Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court interpreting the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. [1] The Court held that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action".
The ruling comes nearly two years after the Supreme Court overturned the federal right to an abortion established by Roe v. Wade. As a result of that historic decision, over a dozen states now ...
President-elect Donald Trump lost a bid Monday to get his 34 felony convictions tossed out based on a Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity, but he still has multiple avenues to fight the ...
The U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on Monday that Donald Trump cannot be prosecuted for his official acts as president plunges a major criminal case against him into doubt and all but assures he will ...
He is asking the justices to reject the Colorado Supreme Court's conclusion that he is disqualified from running for president. Trump's Supreme Court Brief Rebuts the Claim That He 'Engaged in ...
One headline in The Washington Post ' s opinion section reads, “The Supreme Court rules to restore the monarchy,” [109] while The Onion ran stories with headlines such as “Supreme Court Rules Trump Has Immunity For Any Crime Committed Between 9 And 5” [110] and “New Trump Ad Shows Montage Of People He’ll Kill If Elected.” [111]
In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Supreme Court established a two-part test for speech qualifying as incitement and without protection by the First Amendment if that speech is: "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action"; and "likely to incite or produce such action". [283] [284] [285]
The polarized reaction to the decision came as a federal judge begins to weigh whether Trump will face any charges he tried to steal the 2020 election in light of the ruling. Prosecutors are ...