Which case was a First Amendment case, Reynolds v. United States or Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.?
d861c9a1ba45ebf9a4eb62e652167141
Reynolds v. United States Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. (8 Otto.) 145 (1878), was a Supreme Court of the United States case that held that religious duty was not a defense to a criminal indictment. "Reynolds" was the first Supreme Court opinion to address the Impartial Jury and the Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment.
a0bcae5541d834e4e5c9d8d741fae62c
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct. It ruled that the state has the constitutional authority to ban public nudity, even as part of expressive conduct such as dancing, because it furthers a substantial government interest in protecting the morality and order of society. This case is perhaps best summarized by a sentence in Justice Souter's concurring opinion, which is often paraphrased as "Nudity itself is not inherently expressive conduct."
7dec3a68aa0d1347f7c0fc96c613bd22
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case, which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property to prevent racial discrimination: "<nowiki>[</nowiki> /1982 § 1982  <nowiki>]</nowiki> bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that the statute, thus construed, is a valid exercise of the power of Congress to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment."
c4c1c6a7e252b51f3485a4ccddeb61b2
Galloway v. United States Galloway v. United States was a Supreme Court of the United States decision in which the Court determined that a directed verdict does not deprive litigants of their right to a trial by jury in civil cases under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.
36481c245ef8ed56c08cb0e92ad56542
Bradwell v. Illinois Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873), was a United States Supreme Court case that solidified the narrow reading of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and determined that the right to practice a profession was not among these privileges. The case is also notable for being an early 14th Amendment challenge to sex discrimination in the United States.
7bcd034548aa39cf3f3c54e157366a27
Gibbons v. Ogden Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce, granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, encompassed the power to regulate navigation. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time. Exiled Irish patriot Thomas Addis Emmet and Thomas J. Oakley argued for Ogden, while U.S. Attorney General William Wirt and Daniel Webster argued for Gibbons.
99e0ea0588030c32c61ac28d93136781
Doyle v. Ohio Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (1976), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding the Due Process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment.
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
c890e655a111f3cbfd25242bda502742
United States v. Rybar United States of America v. Raymond Rybar, Jr., 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), is a case which was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 13, 1995, and decided on December 30, 1996. The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
43eadd8d2fe0b9b897f797a307346658
Scott v. Illinois Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979), was a case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States. In "Scott", the Court decided whether the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required Illinois to provide Scott with trial counsel.
269005bfe9f9fce38c0a7f1383efb2c0
Diamond v. Charles Diamond v. Charles, 476 U.S. 54 (1986) , was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have Article III standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state statute in federal court unless they possess a "direct stake" in the outcome.
ca44025bcffa5686a89cbc11010e3c32
United States v. Miller United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) , was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). "Miller" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
622f4a11188ac149ad50e00e9150e6fd
Duncan v. Louisiana Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states.
fc8a896081d028346263d51f7678ef69
Heller v. New York Heller v. New York, 413 U.S. 483 (1973) was a United States Supreme Court decision which upheld that states could make laws limiting the distribution of obscene material, provided that these laws were consistent with the Miller test for obscene material established by the Supreme Court in "Miller v. California", 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Heller was initially convicted for showing a sexually explicit film in the movie theater which he owned, under New York Penal Law § 235.0 which stated that and individual “is guilty of obscenity when, knowing its content and character, he 1. Promotes, or possesses with intent to promote, any obscene material; or 2. Produces, presents or directs an obscene performance or participates in a portion thereof which is obscene or which contributes to its obscenity."
14dd1de4c151d4d5348a62b628fb37eb
United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 US 131 (1948) (also known as the Hollywood Antitrust Case of 1948, the Paramount Case, the Paramount Decision or the Paramount Decree) was a landmark United States Supreme Court antitrust case that decided the fate of movie studios owning their own theatres and holding exclusivity rights on which theatres would show their films. It would also change the way Hollywood movies were produced, distributed, and exhibited. The Court held in this case that the existing distribution scheme was in violation of the antitrust laws of the United States, which prohibit certain exclusive dealing arrangements.
3f121d61517a680c62abc1e6da80362a
Rankin v. McPherson Rankin v. McPherson, 483 U.S. 378 (1987), is a major decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning the First Amendment, specifically whether the protection of the First Amendment extends to government employees who make extremely critical remarks about the President. The Court ruled that, while direct threats on the President's life would not be protected speech, a comment — even an unpopular or seemingly extreme one — made on a matter of public interest and spoken by a government employee with no policymaking function and a job with little public interaction, would be protected.
0c3179fe4c4819f98bbbca28007a8c6e
Marcus v. Search Warrant Marcus v. Search Warrant, 367 U.S. 717 (1961) , full title Marcus v. Search Warrant of Property at 104 East Tenth Street, Kansas City, Missouri, is an "in rem" case decided by the United States Supreme Court on the seizure of obscene materials. The Court unanimously overturned a Missouri Supreme Court decision upholding the forfeiture of hundreds of magazines confiscated from a Kansas City wholesaler. It held that both Missouri's procedures for the seizure of allegedly obscene material and the execution of the warrant itself violated the Fourth and Fourteenth amendments' prohibitions on search and seizure without due process. Those violations, in turn, threatened the rights protected by the First Amendment.
d4b9e528e0652f84ad4162aa75e13700
Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder Connection Distributing Co. v. Holder, 557 F.3d 321 (6th Cir. 2009) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the record-keeping provisions of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act did not violate the First Amendment.
f5ebeccf7e0951dccd4e02fcf772be3f
Adderley v. Florida Adderley v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966) , was a United States Supreme Court case regarding whether arrests for protesting in front of a jail were constitutional.
9e096bc9104840e2f561eec0ae708040
Lemon v. Kurtzman Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States. The court ruled in an 8–1 decision that Pennsylvania's Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act (represented through David Kurtzman) from 1968 was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The act allowed the Superintendent of Public Schools to reimburse private schools (mostly Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught in these private schools, from public textbooks and with public instructional materials. The decision also upheld a decision of the First Circuit, which had struck down the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act providing state funds to supplement salaries at private elementary schools by 15%. As in Pennsylvania, most of these funds were spent on Catholic schools.
533bf81861a16c123243acb2f6c13876
Hansberry v. Lee Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) , is a famous case now usually known in civil procedure for teaching that "res judicata" may not bind a subsequent plaintiff who had no opportunity to be represented in the earlier civil action. The facts of the case dealt with a racially restrictive covenant that barred African Americans from purchasing or leasing land in the Washington Park Subdivision of Chicago's Woodlawn neighborhood. The covenant had been upheld in a prior class action lawsuit, which had included Lee, along with all the other neighborhood landowners, as members of the class. The defense in the present case argued that Carl Augustus Hansberry (father of Lorraine Hansberry) could not contest the covenant because it had already been deemed valid by the courts in the prior lawsuit.
a9b81e463410da8ee459fa6a3fc823dc
Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936) , was a United States Supreme Court case that provided the first elaboration of the doctrine of "Constitutional avoidance".