1st amendment SC case studies

Question 1

What was the 2010 Citizens United v FEC case about?

Answer 1

Concerned the relationship between campaign finance and free speech (1st amendment). Citizens United, a conservative non-profit organisation, wanted to air an advert critical of Hilary Clinton shortly before the 2008 democratic primaries. Airing this would have violated the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which said that any corporation, non-profit organisation or union was prohibited from election campaigning within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election. It was said that these groups could not advertise advocating the election or defeat of a candidate at any time. Citizens United took this to the SC.

Question 2

Outcome

Answer 2

In a 5-4 ruling, Kennedy and the 4 conservatives, the court overturned the BCRA, deciding that it violated the 1st amendment’s protection of free speech.

Question 3

Significance

Answer 3

This effectively extended the 1st amendment right to free speech to these groups, allowing them to make unlimited election spending. The decision particularly pleased Mitch McConnell, who had taken the BCRA to the SC and had been defeated in McConnell v FEC (2003). Obama stated that the decision ‘gives even more power to special interests and their lobbyists in Washington’.

This was a turning point in campaign finance, fuelling the rise of super PACs (tax exempt organisations that pool money and donate it to political actors) with no limits on their spending. The case removed existing policy, which Obama approved of, and effectively replaced it with new policy that the president did not approve of

Question 4

Type of case

Answer 4

This case can be seen as overturning existing federal policy as it declared the BCRA (2002) to be in violation of the first amendment and therefore unconstitutional. The court can also be seen as creating a new policy, because the decision had the same effect as a law allowing unlimited election spending for interest groups. The case can also be seen as overturning a previous court decision, since McConnell v FEC (2003) had ruled in favour of the 2002 BCRA

Question 5

What was the 2014 McCutcheon v FEC case about?

Answer 5

This decision extended free speech in terms of campaign finance (1st amendment). Since the Federal Election Campaign Act (1971), there had been limits on the total amount of direct contributions an individual could make to national parties and federal candidates in a year. This was strengthened by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and upheld by the 1976 Buckley v Valeo ruling. Republican activist Shaun McCutcheon had already donated to 16 candidates and wanted to contribute to a further 12, which would break the limit. He and the Republican National Committee then sued the Federal Election Commission, and the case went up to the SC.

Question 6

Outcome

Answer 6

The court overturned aggregate contribution limits. However, this did not effect limits on how much individuals can give to anyone’s political campaign, a limit that remains at $2,700 per election. This overturned a further part of the 2002 BCRA and partly overturned the Buckley v Valeo (1976) decision. Clarence Thomas wanted to go further and abolish all campaign contribution limits, but this did not happen

Question 7

Significance

Answer 7

The 4 dissenting liberal justices argued that the decision ‘eviscerates our nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that the laws were meant to resolve. The case is significant because it means that while there is still a cap on how much individuals can donate to individual candidates, there is no aggregate cap when donating to multiple candidates

Question 8

Type of case

Answer 8

The case overturned existing federal policy by overturning part of the BCRA. The case can also be seen as over turning a previous court decision as the decision partly overturned the 1976 Buckley v Valeo decision

Question 9

What was the 2002 Zelman v Simmons-Harris case about?

Answer 9

That state of Ohio ran a programme allowing the parents of children in the Cleveland School District, which had many low-achieving schools, to use public money (school vouchers) to pay for up to $2,250 tuition per year at certain private schools – which included religious schools. The programme aimed to end the low educational performance of Cleveland students and gave the vouchers to parents based on financial need through a lottery. In the 1999-2000 school year, 96% of parents opted to use the vouchers to send their children to private religious schools. A group of Ohio taxpayers then sued Susan Zelman, the superintendent of public education in Ohio, claiming that the voucher programme effectively meant that Ohio was paying for students to enter religious schools, effectively a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause. This clause states that the government is prohibited from making any law ‘respecting an establishment of religion’. This clause prevents the government from setting up an official religion or preferring one religion over another, effectively enforcing the separation of church and state. The federal district court and the 6th circuit court of appeals both ruled in favour of Simmons-Harris, saying that the voucher programme was unconstitutional. Zelmann appealed to the SC

Question 10

Outcome

Answer 10

The court ruled 5-4 that the voucher programme was religiously neutral and gave the parents choice. The court said that the government had no role in the promotion of schools or religions, only providing funding for the selected schools. The parents, rather than the state of Ohio, were opting to send the children to religious schools

Question 11

Significance

Answer 11

Allowed the programme to continue as it was seen as the choice of the parents, rather than the state, to send children to religious schools. The state could therefore not be viewed as favouring a religion and so the programme could be considered constitutional. This shows that the SC can rule that laws do not violate the constitution, even if the lower courts thought it did

Question 12

Type of case

Answer 12

The case upheld an existing state policy and overturned lower court rulings

Question 13

What was the 2014 Burwell v Hobby Lobby Stores Inc case about?

Answer 13

The ACA required employers’ healthcare provision to cover contraceptives. If they did not do so, they would receive a fine. Hobby Lobby Stores is an arts and crafts company owned by a family of Evangelical Christians. In 2012, it stopped covering contraceptives as part of its healthcare package, and fled a lawsuit. Hobby Lobby believed that the type of contraceptive (plan B) effectively constituted an abortion, as it ensured that fertilised eggs could not be implanted. This was based on their belief that life begins at contraception, which they viewed as being the point of fertilisation

Question 14

Outcome

Answer 14

In a 5-4 decision (Kennedy and the conservative justices), the court ruled that employers could not be compelled to provide contraception under their healthcare plans, overturning this part of Obamacare. This was replaced by the government sponsored alternative for female employees of corporations that did not want to provide birth control

Question 15

Significance

Answer 15

The court was extending the first amendment right to freedom of religion. The decision was celebrated by those who saw the decision as protecting religious freedom, with Mitch McConnell saying ‘the Obama administration cannot trample on the religious freedoms that Americans hold dear. Pro-choice and civil liberties groups criticised the ruling by saying it gave corporations the right to deny female employees a benefit they are guaranteed by law

Question 16

Type of case

Answer 16

It overturned an existing policy by striking down the part of Obamacare.

Question 17

What was the 2007 Morse v Frederick case about?

Answer 17

In 2002, Juneau-Douglas High School in Alaska suspended student Joseph Frederick after he displayed a 14 foot banner saying ‘bong hits for Jesus’ on a public sidewalk across the street from the school during the 2002 Winter Olympics torch relay. Frederick sued, claiming that the school had violated his 1st amendment right to free speech. The federal district court dismissed his appeal, but the 9th circuit court of appeals reversed this decision, concluding that his right to free speech had been violated. The case then went on to the SC

Question 18

Outcome

Answer 18

In a 6-3 decision, the court ruled that the school had not violated his right to free speech. The decision stated that the headteacher of a school may restrict student speech at a school event when that speech can be reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug abuse, as schools have an important interest in preventing student drug use. The court said that if the headteacher had failed to act against the banner, it would have sent a message to her students that the school was not serious about banners promoting illegal drug use

Question 19

Significance

Answer 19

The decision is narrow since it only applies to student speech promoting drug use, but in theory future courts could apply it to other student speech that undermines schools or threatens student safety

Question 20

Type of case

Answer 20

The case overturned a previous court decision, overruling the 9th circuit court of appeals’ ruling that the student had had his first amendment right to free speech violated

Question 21

What was the 2014 Town of Greece v Galloway case about?

Answer 21

Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by a non-profit organisation called Americans United for Separation of Church and State, argued that the town of Greece in NY breached the establishment clause of the 1st amendment by opening each of its legislative meetings with a prayer, offered by volunteer members of the clergy

Question 22

Outcome

Answer 22

The 2nd circuit court of appeals ruled against the town, but when the appeal went to the SC, Kennedy and the 4 conservatives voted 5-4 to overturn the decision. The majority opinion said that the town was following tradition, that the prayer was not mandatory, and that religious prayers at government meetings were permitted by the constitution. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, stated ‘legislative bodies do not engage in inpermissible coercion merely by exposing constituents to prayer that they would rather not hear and need not participate in’

Question 23

Significance

Answer 23

Christian conservatives were happy with the ruling, but a number of secular and Jewish groups were disappointed

Question 24

Type of case

Answer 24

Christian conservatives were happy with the ruling, but a number of secular and Jewish groups were disappointed

Question 25

What was the Little Sisters of the Poor v Pennsylvania (2020) about?

Answer 25

The case involved conflict between Obamacare and religious freedoms over the ‘contraceptive mandate. Following the ruling in Burwell v Hobby Lobby (2014), the contraceptive mandate remained in place, but employers could send a special form to the government to state their objection and the government would then pay for the contraceptive healthcare coverage. This was controversial as it left the contraceptive coverage still in place, and several lawsuits were filed about this. The Department of Health and Human Services was given an executive order by Trump to come up with new regulations on this mandate and to bypass the traditional regulation process, and so the body devised new rules in late 2017 that gave organisations the ability to exempt themselves from including contraceptives in health insurance in health insurance coverage for religious and moral reasons. Several states sued the government over these new regulations, and multiple circuit courts placed injunctions pausing the new rules until the legal case could be heard. The Little Sisters of Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home was one of the religious organisations that benefitted from the new exemption, so it came into legal conflict with the state of Pennsylvania, which was one of the states that did not want to issue the exemption

Question 26

Outcome

Answer 26

The SC ruled in a 7-2 decision that the new rules were valid and that the Department of Health and Human Services had the right to issue the exemptions

Question 27

Significance

Answer 27

It extended corporations’ right to religious freedom

Question 28

What was the 2011 Snyder v Phelps case about?

Answer 28

In 2006, US Marine Lance Corporal Matthew A.Snyder was killed in Iraq. One week later, the Westboro Baptist Church picketed his funeral, as it had done with thousands of other funerals in the US, in protest against what its members considered an increasing tolerance of homosexuality in the US. Picketers were approximately 1,000 feet away from the funeral, on public land. They displayed signs saying things like ‘Thank God for 9/11’, ‘God hates the USA’, ‘Priests rape boys’, ‘God hates fags’ and ‘Thank God for dead soldiers’. On its website, the church denounced the Snyder family for raising their child as a Catholic. Albert Snyder, Matthew’s father, sued Fred Phelps, the founder of the church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress amongst other things. The church states that it had complied with all rules and had followed all police instructions, and that picketers were barely visible

Question 29

Outcome

Answer 29

The federal district court ruled in favour of Snyder, indicating that Phelps’ actions had breached the reasonable limits of the 1st amendment. The 4th circuit court of appeals reversed this decision, and Snyder was forced to pay the court costs for the Westboro Baptist Church. The case then went to the SC. In 8-1 ruling, the court upheld the 4th circuit ruling decision and found in favour of Phelps and the church. The majority stated that the speech was protected by the 1st amendment and that this protection could not be overcome by a jury finding the picketing outrageous. The court also stated that the funeral service was not disturbed as the picketers had stayed well away. The only dissenting justice was Samuel Alito, who regarded the church’s conduct as ‘atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilised country’

Question 30

Significance

Answer 30

This was a landmark decision, ruling that speech on a matter of public concern, on a public street, is protected by the 1st amendment even if that speech is viewed as offensive. Shows that the court is strictly there to rule on matters of law and constitutional, rather than decide on the actualities of the case

Question 31

Type of case

Answer 31

The court upheld the decision of the 4th circuit court of appeals