Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Morse vs. Frederick (2007)
Relevant Case Facts:
On January 24th, 2002, the Olympic Torch Relay passed along a street in front of Juneau-
Douglas High School in Juneau, Alaska. Students from the high school were permitted to leave
class to observe the event as a part of an approved school activity. As the torchbearers and
television cameras passed by, Joseph Frederick, a senior at Juneau-Douglas, and some friends
unfurled a 14-foot banner bearing the words “BONG HiTS 4 JESUS.” School principal Deborah
Morse immediately demanded that they lower the banner. When Frederick refused, Morse
suspended him for ten days on the grounds that he violated school policy by advocating illegal
drug use. The school superintendent upheld the suspension. Arguing that his First Amendment
rights to political expression had been violated, Frederick sued in federal district court for
unspecified monetary damages. The district judge ruled against Frederick. The 9th Circuit
reversed, holding that student speech cannot be restricted unless it poses a substantial risk of
disruption, which the banner did not. The school district appealed and the Supreme Court granted
certiorari.
Legal Question: Does a principal’s restriction of student speech (that might reasonably be
viewed as promoting illegal drug use) at a school event violate the First Amendment?
Reasoning:
Concurring (Thomas):
Concurring (Alito):
Dissenting (Stevens):
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
Relevant Case Facts:
The West Virginia Legislature amended its laws to require that all public schools teach courses
to increase students’ knowledge of the American system of government and foster patriotism.
The state board of education required that the American Flag be saluted and the Pledge of
Allegiance recited each day. Students who refused could be charged with insubordination and
expelled. An expulsion could lead to the child being declared delinquent, and parents could then
be fined or put in jail.
Legal Question: May a state, consistent with the First Amendment, force students to salute the
American Flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Frankfurter):
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights Inc. (2005)
Relevant Case Facts: The Solomon Amendment withdrew federal funds from any college or
university that denied military recruiters access. Congress passed the law in reaction to several
colleges that objected to a provision in federal law that allows the military to dismiss anyone
who engages in homosexual activity. The Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights filed suit
to have the Solomon Amendment declared the forced inclusion and equal treatment of military
recruiters violated its members’ First Amendment freedom of speech and Association.
Legal Question: May Congress withhold funds from colleges and universities who deny military
recruiters access to their campuses?
Reasoning:
CASE TAKEN OUT KEEP IN IF YOU LIKE
Buckley v Valeo (1976)
Relevant Case Facts:
In 1974 Congress amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to impose significantly
greater federal regulation of federal election campaigns. First it limited individual contributions
to candidates. Second it limited individual and group expenditures on behalf of any candidate.
Third, candidates had to keep records of every contribution over $10 and to disclose
contributions and expenditures quarterly. Fourth, it created the Federal Election Commission.
Firth, it created a system of public financing for presidential campaigns.
Legal Question: Does legislation which limits contributions and expenditures of federal
campaigns violate First Amendment Freedoms?
Reasoning:
Concur and Dissent (Burger):
Concur and Dissent (White):
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona (1977)
Relevant Case Facts:
Bates and Van O’Steen graduated from Arizona State University College of Law and took jobs
at a state legal aid society. They then decided to open a legal clinic to provide services at modes
fees to persons of moderate income who did not qualify for government aid. They also placed an
ad in an Arizona newspaper to advertise their clinic. The state bar found them guilty of violating
the tenet against advertising and gave them a one-week suspension of their legal practice.
Legal Question: May lawyers constitutionally advertise the prices at which certain routine
services will be performed?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Rehnquist):
Central Hudson Gas and Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980)
Relevant Case Facts:
After the energy shortage of winter 1973 the New York Public Service Commission ordered all
public utility companies to stop all advertising that promoted the use of electricity. Three years
after the shortage ceased, the commission requested comments on the ban. Central Hudson
opposed the ban on First Amendment Grounds, but the commission extended the ban to all
advertising.
Legal Question: Does the Public Service Commission’s regulation on advertising violate the
First and Fourth Amendments because it completely bans promotional advertising by an
electrical utility?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Rehnquist):
Boy Scouts of American v. Dale (2000)
Relevant Case Facts:
Dale joined the Boy Scouts of American (BSA) in 1978, rose to the rank of Eagle Scout, and in
1989 was named an assistant scoutmaster. At college Dale acknowledged that he was gay and
joined the Gay/Lesbian Alliance. He was subsequently interviewed for a newspaper article
where he discussed the need for gay teens to have appropriate role models. Shortly after the
publication of the article he received a letter from the Monmouth Council revoking his
membership in the Boy Scouts. The reason given was that the scouts “specifically forbid
membership to homosexuals.” Dale filed suit claiming that the revocation of membership
violated a New Jersey law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in public
accommodations.
Legal Question: Does the 1st Amendment right to association allow the Boy Scouts of America
to forbid membership to homosexuals?
Reasoning:
Dissenting (Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer):
