![]() ![]() John Paul Stevens (concurring in judgment). ![]() Harry Blackmun (concurring in judgment).Sandra Day O'Connor (concurring in judgment).Question: Is a city ordinance that bans expressive conduct which "arouses anger, alarm or resentment in others on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender," overly broad or impermissibly content-based in violation of the First Amendment free speech clause? The Court was unanimous in their judgment, but their reasoning was sharply divided on the question of whether the government has constitutional power to ban so-called "hate speech." Though there is an exception to the First Amendment for "fighting words," the St. He lost in the Minnesota Supreme Court, which ruled that because the ordinance only prohibited so-called "fighting words," it did not violate the free speech clause.īut the U.S. Paul ordinance, by banning his expressive conduct, violated the First Amendment. because he was a juvenile, was prosecuted under a local city ordinance that prohibited the use of symbols known to around anger, alarm, or resentment on the basis of race. One of those teenagers, known in court documents as R.A.V. In the summer of 1990, several teenagers set fire to a crudely-made cross on the lawn of an African American family in St. " Ernie Chambers: Still Militant After All These Years".Question: Did the chaplaincy practice of the Nebraska legislature violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? Supreme Court agreed to review the case, and take up the question of whether legislative prayer, a tradition in the federal Congress and most of the states for over two centuries, created a constitutional problem.īypassing precedent set just a decade before, the Court, by a vote of 6-3, upheld the Nebraska chaplain scheme, ruling that the practice of legislative prayer, even when exclusively Christian in substance and compensated with state funds, was part of a unique national history and therefore not unconstitutional. 15 years later, maverick Nebraska senator Ernie Chambers sued, claiming the practice of paying a minister to deliver prayers before a government body violated the First Amendment's Establishment Clause.Ĭhambers won in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. You can listen to episode two, Leg Day, here.In 1965, the Nebraska Unicameral legislature hired a Presbyterian minister as its official chaplain to deliver prayers before each session. You can listen to episode one, Sipping My Tea, here.Īnd our most recent episode, which we released yesterday, discusses the Court’s death penalty and Armed Career Criminal Act cases. We focused on the census and partisan gerrymandering cases, as well as stare decisis. Our very first episode is a recap of the Court’s last term. You can listen to the teaser, Is This Thing On?, here. But we’re also releasing a few episodes over the summer. We will be starting up full time in the fall when the Court’s next term begins. The podcast is produced by the wonderful Melody Rowell. Melissa Murray, Jaime Santos, Kate Shaw, and I recently launched Strict Scrutiny, a podcast about the Supreme Court and the legal culture that surrounds it. The Supreme Court term may be over, but fear not-there’s a (new) place to go for commentary on the Court (and the legal culture that surrounds it) to get your fix during the calm before the storm. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |