Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Find lawyers in the LII Lawyer Directory

Your query speech returned 97 results.

	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Concurrence]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Opinion]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Dissent]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION [Syllabus] Provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 prohibiting "any visual depiction" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," as well as any sexually explicit image "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts a minor engaging in such conduct, are overbroad and therefore violate the First Amendment.
	44 LIQUORMART, INC., ET AL. V. RHODE ISLAND ET AL., 517 U.S. 484 (1996). [Syllabus]
	WATERS V. CHURCHILL, 511 U.S. 661 (1994) [Syllabus]
	THOMPSON V. WESTERN STATES MEDICAL CENTER [Syllabus] The prohibitions on soliciting prescriptions for, and advertising, compounded drugs that are set forth in the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 amount to unconstitutional restrictions on commercial speech violative of the First Amendment.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM N V. WISCONSIN RIGHT TOLIFE, INC. [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	BOARD OF REGENTS OF UNIV. OF WIS. SYSTEMV. SOUTHWORTH [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment is offended by a policy or program under which public university students must pay mandatory fees that are used in part to support organizations that engage in political speech.
	SCHENCK V. PRO CHOICE NETWORK, 519 U.S. 357 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CAPITOL SQUARE REVIEW BD. V. PINETTE, 515 U.S. 753 (1995). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. UNITED FOODS, INC. [Syllabus] The Mushroom Promotion, Research, and Consumer Information Act's requirement that fresh mushroom handlers pay assessments used primarily to fund advertising promoting mushroom sales violates the First Amendment.
	ROSENBERGER V. UNIVERSITY OF VA., 515 U.S. 819 (1995). [Syllabus]
	JOHANNS V. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSN. [Syllabus]
	BOARD OF COUNTY COM'RS, WABAUNSEE COUNTY, KAN. V. UMBEHR, 518 U.S.668 (1996) [Syllabus]
	DENVER AREA EDUCATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS CONSORTIUM, INC,., ET AL. V. F.C.C., 518 U.S. 727 (1996) [Syllabus]
	MORSE V. FREDERICK [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] Whether the Child Online Protection Act violates the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?
	LOS ANGELES V. ALAMEDA BOOKS, INC. [Syllabus] The Ninth Circuit's judgment striking down a Los Angeles ordinance banning multiple-use adult entertainment establishments under Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, is reversed, and the case is remanded.
	RENO V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, 117 S.CT. 2329, 138 L.ED.2D 874 (1997) [Syllabus]
	[Syllabus]
	MADSEN V. WOMEN'S HEALTH CTR., 512 U.S. 753 (1994). [Syllabus]
	GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSN., INC.V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	MCCONNELL V. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. AMERICAN LIBRARY ASSN., INC. [Syllabus] The children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA), Pub. L. No. 106-554, Div B, Tit. XVll, 114 State. 2763A-335, provides that a library that is otherwise eligible for special federal assistance for Internet access in the form of discount rates for educational purposes under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.S.C. 254(h) (Supp, V 1999), or grants under the Library Services and Technology Act, 20 U.S.C. 9121 et seq., may not receive that assistance unless the library has in place a policy that includes the operation of technology protection measure on Internet-connected computers that protects against access by all persons to visual depictions that are obscene or child pornography, and that protects against access by minors to visual depictions that harmful to minors. 47 U.S.C. 254(h)(6)(B) and (C) (Supp.V 1999); 20 U.S.C. 9134(f)(1). The question presented is whether CIPA induces public libraries to violate the First Amendment, there by exceeding Congress's power under the Spending Clause.
	HILL V. COLORADO [Syllabus] 1. Does Colorado's statutory requirement that speakers obtain consent from passersby on public sidewalks and streets before speaking, displaying signs, or distributing leaflets unconstitutionally burden protected expressive rights in a traditional public forum? 2.Does Colorado's statutory designation of private citizens as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets on public streets and sidewalks impose an unconstitutional prior restraint? 3. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit content-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets subject to strict scrutiny? 4. Is a statute that gives broad discretion to passersby in public places to act as censors of speech, picket signs, and leaflets and which fails to prohibit viewpoint-based denials of the right to speak, to display signs, or to pass leaflets unconstitutional per se?
	GENTILE V. STATE BAR OF NEVADA, 501 U.S. 1030 (1991) [Syllabus]
	GOOD NEWS CLUB V. MILFORD CENTRAL SCHOOL [Syllabus] When Milford Central School excluded the Good News Club from meeting after hours at the school on the ground that the Club was religious in nature, it violated the Club's free speech rights; that violation is not justified by Milford's concern that permitting the Club's activities would violate the Establishment Clause.
	LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION V. VELAZQUEZ [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in refusing to follow this Court's decision in Rust V. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1990) when it invalidated a limitation imposed by congress on the services that may be provided by legal Services Corporation grantees and held that Congress must subsidize grantees involved in litigation that seeks to amend or otherwise challenges existing welfare laws."
	VIRGINIA V. BLACK [Syllabus] Does the Virginia statute that bans cross burning with intent to intimidate violate the First Amendment, even though the statute reaches all such intimidation and is not limited to any racial, religious or other content-focused category?
	UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION, 513 U.S. 454 (1995). [Syllabus]
	CITY OF CINCINNATI V. DISCOVERY NETWORK, 507 U.S. 410 (1993). [Syllabus]
	R. A. V. V. CITY OF ST. PAUL, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. WILLIAMS [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. PLAYBOY ENTERTAINMENTGROUP, INC. [Syllabus] 1. Whether Section 505 violates the First Amendment. 2. Whether the three-judge district court was divested of jurisdiction to dispose of the government's post- judgment motions under Rule 59 (e) and 60 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by the government's filing of a notice of appeal while those motion were pending.
	SANTA FE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DIST. V. DOE [Syllabus] Whether petitioner's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause."
	NIXON V. SHRINK MISSOURI GOVERNMENT PAC [Syllabus] Whether the court of appeals erred in declaring that Missouri's campaign contribution limits for statewide office, which exceed the limits expressly approved by this Court for national elections in Buckeley V. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976), violates the First Amendment.
	REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINN. V. WHITE [Syllabus] The Minnesota Supreme Court's canon of judicial conduct prohibiting candidates for judicial election from announcing their views on disputed legal and political issues violates the First Amendment.
	GLICKMAN V. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., 117 S.CT. 2130, 138 L.ED.2D (1997) [Syllabus]
	ELDRED V. ASHCROFT [Syllabus] The Copyright Term Extension Act, which enlarges the duration of existing and future copyrights by 20 years, does not exceed Congress' power under the Constitution's Copyright Clause and does not violate the First Amendment.
	BARTNICKI V. VOPPER [Syllabus] Respondent news media's disclosure of the contents of an illegally intercepted cell phone conversation about a public issue is protected by the First Amendment.
	EDENFIELD V. FANE, 507 U.S. 761 (1993). [Syllabus]
	ALEXANDER V. UNITED STATES, 509 U.S. 544 (1993). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. KOKINDA, 497 U.S. 720 (1990) [Syllabus]
	WATCHTOWER BIBLE & TRACT SOC. OF N. Y., INC. V.VILLAGE OF STRATTON [Syllabus] A village ordinance making it a misdemeanor to engage in door-to-door advocacy without first registering with the mayor and receiving a permit violates the First Amendment as it applies to religious proselytizing, anonymous political speech, and the distribution of handbills.
	CITY OF LADUE V. GILLEO, 114 S. CT. 2038, 129 L. ED. 2D 36 (1994). [Syllabus]
	UNITED STATES V. EDGE BROADCASTING, 509 U.S. 418 (1993). [Syllabus]
	MCINTYRE V. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, 514 U.S. 334 (1995). [Syllabus]
	BUCKLEY V. AMERICAN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. V. F.C.C., 520 U.S. 180 (1997) [Syllabus]
	VIRGINIA V. HICKS [Syllabus] 1. May a criminal defendant escape conviction by invoking the overbreadth doctrine even though (I) his own offense did not involve any expressive conduct, and (ii) his conduct was not proscribed by that portion of the government statute, regulation or policy of the government statute, regulation or policy he challenges as overbroad? 2. In the context of government's attempts to exclude some non-residents from a public housing complex, does the Constitution recognize a distinction between actions taken by government as landlord and actions taken by government as sovereign?
	LEHNERY V. FERRIS FACULTY ASSN., 500 U.S. 507 (1991) [Syllabus]
	RUBIN V. COORS BREWING CO., 514 U.S. 476 (1995). [Syllabus]
	RUST V. SULLIVAN, 500 U.S. 173 (1991) [Syllabus]
	MICROSOFT CORP. V. AT&T CORP. [Syllabus]
	TURNER BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC.. V. F.C.C. , 512 U.S. 622 (1994) [Syllabus]
	COLORADO REPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE V. FEDERAL ELECTION COM'N, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) [Syllabus]
	IBANEZ V. FLORIDA DEP'T OF BUSINESS & PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, 512 U.S. 136 (1994) [Syllabus]
	ARKANSAS ED. TELEVISION COMM'N V. FORBES, 523 U.S. 666 (1997) [Syllabus]
	DAVENPORT V. WASHINGTON ED. ASSN. [Syllabus]
	RENNE V. GEARY, 501 U.S. 312 (1991) [Syllabus]
	HURLEY V. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN & BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) [Syllabus]
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. COLORADOREPUBLICAN FEDERAL CAMPAIGN COMM. [Syllabus] Because a political party's expenditures coordinated with its candidates, unlike the party's truly independent expenditures, may be restricted to minimize circumvention of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971's contribution limits, the Colorado Republican Party's facial challenge to the Acts limits on parties' coordinated expenditures is rejected.
	WISCONSIN V. MITCHELL, 508 U.S. 47 (1993). [Syllabus]
	TORY V. COCHRAN [Syllabus]
	RANDALL V. SORRELL [Syllabus]
	ILLINOIS EX REL. MADIGAN V. TELEMARKETINGASSOCIATES, INC. [Syllabus] Whether the First Amendment categorically prohibits a State from pursuing a fraud action against a professional fundraiser who represents that donations will be used for charitable purposes but in fact keeps the vast majority (in this case 85 percent) of all funds donated.
	BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE [Syllabus] Whether a state law requiring a Boy Scout Troop to appoint an avowed homosexual and gray rights activist as an Assistant Scoutmaster responsible for communicating Boy Scouting's moral values to youth members abridges First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of association."
	LAMB'S CHAPEL V. CTR. MORICHES UNION FREE SCH. DIST., 508 U.S. 384 (1993). [Syllabus]
	O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INC. V. CITY OF NORTHLAKE 518 U.S. 712 (1996) [Syllabus]
	OFFICE OF SEN. MARK DAYTON V. HANSON [Syllabus]
	PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990) [Syllabus]
	BURSON V. FREEMAN, 504 U.S. 191 (1992). [Syllabus]
	FORSYTH COUNTY, GA. V. NATIONALIST MOVEMENT, 505 U.S. 123 (1992). [Syllabus]
	HEIN V. FREEDOM FROM RELIGION FOUNDATION, INC. [Syllabus]
	THOMAS V. CHICAGO PARK DIST. [Syllabus] A content-neutral time, place, and manner permit scheme regulating speech in a public forum need not contain the procedural safeguards described in Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51.
	FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N V. BEAUMONT [Syllabus] The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. 441b, prohibits corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign contributions and independent expenditures in connection with federal elections. The question presented is whether Section 441b's prohibition on contributions violates the First Amendment to the Constitution if it is applied to a nonprofit corporation whose primary purpose is to engage in political advocacy.
	LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPT. V. UNITED REPORTINGPUBLISHING CORP. [Syllabus] Whether the government violates the First Amendment when it releases records but forbids their commercial use?
	SHAW V. MURPHY [Syllabus] Inmates do not possess a special First Amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates that enhances the protections otherwise available under Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78.
	INTERNATIONAL SOC. FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS V. LEE, 505 U.S. 672 (1992). [Syllabus]
	TENNESSEE SECONDARY SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSN. V.BRENTWOOD ACADEMY [Syllabus]
	FLORIDA BAR V. WENT FOR IT, INC., 515 U.S. 618 (1995). [Syllabus]
	ARIZONANS FOR OFFICIAL ENGLISH V. ARIZONA, 520 U.S. 43 (1997). [Syllabus]
	CITY NEWS & NOVELTY, INC. V. WAUKESHA [Syllabus] Is a licensing scheme which acts as a prior restraint required to contain explicit language which prevents injury to a speaker's rights from want of a prompt judicial decision?"
	BARNES V. GLEN THEATRE, INC., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) [Syllabus]
	BE&K CONSTR. CO. V. NLRB [Syllabus] Respondent National Labor Relations Board lacked authority to find that petitioner violated federal labor law by prosecuting against respondent unions an unsuccessful lawsuit with a retaliatory motive.
	[Syllabus]
	ERIE V. PAP’S A. M. [Syllabus] Did the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the court of last resort of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, improperly strike an ordinance of the City of Erie which fully comports with the principles articulated in Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., thereby willfully disregarding binding precedent in violation of the Supremacy Clause at Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States?
	RUTAN V. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS, 497 U.S. 62 (1990) [Syllabus]
	MASSON V. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., 501 U.S. 496 (1991) [Syllabus]
	NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR ARTS V. FINLEY, 524 U.S. 569 (1998) [Syllabus]
	LEATHERS V. MEDLOCK, 499 U.S. 439 (1991) [Syllabus]
	WASHINGTON STATE GRANGE V. WASHINGTON STATEREPUBLICAN PARTY [Syllabus]
	SABRI V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus] Whether Sabri is entitled to dismissal of the indictment charging him with three counts of bribery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2), on the ground that the statute is facially unconstitutional because Congress lacks the power to make bribery of a local official a federal crime without federal funds being at risk?
	WATSON V. UNITED STATES [Syllabus]
	WISCONSIN DEP'T OF REVENUE V. WILLIAM WRIGLEY, JR., CO., 505 U.S. 214 (1992). [Syllabus]
	ASHCROFT V. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION [Syllabus] The Child Online Protection Act's reliance on "community standards" to identify what World Wide Web material "is harmful to minors" does not by itself render the statute substantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes.
	BOGAN V. SCOTT-HARRIS, 523 U.S. 44 (1998) [Syllabus]
	SAUCIER V. KATZ [Syllabus] A qualified immunity ruling requires an analysis not susceptible of fusion with the question whether unreasonable force was used in making an arrest; petitioner, a military police officer, was entitled to qualified immunity for his actions in arresting respondent.