S. 245 (1934), and made official in Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Finally in Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962), the court ruled that a state could not write or sanction an official prayer to be read by students at school. For a more detailed history of Incorporation, see Incorporation (Bill of Rights). ^ White & Zimmerman 1990, p. 70 ^ Eastland 1993, p. 59 ^ Quoting author in Davis 1991, p. 77 ^ a b Eastland 1993, p. 165 ^ Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Madalyn Murray O'Hair
Biography, retrieved 2013-07-20  ^ Eastland 1993, p. 165 ^ Lewis 1963, p. 16 ^ Wright 2008, p. 96 ^ Billy Graham voices shock over decision. (June 18, 1963). New York Times. p. 17. ^ Dugan 1963, p. 18 ^ O'Hair, M., Freedom under siege: The impact of organized religion on your liberty and your pocketbook, 1974, p. 55

External links[edit]

Wikisource
Wikisource
has original text related to this article: Abington School District
Abington School District
v. Schempp (374 U.S. 203)

Text of Abington Township School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) is available from:  CourtListener  Findlaw  Justia  Oyez  OpenJurist  Google Scholar  An article in the encyclopedia of civil liberties in the United States Abington Township School District v. Schempp author Timothy L. Hall

Further reading[edit]

" Abington School District
Abington School District
v. Schempp". Rydal-Meadowbrook Civic Association. Archived from the original on October 13, 2013.  Billy Graham voices shock over decision. (June 18, 1963). New York Times. p. 17. Boston, Robert (1993). Why the religious right is wrong: About separation of church and state (1st ed.). Buffalo: Prometheus Books. ISBN 0-87975-834-1.  Burnette Jr., Lawrence (2011). Readings on the Development of the American Constitution. Xlibris Corporation. p. 802. [self-published source] Davis, Derek (1991). Original Intent: Chief Justice Rehnquist and the Course of American Church-State Relations. Buffalo: Prometheus Books.  Dugan, George (June 18, 1963). "Churches divided, with most in favor". New York Times. p. 18.  Eastland, Terry (1993). Religious Liberty in the Supreme Court. Washington: Ethics and Public Policy Center. Eerdmans Pub Co. ISBN 978-0-89633-178-5.  O'Hair, Madalyn (1974). Freedom Under Siege. Los Angeles: J.P. Tarcher, Inc.  Lewis, Anthony (June 18, 1963). "Government must be neutral in religion, majority asserts". New York Times. p. 16.  Licciardello, Carman (1994). Raising the Standard: Reclaiming Our World for God. Nashville: Sparrow Press.  McWilliams, Peter (1993). Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in a Free Society (1st ed.). Los Angeles: Prelude Press. ISBN 0-931580-53-6.  Tushnet, Mark (2008). I dissent: Great Opposing Opinions in Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Boston: Beacon Press. pp. 167–178. ISBN 978-0-8070-0036-6.  White, Ronald C.; Zimmerman, Albright G (1990). An Unsettled Arena: Religion and the Bill of Rights. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co. ISBN 0-8028-0465-9.  Wright, Russell G. (2008). Chronology of education in the United States. McFarland Co. ISBN 978-0-7864-2502-0.  Casey Scott McKay, "Tactics, Strategies, & Battles – Oh My!: Perseverance of the Perpetual Problem Pertaining to Preaching to Public School Pupils & Why it Persists," University of Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Law Review: Vol. 8: Iss. 2, Article 3 (2013).

v t e

Abington Township in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Communities

Abington Ardsley Crestmont Elkins Park Glenside Hollywood Huntingdon Valley McKinley Meadowbrook Noble North Hills Roslyn Roychester Rydal Willow Grove

Railroad stations

Ardsley Crestmont Meadowbrook Noble North Hills Roslyn Rydal Walnut Hill

Education

Abington Friends School Abington School District Abington Senior High School Penn State Abington

Attractions

Abington Art Center Briar Bush Nature Center Keswick Theatre Willow Grove Park
Willow Grove Park
Mall

Hospitals

Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health Holy Redeemer Hospital

History

Abington School District
Abington School District
v. Schempp Willow Grove Park

Parks

Lorimer Park

v t e

United States First Amendment case law

Establishment Clause

Public funding

Everson v. Board of Education
Everson v. Board of Education
(1947) McCollum v. Board of Education
McCollum v. Board of Education
(1948) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York
Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York
(1970) Lemon v. Kurtzman
Lemon v. Kurtzman
(1971) Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v. Chambers
(1983) Mueller v. Allen
Mueller v. Allen
(1983) Aguilar v. Felton
Aguilar v. Felton
(1985) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994) Agostini v. Felton
Agostini v. Felton
(1997) Mitchell v. Helms
Mitchell v. Helms
(2000) Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris
(2002) Locke v. Davey
Locke v. Davey
(2004) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn
(2011)

Public displays

Stone v. Graham
Stone v. Graham
(1980) Lynch v. Donnelly
Lynch v. Donnelly
(1984) Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary
Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary
(1985) County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989) McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) Van Orden v. Perry
Van Orden v. Perry
(2005) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
Pleasant Grove City v. Summum
(2009)

School prayer

Zorach v. Clauson
Zorach v. Clauson
(1952) Engel v. Vitale
Engel v. Vitale
(1962) Abington School District
Abington School District
v. Schempp (1963) Stone v. Graham
Stone v. Graham
(1980) Wallace v. Jaffree
Wallace v. Jaffree
(1985) Lee v. Weisman
Lee v. Weisman
(1992) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe
(2000) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow
(2004)

Creationism

Epperson v. Arkansas
Epperson v. Arkansas
(1968) Edwards v. Aguillard
Edwards v. Aguillard
(1987) Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District
(M.D. Pa. 2005)

Legislature prayer

Marsh v. Chambers
Marsh v. Chambers
(1983) Town of Greece v. Galloway
Town of Greece v. Galloway
(2014)

Other

McGowan v. Maryland
Maryland
(1961) McDaniel v. Paty
McDaniel v. Paty
(1978) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc.
(1985) Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock
Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock
(1989) Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (2012)

Free Exercise Clause

Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States
(1879) Davis v. Beason
Davis v. Beason
(1890) Schneider v. New Jersey
Schneider v. New Jersey
(1939) Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut
(1940) Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
(1940) Murdock v. Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
(1943) United States v. Ballard
United States v. Ballard
(1944) Braunfeld v. Brown
Braunfeld v. Brown
(1961) Torcaso v. Watkins
Torcaso v. Watkins
(1961) Sherbert v. Verner
Sherbert v. Verner
(1963) Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church
Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church
(1969) Wisconsin
Wisconsin
v. Yoder (1972) Harris v. McRae
Harris v. McRae
(1980) Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division (1981) United States v. Lee (1982) Bob Jones University v. United States
Bob Jones University v. United States
(1983) Bowen v. Roy
Bowen v. Roy
(1986) Goldman v. Weinberger
Goldman v. Weinberger
(1986) Employment Division v. Smith
Employment Division v. Smith
(1990) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah
(1993) City of Boerne v. Flores
City of Boerne v. Flores
(1997) Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton
Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton
(2002) Cutter v. Wilkinson
Cutter v. Wilkinson
(2005) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer
(2017) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
(under consideration) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
(under consideration)

Freedom of speech (portal)

Sedition
Sedition
and imminent danger

Alien and Sedition
Sedition
Acts (1798) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten (S.D.N.Y. 1917) Schenck v. United States
Schenck v. United States
(1919) Abrams v. United States
Abrams v. United States
(1919) Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York
(1925) Whitney v. California
Whitney v. California
(1927) Dennis v. United States
Dennis v. United States
(1951) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board
(1955, 1961) Yates v. United States
Yates v. United States
(1957) Bond v. Floyd
Bond v. Floyd
(1966) Brandenburg v. Ohio
Ohio
(1969) Hess v. Indiana
Hess v. Indiana
(1973)

False speech

Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
(1974) United States v. Alvarez
United States v. Alvarez
(2012)

Fighting words and the heckler's veto

Cantwell v. Connecticut
Cantwell v. Connecticut
(1940) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire
New Hampshire
(1942) Terminiello v. Chicago
Terminiello v. Chicago
(1949) Feiner v. New York
Feiner v. New York
(1951) Gregory v. Chicago
Gregory v. Chicago
(1969) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie
(1977) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul
(1992) Snyder v. Phelps
Snyder v. Phelps
(2011) Elonis v. United States
Elonis v. United States
(2015)

Freedom of assembly and public forums

Hague v. CIO (1939) Schneider v. New Jersey
Schneider v. New Jersey
(1939) Thornhill v. Alabama
Thornhill v. Alabama
(1940) Martin v. City of Struthers
Martin v. City of Struthers
(1943) Marsh v. Alabama
Marsh v. Alabama
(1946) Niemotko v. Maryland
Maryland
(1951) Edwards v. South Carolina
Edwards v. South Carolina
(1963) Cox v. Louisiana
Cox v. Louisiana
(1965) Brown v. Louisiana
Brown v. Louisiana
(1966) Adderley v. Florida
Adderley v. Florida
(1966) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne
Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne
(1968) Coates v. Cincinnati
Coates v. Cincinnati
(1971) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe
(1971) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner
Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner
(1972) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins
(1980) Widmar v. Vincent (1981) Hill v. Colorado
Hill v. Colorado
(2000) McCullen v. Coakley
McCullen v. Coakley
(2014) Packingham v. North Carolina
Packingham v. North Carolina
(2017)

Symbolic speech

Stromberg v. California
Stromberg v. California
(1931) United States v. O'Brien
United States v. O'Brien
(1968) Cohen v. California
Cohen v. California
(1971) Smith v. Goguen
Smith v. Goguen
(1974) Texas v. Johnson
Texas v. Johnson
(1989) United States v. Eichman
United States v. Eichman
(1990) Virginia v. Black
Virginia v. Black
(2003)

Compelled speech

Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
(1940) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
(1943) Wooley v. Maynard
Wooley v. Maynard
(1977) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin
Wisconsin
System v. Southworth (2000) Davenport v. Washington Education Association
Davenport v. Washington Education Association
(2007) Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000
(2012) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. (2013) Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
(under consideration) National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra
(under consideration)

Loyalty oaths

American Communications Association v. Douds
American Communications Association v. Douds
(1950) Garner v. Board of Public Works
Garner v. Board of Public Works
(1951) Speiser v. Randall
Speiser v. Randall
(1958) Keyishian v. Board of Regents
Keyishian v. Board of Regents
(1967) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb
Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb
(1974)

School speech

Minersville School District v. Gobitis
Minersville School District v. Gobitis
(1940) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
(1943) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
(1969) Island Trees School District v. Pico
Island Trees School District v. Pico
(1982) Bethel School District v. Fraser
Bethel School District v. Fraser
(1986) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier
(1988) Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia
(1995) Morse v. Frederick
Morse v. Frederick
(2007)

Obscenity

Rosen v. United States
Rosen v. United States
(1896) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
(S.D.N.Y. 1933) Roth v. United States
Roth v. United States
(1957) One, Inc. v. Olesen
One, Inc. v. Olesen
(1958) Smith v. California
Smith v. California
(1959) Marcus v. Search Warrant
Marcus v. Search Warrant
(1961) MANual Enterprises v. Day
MANual Enterprises v. Day
(1962) Jacobellis v. Ohio
Ohio
(1964) Quantity of Books v. Kansas
Quantity of Books v. Kansas
(1964) Freedman v. Maryland
Maryland
(1965) Ginzburg v. United States
Ginzburg v. United States
(1966) Memoirs v. Massachusetts
Massachusetts
(1966) Redrup v. New York
Redrup v. New York
(1967) Ginsberg v. New York
Ginsberg v. New York
(1968) Stanley v. Georgia
Stanley v. Georgia
(1969) Cohen v. California
Cohen v. California
(1971) United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs
(1971) Kois v. Wisconsin
Wisconsin
(1972) Miller v. California
Miller v. California
(1973) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton
(1973) United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film
United States v. 12 200-ft. Reels of Film
(1973) Jenkins v. Georgia
Jenkins v. Georgia
(1974) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville
(1975) Young v. American Mini Theatres
Young v. American Mini Theatres
(1976) New York v. Ferber
New York v. Ferber
(1982) American Booksellers v. Hudnut
American Booksellers v. Hudnut
(7th Cir., 1985) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.
(1986) People v. Freeman
People v. Freeman
(Cal. 1988) Osborne v. Ohio
Ohio
(1990) United States v. X-Citement Video
United States v. X-Citement Video
(1994) Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
(1997) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group
United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group
(2000) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
(2002) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union
(2002) Nitke v. Gonzales (S.D.N.Y., 2005) United States v. Williams (2008) FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases (2009 and 2012) American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland
American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland
(6th Cir., 2009) United States v. Kilbride
United States v. Kilbride
(9th Cir., 2009) United States v. Stevens
United States v. Stevens
(2010) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
(2011)

Public employees

Pickering v. Board of Education
Pickering v. Board of Education
(1968) Perry v. Sindermann
Perry v. Sindermann
(1972) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth
(1972) Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
(1977) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District
Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District
(1979) Connick v. Myers
Connick v. Myers
(1983) Rankin v. McPherson
Rankin v. McPherson
(1987) Waters v. Churchill
Waters v. Churchill
(1994) Garcetti v. Ceballos
Garcetti v. Ceballos
(2006) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri
(2011) Heffernan v. City of Paterson
Heffernan v. City of Paterson
(2016)

Hatch Act and similar laws

Ex parte Curtis
Ex parte Curtis
(1882) United Public Workers v. Mitchell
United Public Workers v. Mitchell
(1947) United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers (1973) Broadrick v. Oklahoma
Broadrick v. Oklahoma
(1973)

Licensing and restriction of speech

Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio
Ohio
(1915) Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson
(1952) Freedman v. Maryland
Maryland
(1965) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.
(1982) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans
(2015) Matal v. Tam
Matal v. Tam
(2017)

Commercial speech

Valentine v. Chrestensen
Valentine v. Chrestensen
(1942) Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept.
Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept.
(1970) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (1973) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia
Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia
(1974) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council (1976) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona
(1977) Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro
Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro
(1977) Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission (1980) Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n (1980) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (1986) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico (1986) San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee (1987) 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island
44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island
(1996) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc.
(2011)

Campaign finance and political speech

Buckley v. Valeo
Buckley v. Valeo
(1976) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
(1978) Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley
Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley
(1981) Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee
Brown v. Socialist Workers '74 Campaign Committee
(1982) Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington
Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington
(1983) FEC v. Massachusetts
Massachusetts
Citizens for Life (1986) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce
(1990) McIntyre v. Ohio
Ohio
Elections Commission (1995) Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC
(1996) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC
(2000) Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White
(2002) McConnell v. FEC (2003) Randall v. Sorrell
Randall v. Sorrell
(2006) FEC v. Wisconsin
Wisconsin
Right to Life, Inc. (2007) Davis v. FEC (2008) Citizens United v. FEC (2010) McComish v. Bennett (2011) American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock (2012) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
(2014) Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
Williams-Yulee v. The Florida Bar
(2015)

Freedom of the press

Prior restraints and censorship

Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota
(1931) Lovell v. City of Griffin
Lovell v. City of Griffin
(1938) Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc.
Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc.
(1946) New York Times Co. v. United States
New York Times Co. v. United States
(1971) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo
(1974) Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart
Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart
(1976) Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia
(1978) Tory v. Cochran
Tory v. Cochran
(2005)

Privacy

Time, Inc. v. Hill
Time, Inc. v. Hill
(1967) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn
(1975) Florida Star v. B. J. F.
Florida Star v. B. J. F.
(1989)

Taxation and privileges

Grosjean v. American Press Co.
Grosjean v. American Press Co.
(1936) Branzburg v. Hayes
Branzburg v. Hayes
(1972) Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner
Minneapolis Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner
(1983)

Defamation

Beauharnais v. Illinois
Beauharnais v. Illinois
(1952) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
(1964) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts
(1967) Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler
Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Ass'n, Inc. v. Bresler
(1970) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
(1974) Time, Inc. v. Firestone
Time, Inc. v. Firestone
(1976) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc.
(1984) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. (1985) McDonald v. Smith
McDonald v. Smith
(1985) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell
(1988) Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton
Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton
(1989) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co.
(1990) Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox
(9th Cir., 2014)

Broadcast media

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC
(1969) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
FCC v. Pacifica Foundation
(1978) Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC
(1994) Bartnicki v. Vopper
Bartnicki v. Vopper
(2001)

Copyrighted materials

Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co.
(1977) Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises (1985)

Freedom of association

Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath
(1951) Watkins v. United States
Watkins v. United States
(1957) NAACP v. Alabama
NAACP v. Alabama
(1958) Baggett v. Bullitt
Baggett v. Bullitt
(1964) In re Primus
In re Primus
(1978) Roberts v. United States Jaycees
Roberts v. United States Jaycees
(1984) Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) Boy Scouts of America v.