PICKERING v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF TOWNSHIP HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 205, WILL COUNTY
Supreme Court Cases
391 U.S. 563 (1968)
Related Cases
HEFFERNAN v. CITY OF PATERSON
Decided:
LANE v. FRANKS
Decided:
Does the 1st Amendment protect a public employee’s subpoenaed trial testimony that was not a part of the employee’s ordinary job responsibilities?
GIL GARCETTI, et al. v. RICHARD CEBALLOS
Decided:
Does the First Amendment protect the speech of a deputy district attorney who wrote and circulated a memorandum suggesting that a deputy sheriff lied in a search warrant affidavit and in his subsequent testimony at court?
ULYSSES TORY, et al. v. JOHNNIE L. COCHRAN, JR.
Decided:
Whether an injunction, stemming from a defamation and privacy judgment, that ordered the petitioner never again to display a sign or speak about respondent Johnnie Cochran (favorably or otherwise) in a public place violates the petitioners First Amendment rights.
BD. OF COUNTY COMM'RS v. UMBEHR
Decided:
Whether First Amendment prevents government officials from terminating a contract with an independent contractor because of the contractor's speech.
O'HARE TRUCK SERVICE, INCORPORATED, et al. v. CITY OF NORTHLAKE et al.
Decided:
Whether government retaliation against a contractor or regular provider of services for the exercise of rights of political association or allegiance violates the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
UNITED STATES, et al. v. NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION et al.
Decided:
Whether the government can prohibit federal employees from receiving compensation for writing and speaking about matters not related to their employment.
CYNTHIA WATERS, et al. v. CHERYL R. CHURCHILL, et al.
Decided:
Whether a public employee may be fired for her speech even though one version of what she said indicates that her speech was of public concern.
JEFFREY M. MASSON v. NEW YORKER MAGAZINE, INC., ALFRED A. KNOPF, INC. AND JANET MALCOLM
Decided:
Whether, consistent with the First Amendment, a public figure can recover libel damages from the publisher of an article that attributes altered quotations to the public figure.
MILKOVICH v. LORAIN JOURNAL CO. et al.
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment requires a separate "opinion" privilege that restricts the application of state libel laws.
RUTAN et al. v. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF ILLINOIS et al.
Decided:
Whether promotion, transfer, recall, and hiring decisions involving low-level public employees may be constitutionally based on party affiliation and support.
HUSTLER MAGAZINE AND LARRY C. FLYNT v. JERRY FALWELL
Decided:
Can a public figure recover damages for emotional distress because of an offensive parody?
RANKIN et al. v. MCPHERSON
Decided:
Whether a clerical employee in a county Constable's office was properly discharged for remarking, after hearing of an attempt on the life of the President: "If they go for him again, I hope they get him."
ANDERSON et al. v. LIBERTY LOBBY, INC., et al.
Decided:
Can a court, in the context of a summary judgment request, award summary judgment in a libel action if the moving party had no evidence that a reasonable jury might disbelieve its opponent's claim?
BOSE CORP. v. CONSUMERS UNION OF UNITED STATES, INC.
Decided:
Was Consumer Union's article written with "actual malice," thereby placing it outside the First Amendment's freedom of speech protections?
CONNICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN AND FOR THE PARISH OF ORLEANS, LOUISIANA v. MYERS
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment prevents the discharge of a state employee for circulating a questionnaire concerning internal office affairs.
BRANTI v. FINKEL et al.
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment protects an assistant public defender who is satisfactorily performing his job from discharge solely because of his political beliefs.
HERBERT v. LANDO et al.
Decided:
GIVHAN v. WESTERN LINE CONSOLIDATED SCHOOL DISTRICT et al.
Decided:
Whether a public employee forfeits his or her 1st Amendment protection against governmental abridgment of freedom of speech when he arranges to communicate privately with his employer rather than to express his views publicly.
MT. HEALTHY CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION v. DOYLE
Decided:
Whether a teacher whose contract was not renewed after several speech-related incidents had his First Amendment rights violated.
ELROD, SHERIFF, et al. v. BURNS et al.
Decided:
Whether the discharge of a non-civil-service employee of a sheriff's department for not being affiliated with the Democratic party was a violation of the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.
TIME, INC. v. FIRESTONE
Decided:
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.
GERTZ v. ROBERT WELCH, INC.
Decided:
To what extent does a publisher (monthly newsletter) have a constitutional privilege against liability for defamation of a private citizen?
PERRY et al. v. SINDERMANN
Decided:
Whether the respondents lack of a contractual or tenure right to reemployment, taken alone, defeats his claim that the non-renewal of his contract violated the First Amendment and whether the college refused to renew the teaching contract based on a impermissible basisas a reprisal for the exercise of the constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech.
ROSENBLOOM v. METROMEDIA, INC.
Decided:
TIME, INC. v. PAPE
Decided:
EPPERSON et al. v. ARKANSAS
Decided:
BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORP. v. HANKS
Decided:
ASSOCIATED PRESS v. WALKER
Decided:
Are public figures subject to the actual malice standard for libel as articulated in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)?
CURTIS PUBLISHING CO. v. BUTTS
Decided:
ROSENBLATT v. BAER
Decided:
Whether a newspaper column asking a series of questions that could be read as defamatory is protected by the First Amendment, as articulated by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964).
HENRY v. COLLINS
Decided:
Whether the freedom of speech provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments protect a criminal suspect who makes a false statement about a police officer without "actual malice."
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. SULLIVAN
Decided:
To what extent does the First Amendment protections for speech and press limit a state's power to award damages in a libel action brought by a public official against critics of his official conduct?
SHELTON et al. v. TUCKER et al.
Decided:
Whether a Louisiana statute which compels teachers in public institutions to disclose which organizations they belong or contribute to unconstitutionally burdens a teachers 14th Amendment right of free association.
BARENBLATT v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Un-American Activities inquiry into petitioners past or present membership in the Communist Party violated the First Amendment.
SWEEZY v. NEW HAMPSHIRE, BY WYMAN, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Decided:
Whether an investigation conducted under the aegis of state legislature to determine whether a professor was a subversive person in the state and including asking him for the contents of a lecture he gave at the state university and his knowledge of the Progressive Party violated the First Amendment.
WIEMAN et al. v. UPDEGRAFF et al.
Decided:
Whether a state loyalty oath violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
BEAUHARNAIS v. ILLINOIS
Decided:
Whether the distribution of a racist leaflet, in violation of a state criminal libel statute, was protected under the First Amendment.
NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY
Decided:
Whether a Minnesota statute that allowed "abatement"—an injunction against future publication—of printed material deemed to be a public nuisance constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.