Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
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.
Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held, in a 5–3 decision, that student speech in a school-sponsored student newspaper at a public high school could be censored by school officials without a violation of First Amendment rights if the school's actions were "reasonably related" to a ...
In that case, the court held, it was not necessary to adopt any of the tests proposed in other circuits since the threatening nature of the speech satisfied all of them. [29] In 2015 the Fifth Circuit was again explicitly asked to determine whether Tinker applied to off-campus speech; this time the court, hearing the case en banc, accepted
Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47 (2006), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled that the federal government, under the Solomon Amendment, could constitutionally withhold funding from universities if they refuse to give military recruiters access to school resources.
During the case, the Tinker family received hate mail, death threats, and other hateful messages. [3] The case was argued before the court on November 12, 1968. It was funded by the Des Moines residents Louise Noun, who was the president of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, and her brother, Joseph Rosenfield, a businessman. [6]
In a separate case involving the FDA, the Supreme Court on Dec. 2 is set to hear arguments over the agency's denial of applications to sell flavored vape products. (Reporting by John Kruzel ...
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.
A crowd of community members gathered under gray skies Sunday afternoon outside the Maryland Cracker Barrel where a group of special needs and autistic children were denied dine-in service earlier ...