Which Supreme Court case was related to the publication of the so called Pentagon Papers quizlet?

The case was a civil rights case brought before the Illinois Supreme Court, and eventually the U.S. Supreme court. The case involved the violation of first amendment rights regarding the rights to free speech, and assembly. The Constitutional Provision being interpreted during Gregory V. Chicago was the following text from the first amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". The textbook page involving this information is page A 12.

An African American comedian and civil rights activist Dick Gregory led a peaceful march protesting the slow rate at which Chicago's schools were being desegregated. The march went from the Chicago city hall to Mayor Daley's house which was located in a white neighborhood that was hostile towards african americans. As the march progressed through the neighborhood, a large crowd of 1,000 people gathered to harass the marchers. The marchers remained peaceful even as the crowd began to throw rocks at them. The police attempted to control the crowd, but the crowd became increasingly violent towards the matchers and police. The police requested for Gregory and the marchers to be escorted out of the neighborhood, but only three marchers agreed to be escorted out of the neighborhood. The police arrested the remaining marchers, and he marcher were convicted of disorderly conduct. It was argued that the marchers failed to comply with the police, and were thus convicted on these charges. The Illinois supreme court upheld the conviction, but suggested that the marcheres were arrested not for marching, but for refusing to comply to the request to disperse by the police. Gregory then appealed his case to the United States Supreme Court, and argued that the marchers civil rights were violated because their right to speech and assembly under the first amendment had been violated.

The US Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the defendant, Gregory, had his first amendment rights violated when he was arrested. Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Petitioner's march, if peaceful and orderly, falls within the sphere of conduct protected by the first amendment." Warren stated that the marchers were not disorderly, and there was no evidence to show that they were disorderly, so the marchers were protected under the first amendment; the marchers could not be arrested and convicted for expressing their views through their march. In response to the suggestion of the illinois supreme court that the marchers were arrested for disobeying the police, Warren stated that the marchers were arrested for their demonstration, and thus could not be arrested and convicted; Warren quoted Garner V. Louisiana to support this decision. The precedent established thought Gregory V Chicago, was the protection of the right to a peaceful assembly. It also became the obligation of law enforcement to protect those who wish to assemble. Peaceful protesters could not be arrested for assembling because that would be a violation of civil rights.

First Amendment. Was the Espionage Act a violation?
Consitutional Provision of Statute being interpreted: First amendment's freedom of speech
Summarize: In 1917 the Espionage Act was passed, making it a crime to cause or attempt insubordination in the armed forces, obstruct recruitment, and otherwise urge, incite, or advocate obstruction of the war effot. Charles Shenck continued with a campaign for men to resist the fraft, mailing propaganda to draftees encouraging restistence, reasoning that thed draft was despotic.
What each side argued: Shenck was convicted or conspircacy under the Espionage Act for obstructing the recruitment of men in the U.S. armed forces. Shenck challenged this, reasoning that his First Amentdment rights were violated.
Decision and Precedent: The Court ruled that the Espionage Act was constitutional and affirmed Shenck was guilty of violation. This set the precedent that the First Amendment is not absolute. It clarified limitations of free speech and supported the notion that the rights of the people aren't absolute, but must be balanced with national intererests that are judged to be essential. If speech leads to a "clear and present danger" being posed, that speech is not protected by the Constitution.

BACKGROUND FACTS:
The Case arose in 1957 when Police in Cleveland, Ohio forcibly entered Dollree Mapp's apartment and conducted a search for a suspect without a warrant. Although no suspect was found, officers did discover certain allegedly "lewd and lascivious" books and pictures, which was prohibited under Ohio state law to have in possession. Mapp was convicted of violating the law on the basis of this evidence. Hearing the case on appeal, the Ohio Supreme Court recognized the unlawfulness of the search.

CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION:
4th Amendment

ARGUMENTS:
Should the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?

DECISION:
In this case the U.S Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits "unreasonable searches and seizures," is inadmissible in state courts. Because of this ruling, it held that the federal exclusionary rule, which forbade the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence in federal courts, was also applicable to the states through the incorporation doctrine, the theory that most protections of the federal Bill of Rights are guaranteed against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which prohibits the states from denying life, liberty, or property without due process of law).

In New Jersey a teacher discovered a 14 year old freshman girl in a public high school, smoking in a the school lavator, due to smoking being A violation, the school officials searched her purse which included cigarettes, rolling papers, marijuana, a large of amount of money, and an index card stating people who owed TLO money.

The officials turned over the items found to the police and TLO was charged as a juvenile, with criminal activity. TLO claimed the evidence found couldn't be used in court due to it being obta through an illegal search and seizure. TLO's lawyers claimed that the 4th amendment protects against unreasonable search and seizure and that the 4th amedment required a warrant and probabale cause applied to TLO while in high school as a student.

The case reached the Supreme Court in which Justice Byron R. White wrote the courts 6-3 decision, ruling against TLO. The court concluded that the 4th amendment ban on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to searches by school officials but that the search of TLO was reasonable due to the public high school being apart of the state. The court said public school Officials may search a student as long as "there are reasonable grounds for suspecting the search will turn up eveidence that the student has violated either the law or the rules of the school, Thus the court replaced the probable clause requirement with a reasonableness requirement.

ssue: Whether executive order 9066, the presidential order for the military to detain Japanese citizens into internment camps, is constitutional.
Facts: Following the attacks on Pearl Harbor, a Japanese pilot that crash landed was captured by US forces, but several Japanese Americans planned to rescue the pilot. When the plan was discovered by US operatives, the plan was put down and the president released executive order 9066. Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu, a Japanese American that attempted to avoid internment, sued the Government, stating that internment violated his constitutional rights under the 14th amendment, the amendment that protects native born or naturalized Americans from imprisonment without trial.
Decision: The court ruled in a 6 - 3 decision in favor of the US government, stating that the government could overlook the constitution during times of war.
Reasoning: The Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Korematsu's constitutional rights were outweighed by the government's need to stop espionage while fighting a war with the Japanese Empire.

Issue: New York State passed the Bakeshop Act, one of the state's earliest labor laws, in an effort to regulate sanitary and working conditions in New York bakeries. A section of the act stated that no employee shall be required or permitted to work in a biscuit, bread, or cake bakery or confectionery establishment more than sixty hours in any one week, or more than ten hours in any one day.

Facts: Joseph Lochner was a Bavarian immigrant who owned Lochner's Home Bakery in Utica. In 1899, Lochner was charged with violating the Bakeshop Act, as he had allowed an employee to work for more than sixty hours in one week. For this, Lochner was fined the requisite $25. Two years later, in 1901, Lochner was charged and convicted for a second offense of the Bakeshop Act 60-hour provision, paying a more expensive $50 fine.

Decision: The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that the offending section of the Bakeshop Act was unconstitutional, as it did not constitute a legitimate exercise of state police powers.

Reasoning: The Court declared that the law was an interference with the right of contract between employers and employees, and that the general right to make a contract in relation to his business is part of the liberty of the individual protected by the 14th amendment of the Constitution.

ISSUE: Did the commerce clause allow Congress to pass Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and deprive motels, particularly the Heart of Atlanta, from the ability to only allow certain people to be customers; could the commerce clause be used to prevent places of business from discriminating against people.

FACTS: Prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Heart of Atlanta motel had a policy of refusing to rent rooms to people of color, and the motel alleged that it intended to continue the policy after the passage of the act. The appellant argued that Congress' passage of the Act exceeded the ability to regulate commerce under the commerce clause. They argued that the act violated the fifth amendment because it deprived the right to choose its customers and operate its business, thus causing a taking away of liberty and property without due process of law and without just compensation. The appellees argued that the Heart of Atlanta's refusal to accommodate AFrican AMericans interfere with interstate commerce, and this Congress had the right to regulate because of the commerce clause. They also argued that the fifth amendment does not forbid regulation, and that consequential damage is not equivalent to a taking of property as defined by the amendment.

DECISION: The court decided that the commerce clause allowed Congress to regulate local business of commerce, and that the Civil Rights ACt of 1964 was in one with the constitution.

REASONING: The motel and business in a similar situation were involved in interstate commerce, and preventing African Americans from using their business would affect interstate commerce. The court specifically mentioned title II of the act for the previous statement.

Why did the Supreme Court find the prior restraint unconstitutional Pentagon Papers?

How did the U.S. Supreme Court rule in the case of Schenck v United States 1919 quizlet?

How did the Supreme Court extend freedom of speech to protect against the acts of state governments in 1925?

What did the U.S. Supreme Court rule with regard to the Pentagon Papers quizlet?