Forget your password? Don't worry.
×44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island
United States Supreme Court | 517 U.S. 484 (1996)
Under the First Amendment, a state may not constitutionally prohibit the advertising of prices of alcoholic beverages.
Aaron B. Cooley v. The Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia
United States Supreme Court | 53 U.S. (12 How.) 299 (1851)
In the absence of definitive congressional regulation, federal rules apply to business that requires uniformity of treatment among several states, and business characterized by local peculiarities is governed by legislative decisions passed by the states.
Abrams v. United States
United States Supreme Court | 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
Speech, which would ordinarily be protected by the First Amendment, may nevertheless be prohibited when it is used in such circumstances and is of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger of substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
United States Supreme Court | 515 U.S. 200 (1995)
All racial classifications imposed by the federal, state, or local government must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny; that is, such classifications are constitutional only if they are narrowly tailored to further compelling governmental interests.
Alberts v. California
United States Supreme Court | 354 U.S. 476 (1957)
Obscenity, as a category of speech, is not protected under the First Amendment.
American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit | 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985), aff'd mem., 475 U.S. 1001 (1986)
A municipal ordinance may not prohibit pornography on the ground that it subordinates women, as doing so constitutes impermissible viewpoint discrimination under the First Amendment.
Baker v. Carr
United States Supreme Court | 369 U.S. 186 (1962)
A challenge to malapportionment of state legislatures brought under the Equal Protection Clause is not a political question and is thus justiciable.
Baldwin v. G.A.F. Seelig, Inc.
United States Supreme Court | 294 U.S. 511 (1935)
Under the Commerce Clause, a state may not pass restrictions that overly burden interstate commerce for the purpose of reducing competition between the states.
Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore
United States Supreme Court | 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)
The Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that government takings for public use require just compensation, are only restrictions on the federal government and do not apply to state or local governments.
Boumediene v. Bush
United States Supreme Court | 128 S. Ct. 2229 (2008)
Courts must provide detainees held as unlawful alien enemy combatants a writ of habeas corpus to challenge their detention, or, if a writ of habeas corpus is not available, provide an adequate substitute process to detainees that includes the same procedural protections and opportunities that would be provided in a writ of habeas corpus.
Bowsher v. Synar
United States Supreme Court | 478 U.S. 714 (1986)
Under the doctrine of separation of powers, Congress may not retain removal power over officials charged with executing the laws except by impeachment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio
United States Supreme Court | 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, a state may only regulate speech if the speech is proven to cause imminent harm, a likelihood of producing illegal action, and an intent to cause imminent illegality.
Branzburg v. Hayes
United States Supreme Court | 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
Under the First Amendment, a state may constitutionally require a news reporter to appear and testify before state or federal grand juries about information the reporter obtained in confidence.
Brown v. Board of Education (II)
United States Supreme Court | 349 U.S. 294 (1955)
Adequate compliance with the Court's previous holding that racial discrimination in public education is unconstitutional requires public schools to desegregate "with all deliberate speed."
Buckley v. Valeo
United States Supreme Court | 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Spending money to influence elections is a form of constitutionally protected speech and federal limits on general campaign expenditures, independent expenditures to a specific candidate, and expenditures by individual candidates from their own personal funds are not permissible.
C&A Carbone, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, New York
United States Supreme Court | 511 U.S. 383 (1994)
A town statute that discriminates, either on its face or in practical effect, against interstate commerce for the purpose of favoring local business or investment is per se invalid unless the state can meet the strict scrutiny standard and show that it has no other means to advance a legitimate local interest.
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commn. of New York
United States Supreme Court | 447 U.S. 557 (1980)
If the commercial speech is neither misleading nor unlawful, the government may only prohibit it if doing so advances a substantial government interest, and the limits on expression are narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.
Child Labor Tax Case (Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co.)
United States Supreme Court | 259 U.S. 20 (1922)
Congress may not attempt to regulate through a tax a matter that is reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution.
Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah
United States Supreme Court | 508 U.S. 520 (1993)
Under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause, a state may not constitutionally prohibit the ritualistic slaughter of animals for religious purposes.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
United States Supreme Court | 558 U.S. 50 (2010)
Under the First Amendment, the government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity.
