Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Cases that consider the First Amendment implications of payments mandated by the state going to use in part for speech by third parties Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) Communications Workers of America v. Beck (1978) Chicago Local Teachers Union v. Hudson (1986) Keller v. State Bar of California (1990) Lehnert v. Ferris Faculty Ass'n ...
These lists are sorted chronologically by chief justice and include most major cases decided by the court. Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth Courts (October 19, 1789 – December 15, 1800) Marshall Court (February 4, 1801 – July 6, 1835)
Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) The Eighth Amendment requires prisoners to show 1.) there is a known and available alternative method of execution and 2.) the challenged method of execution poses a demonstrated risk of severe pain, with the burden of proof resting on the prisoners, not the state. Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. 119 (2019 ...
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision [1] by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
5.1.5 Disclosure of exculpatory and impeachment material. ... Also the Fifth Amendment. Minder v. Georgia, 183 U.S. 559 ... This page was last edited on 31 August ...
Pages in category "United States First Amendment case law" The following 49 pages are in this category, out of 49 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
After 1925, most cases have been subject to being granted a writ of certiorari which the Court can grant or deny without ruling on the merits. This change greatly reduced the Court's workload. [1] [2] In the past decade, approximately 7,000-8,000 new cases are filed in the Supreme Court each year. Plenary review, with oral arguments by ...
Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that enhanced penalties for hate crimes do not violate criminal defendants' First Amendment rights. [1] It was a landmark precedent pertaining to First Amendment free speech arguments for hate crime legislation. [2]