Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...
Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, Unconstitutionality of State issued general warrants Cox v. Louisiana: 379 U.S. 536 (1965) First Amendment, "breach of the peace" statutes Freedman v. Maryland: 380 U.S. 51 (1965) First Amendment, motion picture censorship United States v. Seeger: 380 U.S. 163 (1965) definition of religion for a military ...
President George W. Bush signed the Stolen Valor Act of 2005 (18 U.S.C. § 704) into law on December 20, 2006. [1] The Act broadens previous provisions addressing the unauthorized wear, manufacture, or sale of any military decorations and medals by making it a misdemeanor to falsely represent oneself as having received any U.S. military decoration or medal. [2]
In two Supreme Court cases this term, including one decided Wednesday, the justices rightly reaffirmed that speech by government officials violates the 1st Amendment only if it includes an ...
Get breaking news and the latest headlines on business, entertainment, politics, world news, tech, sports, videos and much more from AOL
United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case that by a 5–4 decision invalidated a federal law against flag desecration as a violation of free speech under the First Amendment. [1] It was argued together with the case United States v. Haggerty.
For decades, the Supreme Court has been leaning into First Amendment protections in a way that has blurred the conservative-liberal divide that often decides high-profile culture war cases.
The Supreme Court has largely interpreted the Petition Clause as coextensive with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, but in its 2010 decision in Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri (2010) it acknowledged that there may be differences between the two: This case arises under the Petition Clause, not the Speech Clause.