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".
King v. Smith; Levy v. Louisiana; Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) - Amicus curiae for John W. Terry; Washington v. Lee; 1969 Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) - represented Clarence Brandenburg; Gregory v. Chicago; Street v. New York; Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) - represented the ...
Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973), was a United States Supreme Court case [1] involving the First Amendment that reaffirmed and clarified the imminent lawless action test first articulated in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). Hess is still cited by courts to protect speech threatening future lawless action. [2]
Nos. 12-3176, 12-3644 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT CHRISTOPHER HEDGES, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BARACK OBAMA, individually and as
Brandenburg clarified what constituted a "clear and present danger", the standard established by Schenck v. United States (1919), and overruled Whitney v. California (1927), which had held that speech that merely advocated violence could be made illegal.
For instance, the court applied facial challenges to invalidate challenged statutes in Brown v. Board of Education under the Equal Protection Clause, Brandenburg v. Ohio under the First Amendment, and United States v. Lopez under the Commerce Clause. Also, the article asserts that contrary to popular belief, facial challenges are not framed by ...
In modern practice, they are most commonly used in summary decisions that the Court resolves without full argument and briefing. [4] The designation is stated at the beginning of the opinion. Single-line per curiam decisions are also issued without concurrence or dissent by a hung Supreme Court (a 4–4 decision), when the Court has a vacant seat.
The brief makes 15 references to a 2001 article on impeachment by prominent legal scholar Brian Kalt, asserting that he had concluded that impeaching a former president is unconstitutional. Kalt replied that Trump's lawyers made "flat-out misrepresentations" of his work and that he had actually concluded that there is a "solid basis" for post ...