LANE v. FRANKS
Supreme Court Cases
134 S. Ct. 2369 (2014)
Related Cases
HEFFERNAN v. CITY OF PATERSON
Decided:
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
WIEMAN et al. v. UPDEGRAFF et al.
Decided:
Whether a state loyalty oath violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.