KUNZ v. NEW YORK

Did the Arkansas Department of Correction's grooming policy substantially burden the prisoner's free exercise of religion?

Whether a federal statute criminalizing depictions of animal cruelty violated the First Amendment.

Whether a city ordinance which requires canvassers to obtain a permit and reveal identifying information before going door-to-door to spread their political or religious messages violates the First Amendment.

Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.

Whether the provisions of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 that prohibit the transmission of indecent and patently offensive materials to minors over the Internet violate the First Amendment.

Whether Congress could constitutionally enact the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which establishes a higher standard than the one pronounced by the United States Supreme Court for determining whether a law impermissibly infringes on a person's right to exercise his or her religion.

Whether an injunction that limits the places where and the manner in which antiabortion protestors may demonstrate violates the First Amendment.

Whether a local school district that allows its facilities to be used for social and civic purposes may prevent a religious organization from using the facilities to show a movie that presents family issues from a religious perspective.

Whether a local ordinance may constitutionally permit a government administrator to vary the fee charged for a parade permit to reflect the estimated cost of maintaining public order during the parade.

Whether an Ohio statute prohibiting the private possession or viewing of child pornography is overbroad and violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantees.

Whether the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment prohibit a State from imposing a generally applicable sales and use tax on the distribution of religious materials by a religious organizations.

Whether a Dallas ordinance licensing "sexually oriented businesses" amounted to a prior restraint on protected expression, violating the First Amendment.

Whether a California law banning indecent as well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages violated the First Amendment's free speech guarantee

Whether a Massachusetts child pornography statute prohibiting adults from posing or exhibiting minors "in a state of nudity" was overbroad and violated the First Amendment.

Whether Illinois denial of unemployment compensation for a man who refused a temporary retail position because the job would have required him to work on Sunday, confliction with his personal religious beliefs, was in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Whether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment permits the State of Oregon to include religiously inspired peyote use within the reach of its general criminal prohibition on use of that drug, and thus permits the State to deny unemployment benefits to the persons dismissed from their jobs because of religiously inspired use.

Whether the construction of a paved road through federal land and allowance of timber harvesting by the United States Forest Service violates the Free Exercise Clause when part of such land has historically been used by certain American Indians for religious rituals that depend upon privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting.

Whether a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" at Los Angeles International Airport violates the First Amendment

Whether prison regulations that required prisoners to work outside on Friday afternoons, thereby making it impossible for them to attend Muslim congregational services held at that time, violated their rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Whether refusal to award unemployment compensation to person terminated for reasons due to conflicts between religion and employment violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Whether the requirement that citizens must obtain a Social Security number for their daughter in order to qualify for benefits under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children and the Food Stamp program, when citizen contends that obtaining a Social Security number violates their religious beliefs, violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Whether an appeals court erred in invalidating in its entirety a Washington statute aimed at preventing and punishing the publication of obscene materials.

Whether the imposition of social security is unconstitutional for those who oppose based on religious grounds.

Whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may confine religious organizations wishing to sell and distribute religious literature at a state fair to an assigned location within the fairgrounds.

Whether denial of unemployment compensation because employee voluntary terminated employment based on religious beliefs and not upon a good cause [arising] in connection with [his] work, as required by Indiana statute, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.

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.

Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.

Whether a Tennessee constitutional provision barring [m]inister[s] of the Gospel, or priest[s] of any denomination whatever from serving as a delegate violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Whether the State of New Hampshire may constitutionally enforce criminal sanctions against persons who cover the motto "Live Free or Die" on passenger vehicle license plates because that motto is repugnant to their moral and religious beliefs.

Whether a Florida ordinance making it a public nuisance and a punishable offense for a drive-in movie theater to exhibit films containing nudity, when the screen is visible from a public street or place, violates the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech and expression.

Whether a city-owned placard on the side of a city bus, which has been opened for commericial advertising use but not political advertising, is a public forum.

Whether a state may punish speech that is not part of “narrowly limited classes of speech” outside First Amendment protection (such as incitement, obscenity, or fighting words), and whether advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future period qualifies as incitement.

Whether Wisconsins compulsory school-attendance law (which requires a childs school attendance until age 16) violates the Free Exercise rights of Amish who declined for religious reasons to send their children to public or private school after they had graduated from the eighth grade.

Whether a Georgia criminal statute prohibiting “opprobrious words or abusive language, tending to cause a breach of the peace” violates the First Amendment.

Whether a prisons denial to an alleged Buddhist prisoner of use of the prison chapel and permission to write to his religious advisor and his placement in solitary confinement for sharing his religious material with other prisoners violated his right to free exercise.

The validity of Petitioners Armed Forces induction notice, which was grounded upon an erroneous denial of the petitioners claim to classified as a conscientious objector.

Whether arresting someone for wearing a jacket that says “Fuck the Draft” under a California statute which prohibits “offensive conduct” violated the First Amendment.

Whether the conscientious objector exemption for persons subject to service in the armed forces of the United States violates the Free Exercise and Establishment clauses of the First Amendment since the exemption requires the objector to oppose all wars.

Whether the section of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, which allows a conscientious objector status only for those who believe in a Supreme Being, violates the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment for those who neither confirm nor deny their belief in a Supreme Being but whose objections to all war are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions.

Whether a statute under which an individual can require a mailer to stop all future mailings that the person "believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative" violates the mailer's rights of free speech and due process.

Whether a law denying unemployment benefits to someone who cannot find work because their religious beliefs prohibit working on Saturdays is constitutional.

Whether a Virginia barratry statute which banned the improper solicitation of any legal or professional business unconstitutionally burdened the First Amendment freedom of association rights of the petitioner and petitioners clients.

Whether a Philadelphia statute preventing sale of retail on Sundays constitutes a law respecting an establishment of religion and interferes with free exercise by imposing serious economic disadvantages to member of the Orthodox Jewish Faith, who must close their businesses on Saturday in order to observe their Sabbath.

Whether a New Hampshire ordinance prohibiting holding of a religious meeting in a public park without a license violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Whether a municipal ordinance which is applied to penalize a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses for preaching at a peaceful religious meeting in a public park, although other religious groups could conduct religious services there, violates the First Amendment..

Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.

Whether a state, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management.

Whether a Texas Penal Code statute which makes it an offense for any peddler or hawker of goods or merchandise to willfully refuse to leave premises after having been notified to do so by owner applies to a person distributing religious material

Whether charging a jury with determining the truth or falsity of Defendants religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.

Whether an ordinance requiring agent selling books to pay license fee of $1 per day or $15 per year is an improper restriction on "freedom of religion" as applied to resident preacher who earned his living by sale of religious books.

Whether Massachusetts child labor laws, stating no boy under the age of twelve and no girl under eighteen shall sell, expose or offer for sale any newspaper, magazines, periodicals, contravene the Fourteenth Amendment by denying or abridging appellants freedom of religion.

Whether a Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a tax on sale of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Whether a city ordinance, which makes it unlawful for any person to solicit orders or to sell books, wares or merchandise with the residence portion of Paris, TX without first filing an application an obtaining a permit, violates the Fourteenth Amendment when the person wants to sell religious material.

Whether a Dallas city ordinance, which prohibits distribution of handbills on the streets, violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when the material being distributed is religious in its nature.

Whether the requirement in the participation of in the pledge of allegiance, which includes the word God, exacted from a child who refuses upon since religious grounds, infringes upon due process of law the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First & Fourteenth Amendment free speech and/or free exercise rights?

Whether a conviction for bigamy violated the First Amendment rights of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, who asserted that faithful practice of his religion required him to engage in polygamy.