Court+Cases(2)

Amendment 1(2)

Kristelle:
__Hurley Vs. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995):__ The Hurley group sponsored the St. Patrick’s Day Parade in Boston since 1947, and when it refused the IAGLB group a permit to participate they were taken to court. In 1992 it was ordered by the state court to let give the IAGLB group permission. Then in 1993 they went to court again...


 * Plaintiff:** Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston

Argued that the state accommodation law violated the rights of free expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth amendment
 * Defendant:** Hurley (parade organizers):


 * Case:** The Supreme court ruled in favor of the Hurley group because they parades are public events and the viewers could associate the groups in the parade with the organizers of the group, and if the parade organizers don’t want to show that sort of message the IAGLB sends then making them have that group participate is against the organizer’s freedom of speech.

__Boy Scouts of America Vs. Dale (2000):__ The Monmouth Council of the Boy Scouts of America revoked the membership of an assistant scoutmaster and former Eagle Scout, James Dale, after he announced he was gay. The New Jersey public accommodation law stated the council had no right to do that and the Council argued that the accommodation interfered with its freedoms from the first amendment.


 * Plaintiff: James Dale**


 * Defendant:** The Monmouth Council of the Boy Scouts of America
 * Case:** The Supreme court ruled in favor of the council because “forcing the group to accept homosexual members “would derogate from the organization’s expressive message”

Domonique:
__Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004)__
 * Plaintiff**: Michael Newdow - is an atheist and divorced - does not have legal custody of his daughter. He is arguing that because the Pledge of Allegiance contain “under God” it is violating his daughter’s religious rights - under the First Amendment.


 * Defendant**: Elk Grove Unified School District - Teachers let the students voluntary act along with the Pledge. They had the choice to say it but still had to repeat it.


 * Case**: Because Newdow did not have legal custody of his daughter the District Court dismissed the case stating the Pledge was constitutional. Newdow appealed and the mother of his child wanted her dismissed as a party to the lawsuit. She stated her daughter did not object of saying the Pledge pf Allegiance. On the other hand, the Ninth Circuit explained Newdow did have the right to expose his child to certain religious views even if they do not agree with the mother’s decision, under California Law. Then Supreme Court considered hearing the case if Newdow had custody of the child who attended the school, to challenge the schools policy on saying the Pledge and if it offends the First Amendment. The Supreme Court Justices agreed that the term “under God” does not endorse or establish religion. But acknowledges the religion of the Founding Fathers.

__Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)__
 * Plaintiff**: Students that attended Hazelwood and were staff members of the schools newspaper. The students claim the school editors deleting a section in the newspaper violated their First Amendment rights. The section deleted referred to teen pregnancy and the impact of divorces at school.


 * Defendant:** The principal felt as though the talk of pregnancy at school would offend students going through the experience and references on sexual activity and birth control was inappropriate for school. He deleted the divorce section because he thought parents had a right to hear and know about the article before publishing.


 * Case:** The District Court held that the First Amendment was not violated. However the Court of Appeals reversed it and it was taken to the Supreme Court. They said that the principal did not violate the students’ First Amendment Right. The Justices exclaimed the school has a right to control the content of their students’ speech in school related activities.

Mark:
__Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)__ John F. Tinker, Christopher Eckhardt, and Mary Beth Tinker wore black wristbands that symbolized a protest against the Vietnam War in their High School because they believed it wasn’t right. The Supreme Court replied saying that the students do not need to shed their constitutional rights on school property because the first amendment protects their rights that reflect political and social point of views.

__Schenck v. United States (1919)__

Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party of America. He was involved in many antiwar activities violating the Espionage Act, including mailing 15,000 leaflets telling draftees and soldiers to stay out of the draft. He was arrested for this and was charged with “causing and attempting to cause insubordination in the military and naval forces of the United States” and also disturbing the draft process.

He was later sentenced to prison for violating the Espionage Act of 1917. Charles Schenck and the Socialist Party were persecuted for what they felt was an “immoral war.” Schenck’s case stands as the first significant explorations of the 1st Amendment free speech provisions of the Supreme Court.