Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that burning the Flag of the United States was protected speech under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as doing so counts as symbolic speech and political speech.
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, 576 U.S. 200 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that license plates are government speech and are consequently more easily regulated/subjected to content restrictions than private speech under the First Amendment.
Texas v. Johnson (1989) redefined the scope of fighting words to "a direct personal insult or an invitation to exchange fisticuffs" in juxtapose to flag burning as symbolic speech. [6] In R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992) and Virginia v. Black (2003), the Court held that cross burning is not 'fighting words' without intent to intimidate. In Snyder
The Supreme Court hears arguments Thursday over whether former President Donald Trump can be kept off the 2024 ballot because of his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, culminating in ...
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 576 U.S. 519 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court analyzed whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing Act. [1]
Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10 (1948), was a significant United States Supreme Court decision addressing search warrants and the Fourth Amendment.In this case, where federal agents had probable cause to search a hotel room but did not obtain a warrant, the Court declared the search was "unreasonable."
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that House GOP leaders plan to file an amicus brief with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. House leaders led by Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La ...
In the 1968 case Powell v. Texas, the Supreme Court held in a plurality opinion that an alcoholic can be prosecuted under a state statute against public intoxication because the "actus reus" (guilty act) of choosing to drink to the point of intoxication while in public is distinct from the status of being an alcoholic. [3] In the 2018 case ...