KEYISHIAN et al. v. BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK et al.
Supreme Court Cases
385 U.S. 589 (1967)
Related Cases
HEFFERNAN v. CITY OF PATERSON
Decided:
DEP'T OF HOMELAND SEC. v. MACLEAN
Decided:
LANE v. FRANKS
Decided:
Does the 1st Amendment protect a public employee’s subpoenaed trial testimony that was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities?
GIL GARCETTI, et al. v. RICHARD CEBALLOS
Decided:
Does the First Amendment protect the speech of a deputy district attorney who wrote and circulated a memorandum suggesting that a deputy sheriff lied in a search warrant affidavit and in his subsequent testimony at court?
Bartnicki v. Vopper
Decided:
Whether publication of lawfully obtained communications that had been recorded by an illegal wiretap is protected by the First Amendment, despite being prohibited by a statute.
BD. OF COUNTY COMM'RS v. UMBEHR
Decided:
Whether First Amendment prevents government officials from terminating a contract with an independent contractor because of the contractor's speech.
O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INCORPORATED, et al. v. CITY OF NORTHLAKE et al.
Decided:
Whether government retaliation against a contractor or regular provider of services for the exercise of rights of political association or allegiance violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
UNITED STATES, et al. v. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION et al.
Decided:
Whether the government can prohibit federal employees from receiving compensation for writing and speaking about matters not related to their employment.
CYNTHIA WATERS, et al. v. CHERYL R. CHURCHILL, et al.
Decided:
Whether a public employee may be fired for her speech even though one version of what she said indicates that her speech was of public concern.
RUTAN et al. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS et al.
Decided:
Whether promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may be constitutionally based on party affiliation and support.
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY v. EGAN
Decided:
RANKIN et al. v. MCPHERSON
Decided:
Whether a clerical employee in a county Constable's office was properly discharged for remarking, after hearing of an attempt on the life of the President: "If they go for him again, I hope they get him."
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, LOUISIANA v. MYERS
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment prevents the discharge of a state employee for circulating a questionnaire concerning internal office affairs.
HAIG, SECRETARY OF STATE v. AGEE
Decided:
BRANTI v. FINKEL et al.
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment protects an assistant public defender who is satisfactorily performing his job from discharge solely because of his political beliefs.
GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Decided:
Whether a public employee forfeits his or her 1st Amendment protection against governmental abridgment of freedom of speech when he arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to express his views publicly.
MT. HEALTHY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION v. DOYLE
Decided:
Whether a teacher whose contract was not renewed after several speech-related incidents had his First Amendment rights violated.
ELROD, SHERIFF, et al. v. BURNS et al.
Decided:
Whether the discharge of a non-civil-service employee of a sheriff's department for not being affiliated with the Democratic party was a violation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
KLEINDIENST, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. MANDEL et al.
Decided:
"Does appellants' action in refusing to allow an alien scholar to enter the country to attend academic meetings violate the First Amendment rights of American scholars and students who had invited him?"
PERRY et al. v. SINDERMANN
Decided:
Whether the respondents lack of a contractual or tenure right to reemployment, taken alone, defeats his claim that the non-renewal of his contract violated the First Amendment and whether the college refused to renew the teaching contract based on a impermissible basisas a reprisal for the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
CONNELL v. HIGGINBOTHAM et al.
Decided:
In re STOLAR
Decided:
BAIRD v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
Decided:
BRYSON v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
EPPERSON et al. v. ARKANSAS
Decided:
PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 205, WILL COUNTY
Decided:
Whether a teacher's dismissal by the Board of Education for publishing a letter in a newspaper critical of the Board's allocation of funds violated his freedom of speech under the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES v. ROBEL
Decided:
This case draws into question the constitutionality a section of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950,which provides that, when a Communist-action organization is under a final order to register, it shall be unlawful for any member of the organization "to engage in any employment in any defense facility."
DOMBROWSKI et al. v. EASTLAND et al.
Decided:
UNITED STATES v. LAUB et al.
Decided:
TRAVIS v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
DENNIS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
GOJACK v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
ELFBRANDT v. RUSSELL et al.
Decided:
UNITED STATES v. BROWN
Decided:
STANFORD v. TEXAS
Decided:
BAGGETT et al. v. BULLITT et al.
Decided:
KREZNAR et al. v. UNITED STATES.
Decided:
GREENE v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
YELLIN v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
WHEELDIN et al. v. WHEELER
Decided:
GIBSON v. FLORIDA LEGISLATIVE INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE
Decided:
Whether the Florida Legislative Investigative Committee, in an attempt to inform itself about activities of subversive organizations, violated petitioners First and Fourteenth Amendment association rights.
HARTMAN v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SILBER v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
GRUMMAN v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
RUSSELL v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
NOSTRAND et al. v. LITTLE et al.
Decided:
KILLIAN v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
DEUTCH v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SCALES v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the membership clause of the Smith Act, as applied to an "active member" of the Communist party, infringes on freedoms of expression and association in violation of the First Amendment.
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE UNITED STATES v. SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES CONTROL BOARD
Decided:
Does requiring individuals to register their political party affiliation with the Attorney General violate the First Amendment?
NOTO v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether a conviction under the membership clause of the Smith Act was based on sufficient evidence that a Communist Party member "presently advocated forcible overthrow of the Government."
SLAGLE et al. v. OHIO
Decided:
In re ANASTAPLO
Decided:
WILKINSON v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
BRADEN v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
TRAVIS v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SHELTON et al. v. TUCKER et al.
Decided:
Whether a Louisiana statute which compels teachers in public institutions to disclose which organizations they belong or contribute to unconstitutionally burdens a teachers 14th Amendment right of free association.
MCPHAUL v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
NOSTRAND et al. v. LITTLE et al.
Decided:
GREENE v. MCELROY et al.
Decided:
TAYLOR v. MCELROY et al.
Decided:
RALEY et al. v. OHIO
Decided:
BARENBLATT v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities inquiry into petitioners past or present membership in the Communist Party violated the First Amendment.
FLAXER v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SPEISER v. RANDALL, ASSESSOR OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether a California law requiring a loyalty oath in order to gain a tax exemption violated due process of law.
DAYTON v. DULLES, SECRETARY OF STATE
Decided:
SACHER v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
WATKINS v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SWEEZY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, BY WYMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Decided:
Whether an investigation conducted under the aegis of state legislature to determine whether a professor was a subversive person in the state and including asking him for the contents of a lecture he gave at the state university and his knowledge of the Progressive Party violated the First Amendment.
YATES et al. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the conviction of 14 Communists under the Smith Act for conspiring to "advocate and teach the duty of overthrowing the government by force or violence" violated the First Amendment
SERVICE v. DULLES et al.
Decided:
COLE v. YOUNG et al.
Decided:
PENNSYLVANIA v. NELSON
Decided:
PETERS v. HOBBY et al.
Decided:
WIEMAN et al. v. UPDEGRAFF et al.
Decided:
Whether a state loyalty oath violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
HARISIADES v. SHAUGHNESSY, DISTRICT DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION
Decided:
Whether the Alien Registration Act of 1940, authorizing the deportation of legally resident aliens because of membership in the Communist Party, violated freedom of speech and assembly in contravention of the First Amendment.
DENNIS ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the Smith Act which makes it a crime to "knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or by assignation" is on its face and as applied to the Petitioners violative of the First Amendment.
AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSN., C. I. O., ET AL. v. DOUDS, REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Decided:
Whether sect. 9 (h) of the Taft Hartley Act (1947) which required officers of labor unions to sign affidavits indicating that they were not members of the Communist Party, or supporters of it, or advocated the violent overthrow of the government violated the First Amendment
Gorin v. United States
Decided:
HERNDON v. LOWRY, SHERIFF
Decided:
Whether a Georgia law prohibiting an "attempt to incite insurrection" was unconstitutional as applied to a Communist member planning to distribute literature, because the law was too vague to provide a sufficiently ascertainable standard of guilt.
DE JONGE v. OREGON
Decided:
Whether, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, mere participation in a meeting called by the Communist Party can be criminalized.
PIERCE et al. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
SCHAEFER v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
ABRAMS et al. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the Espionage Act violates the First Amendment as applied to distributing leaflets calling for a strike at U.S. ammunitions plants.
FROHWERK v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether a conviction under the Espionage Act of 1917 for circulating anti-war articles should be overturned on First Amendment grounds.
DEBS v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether a political candidate’s speech that was considered to obstruct the United States’ war effort in violation of the Espionage Act deserved First Amendment protection.
SCHENCK v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Charles Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act for distributing anti-war leaflets that urged people to boycott the draft.