TAYLOR v. MISSISSIPPI
Supreme Court Cases
319 U.S. 583 (1943)
Related Cases
DONALD H. RUMSFELD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, et al. v. FORUM FOR ACADEMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, INC., et al.
Decided:
The Solomon Amendment, 10 U.S.C. 983(b)(1), withholds specified federal funds from institutions of higher education that deny military recruiters the same access to campuses and students that they provide to other employers. The question presented is whether the court of appeals erred in holding that the Solomon Amendment's equal access condition on federal funding likely violates the First Amendment to the Constitution and in directing a preliminary injunction to be issued against its enforcement.
JOHN J. HURLEY AND SOUTH BOSTON ALLIED WAR VETERANS COUNCIL v. IRISH-AMERICAN GAY, LESBIAN AND BISEXUAL GROUP OF BOSTON, ETC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the court-mandated inclusion of the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. (GLIB) in Boston’s 1993 St. Patrick’s Day parade violated the First Amendment rights of the private group, the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council, that the city of Boston authorized to organize the parade.
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER et al. v. ROBINS et al.
Decided:
Whether the 1st and 14th Amendments protect the right of individuals to solicit signatures for political petitions in privately owned shopping centers.
WOOLEY, CHIEF OF POLICE OF LEBANON, et al. v. MAYNARD ET UX.
Decided:
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.
MIAMI HERALD PUBLISHING CO., DIVISION OF KNIGHT NEWSPAPERS, INC. v. TORNILLO
Decided:
Whether a Florida statute that afforded a right to reply to personal attacks on political candidates by newspapers violated the First Amendment.
HESS v. INDIANA
Decided:
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.
BRANDENBURG v. OHIO
Decided:
Whether an Ohio law prohibiting speech that advocates for illegal activities violated Brandenburg's First Amendment rights.
LATHROP v. DONOHUE
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.
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."
TALLEY v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether a Los Angeles city ordinance forbidding distribution of anonymous handbills violated the First Amendment.
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.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE v. ALABAMA ex rel. PATTERSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Decided:
Did an Alabama law that required the NAACP to provide the names and addresses of all its members and agents in the state violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
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
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.
FEINER v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether the police can charge a speaker with disorderly conduct for continuing to speak to a restless and hostile crowd.
TERMINIELLO v. CHICAGO
Decided:
Does the First Amendment protect people’s right to say things that make other people so angry that it may lead them to cause unrest?
WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION et al. v. BARNETTE et al.
Decided:
Whether a compulsory flag-salute law for school children violates the 1st and 14th Amendments.
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.
FISKE v. KANSAS
Decided:
Whether quoting in print "equivocal language" from the preamble to the IWW Constitution amounted to criminal syndicalism unprotected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
WHITNEY v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether California's criminal syndicalism law that made it a crime to defend, advocate, or establish an organization committed to violent means of effecting government change violated the First Amendment.
GITLOW v. PEOPLE OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether (1) the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment applies to states, and (2) whether the state criminal anarchy law violated First Amendment.
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.