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".
While Trump's brief claims that his speech at the Ellipse was protected by the First Amendment, [70] theirs argues that it was not because it qualified as an inciting speech under Brandenburg v. Ohio. [71] Whereas Trump's brief claims that disqualification under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to holding office, as opposed to ...
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 395; Shouting fire in a crowded theater; Threatening the president of the United States; Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919) Brandenburg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Dennis v. United States 341 U.S. 494 (1951) Feiner v. New York, 340 U.S ...
A New York judge upheld a jury’s verdict that convicted President-elect Trump of a felony, ruling the outcome of the hush money case can withstand the Supreme Court’s new test for presidential ...
In a 2022 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that agencies cannot address "major questions" with broad economic or societal impact without explicit permission from Congress.
The Supreme Court's decision to hear arguments on Trump's immunity bid next month postponed the trial, giving him a boost as he tries to delay prosecutions while running to regain the presidency ...
This decision initiates a nationwide de facto moratorium on executions that lasts until the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976). Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Georgia's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it adequately narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. This case and the next ...
The court’s decision was a blow to special counsel Jack Smith’s election interference prosecution of Trump, which sparked the former president’s claim he is immune from charges based on his ...