Did both Davis v. Beason and Gitlow v. New York mention the First Amendment in their case?
d549211301416a373783f643f98def21
Davis v. Beason Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), was a United States Supreme Court case affirming, by a 9-0 vote, that federal laws against polygamy did not conflict with the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
83b21ba17b803e10dd75be9350258e01
Gitlow v. New York Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the reach of certain limitations on federal government authority set forth in the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. It was one of a series of Supreme Court cases that defined the scope of the First Amendment's protection of free speech and established the standard to which a state or the federal government would be held when it criminalized speech or writing.
363ee1535aa948cfe69646cf283368c0
Wainwright v. Witt Wainwright vs. Witt, 470 U.S. 1039 (1985) , was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning a criminal defendant, Johnny Paul Witt, who argued that his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated when he was sentenced to death for first degree murder by the state of Florida. He argued that the trial court had unconstitutionally hand-picked a jury during the "voir dire" process. This was because certain people were excused from the jury because they admitted pre-trial, that their decision of guilty or not guilty toward capital punishment would be swayed due to personal or religious beliefs.
180ca187f92be2f0107e9ae3f7846760
Wisconsin v. City of New York Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is granted with the authority to conduct an "actual enumeration" of the American society, chiefly for the purpose of allocating congressional representation among the states.
a8257a026efdb8c3365030eaeeda012f
Garcetti v. Ceballos Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) , is a U.S. Supreme Court decision involving First Amendment free speech protections for government employees. The plaintiff in the case was a district attorney who claimed that he had been passed up for a promotion for criticizing the legitimacy of a warrant. The Court ruled, in a 5-4 decision, that because his statements were made pursuant to his position as a public employee, rather than as a private citizen, his speech had no First Amendment protection.
5d4854b8a7215d6df007e3ec7fab9c5c
Goss v. Lopez Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975) was a US Supreme Court case. It held that a public school must conduct a hearing before subjecting a student to suspension. Also, a suspension without a hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
e3d35cfcf9f64b0e7a77a67e19370c4b
Cleveland v. United States Cleveland v. United States is the name for two United States Supreme Court cases.
257ab2832399f43fa2d7b464c36053f4
United States v. Williams (1951) United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70 (1951) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that provides that (protecting US citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws) may only be applied to federal cases and is not available to the state governments.
52ea5af426228cb71dcdf16990693b2b
Frank v. Maryland Frank v. Maryland, 359 U.S. 360 (1959) , was a United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
887af39f1f73cd11de24f9e51323d0fa
McCarran Amendment The McCarran Amendment, 43 U.S.C. § 666 (1952) is a federal law enacted by the United States Congress in 1952 which waives the United States' sovereign immunity in suits concerning ownership or management of water rights. It amended Chapter 15 (Appropriation of Waters; Reservoir Sites) of Title 43 (Public Lands) of the United States Code. The McCarran Amendment gives others the right to join in such a lawsuit as a defendant. Prior to the Amendment, sovereign immunity kept the United States from being joined in any suits. The Amendment enabled suits concerning federal water rights to be tried in state courts.
adac2b6ceef182b4bca5fd8e75ce252e
Freedom of movement under United States law Freedom of movement under United States law is governed primarily by the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution which states, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States." As far back as the circuit court ruling in "Corfield v. Coryell," 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (1823), freedom of movement has been judicially recognized as a fundamental Constitutional right. In "Paul v. Virginia," 75 U.S. 168 (1869), the Court defined freedom of movement as "right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them." However, the Supreme Court did not invest the federal government with the authority to protect freedom of movement. Under the "privileges and immunities" clause, this authority was given to the states, a position the Court held consistently through the years in cases such as "Ward v. Maryland," 79 U.S. 418 (1871), the "Slaughter-House Cases," 83 U.S. 36 (1873) and "United States v. Harris," 106 U.S. 629 (1883).
95d2927369f95f1d1a55b34a0244c3b1
Branzburg v. Hayes Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision invalidating the use of the First Amendment as a defense for reporters summoned to testify before a grand jury. The case was argued February 23, 1972 and decided June 29 of the same year. The reporter lost his case by a vote of 5-4. This case is cited for the rule that in federal courts, a reporter may not generally avoid testifying in a criminal grand jury, and it remains the only case in which the U.S. Supreme Court has considered the use of "reporters' privilege".
3b2822acc9ac84fcda95809b4c627abe
Censorship in the United States In general, censorship in the United States, which involves the suppression of speech or public communication, raises issues of freedom of speech, which is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. This freedom, though fundamental, has been accompanied with controversy since its enshrinement. For instance, restraints increased during periods of widespread anti-communist sentiment, as exemplified by the hearings of the House Committee on Un-American Activities. According to "Miller v. California" (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored. While it is legal to express certain forms of hate speech so long as one does not engage in the acts being discussed, or urge others to commit illegal acts, more severe forms have led to people or groups (such as the Ku Klux Klan) being denied certain marching permits or the Westboro Baptist Church being sued, though the initially adverse ruling against the latter was later overturned on appeal in the U.S. Supreme Court.
459b5c10eb5870404dced62d30909e45
Zellers v. Huff The Dixon School Case (Zellers v. Huff) was a lawsuit started in 1948 in New Mexico contesting the use of nuns, religious brothers and priests as teachers in publicly supported schools under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The case involved thirty schools in eleven New Mexico counties, twenty-eight plaintiffs, two hundred defendants, and public expenditures to the schools of over $600,000 annually. Following on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in "Everson v. Board of Education", which applied First Amendment freedoms to state as well as federal law, the Dixon School Case was the first state case to implement separation of church and state in public schools, and was watched with interest nationally.
ea552b48b2ba920c74a50d5d4caf5494
Freedom for the Thought That We Hate Freedom for the Thought That We Hate: A Biography of the First Amendment is a 2007 non-fiction book by journalist Anthony Lewis about freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of thought, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The book starts by quoting the First Amendment, which prohibits the U.S. Congress from creating legislation which limits free speech or freedom of the press. Lewis traces the evolution of civil liberties in the U.S. through key historical events. He provides an overview of important free speech case law, including U.S. Supreme Court opinions in "Schenck v. United States" (1919), "Whitney v. California" (1927), "United States v. Schwimmer" (1929), "New York Times Co. v. Sullivan" (1964), and "New York Times Co. v. United States" (1971).
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.
e70fd780a6396063ae46bfb5514674ca
United States v. Ortiz United States v. Ortiz, 422 U.S. 891 (1975) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Fourth Amendment prevented Border Patrol officers from conducting warrantless, suspicionless searches of private vehicles removed from the border or its functional equivalent.
a1116b3a4a1f45000dd2f21da42b8c3c
Downes v. Bidwell Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901) , was a case in which the US Supreme Court decided whether US territories were subject to the provisions and protections of the US Constitution. This issue is sometimes stated as whether the Constitution follows the flag. The resulting decision narrowly held that the Constitution did not necessarily apply to territories. Instead, the US Congress had jurisdiction to create law within territories in certain circumstances, particularly in those dealing with revenue, which would not be allowed by the Constitution for proper states within the Union. It has become known as one of the "Insular Cases".
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.
744bcd88c9b5001836ce481f2befa182
One, Inc. v. Olesen One, Inc. v. Olesen 355 U.S. 371 (January 13, 1958) is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision for LGBT rights in the United States. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
c7579c75580fd9117a64d5183933ac51
First Freedom Center The First Freedom Center is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit located in Richmond, Virginia. Its mission is to commemorate and educate about freedom of religion and conscience as proclaimed in Thomas Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Located in the Shockoe Slip district of downtown Richmond, the Center sits on the site where Jefferson's statute was enacted into law by the Virginia General Assembly on January 16, 1786. Championed through the Virginia General Assembly by James Madison, the statute was the first law of absolute religious freedom enacted in the young nation and served as a template for the religion clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which would be ratified five years later (1791).
872e7f70ba88189878b384ba3d3e53a3
Spano v. New York Spano v. New York, 360 U.S. 315 (1959) represented the Supreme Court's movement away from the amorphous voluntariness standard for determining whether police violated due process standards when eliciting confessions and towards the modern rule in "Miranda v. Arizona". In "Spano", the Court focused less on factors such as meals provided to the accused and more on whether the accused had access to legal counsel.