BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA
Supreme Court Cases
341 U.S. 622 (1951)
Related Cases
CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS v. REAGAN NATIONAL ADVERTISING OF AUSTIN, LLC, ET AL.
Decided:
"[W]hether, under this Court鈥檚 precedents interpreting the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the City鈥檚 regulation is subject to strict scrutiny."
IANCU v. BRUNETTI
Decided:
MATAL v. TAM
Decided:
SORRELL, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VERMONT, et al. v. IMS HEALTH INC. ET AL
Decided:
Do Vermonts mandatory limits on candidate expenditures violate the First Amendment as interpreted in Buckley v. Valeo (1976)?
MIKE JOHANNS, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, et al., v. LIVESTOCK MARKETING ASSOCIATION et al.
Decided:
Did the 8th Circuit err in holding that the 1985 Beef Promotion & Research Act, and regulations promulgated there under which impose assessments on beef producers and importers to fund research, education, and promotional activities carried out by special administrative bodies created by Congress for the express purpose of furthering important governmental objectives under direct supervision of Secretary of Agriculture are unconstitutional and unenforceable?
UNITED STATES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE v. UNITED FOODS, INC.
Decided:
Does a compelled generic advertising program for mushroom producers violate the commercial speech rights of a mushroom producer who does not wish to participate in the program?
LEILA JEANNE HILL, AUDREY HIMMELMANN, AND EVERITT W. SIMPSON, JR. v. COLORADO, et al.
Decided:
A Colorado statue establishes a 100-foot zone around the entrance to any "health care facility." Within this buffer zone, people may not, without consent "knowingly approach another person within 8 feet," for the purpose of passing out literature or engaging in "oral protest, education, or counseling" on a public sidewalk. The question is whether the First and Fourteenth Amendment rights of the speaker are abridged by the protection the statute provides for the unwilling listener.
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT v. UNITED REPORTING PUBLISHING CORPORATION
Decided:
Whether a California state law that prohibits the release of arrestees' personal addresses if used for commercial purposes, but allows the release of such information for other purposes, violates the First Amendment.
GREATER NEW ORLEANS BROADCASTING ASSOCIATION, INC., ETC., et al. v. UNITED STATES et al.
Decided:
Whether a federal law banning truthful, nonmisleading broadcast ads of private casino gaming violates commercial free-speech rights.
DAN GLICKMAN, SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE v. WILEMAN BROTHERS & ELLIOTT, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture may constitutionally require handlers of California peaches, nectarines, and plums to fund generic advertising of those fruits.
44 LIQUORMART, INC. AND PEOPLES SUPER LIQUOR STORES, INC. v. RHODE ISLAND AND RHODE ISLAND LIQUOR STORES ASSOCIATION
Decided:
Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit truthful, non-misleading price advertising regarding alcoholic beverages.
RONALD W. ROSENBERGER, et al. v. RECTOR AND VISITORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA et al.
Decided:
Whether a public university can deny funds to a religious student group that it provides to nonreligious student groups.
FLORIDA BAR v. WENT FOR IT, INC., AND JOHN T. BLAKELY
Decided:
Do the Florida Bar rules prohibiting direct mail solicitation of accident victims violate the free speech of personal injury attorneys?
ROBERT E. RUBIN, SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY v. COORS BREWING COMPANY
Decided:
Whether the Federal Alcohol Administration Act may constitutionally prohibit brewers from displaying the alcohol content of their beer on the beer's label.
JUDY MADSEN, et al. v. WOMEN'S HEALTH CENTER, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether an injunction that limits the places where and the manner in which antiabortion protestors may demonstrate violates the First Amendment.
SILVIA S. IBANEZ v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGULATION, BOARD OF ACCOUNTANCY
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from including in her advertising truthful references to the facts that she is a certified public accountant and a certified financial planner.
UNITED STATES AND FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION v. EDGE BROADCASTING COMPANY T/A POWER 94
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a broadcaster licensed in a state that bans lotteries from broadcasting lottery advertisements, even when the vast majority of the broadcaster's audience resides in a state that allows lotteries.
FRED H. EDENFIELD, et al. v. SCOTT FANE
Decided:
Whether the government may constitutionally prohibit a certified public accountant from directly and personally soliciting non-clients.
CITY OF CINCINNATI v. DISCOVERY NETWORK, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance prohibiting the distribution of commercial flyers from news racks on city-owned property violates the First Amendment.
INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., AND BRIAN RUMBAUGH v. WALTER LEE
Decided:
Whether a governmental entity may constitutionally prohibit the distribution of literature and the solicitation of contributions in airport terminals.
CHARLES W. BURSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL AND REPORTER FOR TENNESSEE v. MARY REBECCA FREEMAN
Decided:
Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit the solicitation of votes and the display or distribution of campaign materials within 100 feet of the entrance to a polling place.
DOMINIC P. GENTILE v. STATE BAR OF NEVADA
Decided:
(1) Whether a state may constitutionally prohibit an attorney from making statements to the press that he or she knows or reasonably should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding and, if so, (2) whether the State Bar of Nevada properly applied the rule in this case.
UNITED STATES v. KOKINDA et al.
Decided:
Is a sidewalk on post office property, which is intended only to facilitate traffic to and from the post office, a public forum? Does a government ban on solicitation emanating from such a sidewalk violate the First Amendment rights of respondents?
GARY E. PEEL v. ATTORNEY REGISTRATION AND DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION OF ILLINOIS
Decided:
Whether a rule barring lawyers from advertising certification as a legal specialist violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech clause.
FRISBY et al. v. SCHULTZ et al.
Decided:
Whether a Brookfield, Wisconsin ordinance making it "unlawful for any person to engage in picketing before or about the residence or dwelling of any individual," and declaring that the primary purpose of the ban is to "protect[t] and preserve[e] the home" violates freedom of speech and expression under the First Amendment.
SHAPERO v. KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Decided:
Whether a Kentucky rule barring the mailing or delivery of written advertisements related to a "specific event . . . involving or relating to the addressee . . . as distinct from the general public" violated the First Amendment.
BOARD OF AIRPORT COMMISSIONERS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al. v. JEWS FOR JESUS, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a resolution banning all "First Amendment activities" at Los Angeles International Airport violates the First Amendment
CORNELIUS, ACTING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT v. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether federal exclusion of legal defense and political advocacy organizations from participation in a charity drive aimed at federal employees violates the First Amendment
ZAUDERER v. OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL OF THE SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
Decided:
Whether a series of Ohio laws prohibiting advertising by lawyers about a specific legal problem, containing illustration, or omitting crucial information violated the First Amendment.
BOLGER et al. v. YOUNGS DRUG PRODUCTS CORP.
Decided:
Whether a federal law prohibiting the mailing of unsolicited advertisements for contraceptives violates the First Amendment.
UNITED STATES et al. v. GRACE et al.
Decided:
Whether a federal statutewhich bans picketing and the distribution of leaflets on the public sidewalks surrounding the Supreme Courtviolates the 1st Amendment.
in re R. M. J.
Decided:
Whether a Missouri law limiting areas of information that can be advertised by lawyers violates freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment.
WIDMAR et al. v. VINCENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a public university鈥檚 interest in maintaining a "strict separation of church and state" allows it to bar religious student groups from reserving facilities for worship.
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE v. COUNCIL OF GREENBURGH CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS et al.
Decided:
Whether a 1934 federal statutewhich imposes a $300 fine on anyone who willfully deposits mailable matter in a letterbox without proper postageviolates the 1st Amendment free speech rights of organizations and individuals who spread their messages by putting pamphlets and other materials in private mailboxes.
HEFFRON, SECRETARY AND MANAGER OF THE MINNESOTA STATE AGRICULTURAL SOCIETY BOARD OF MANAGERS, et al. v. INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether a state, consistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, may confine religious organizations wishing to sell and distribute religious literature at a state fair to an assigned location within the fairgrounds.
CENTRAL HUDSON GAS & ELECTRIC CORP. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a state-issued ban on promotional advertising by public utility companies in order to conserve energy resources violates the First Amendment.
CONSOLIDATED EDISON COMPANY OF NEW YORK, INC. v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether an order of appellee New York Public Service Commission that prohibits the inclusion by appellant and other public utility companies in monthly bills of inserts discussing controversial issues of public policy directly infringes the freedom of speech protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments and thus is invalid.
PRUNEYARD SHOPPING CENTER et al. v. ROBINS et al.
Decided:
Whether the 1st and 14th Amendments protect the right of individuals to solicit signatures for political petitions in privately owned shopping centers.
VILLAGE OF SCHAUMBURG v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinancewhich bars door-to-door solicitation by charities that cannot prove that 75% of their proceeds go directly to charitable purposesviolates the 1st and 14th Amendment free speech rights of solicitors.
FRIEDMAN et al. v. ROGERS 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.
OHRALIK v. OHIO STATE BAR ASSN.
Decided:
Whether the Bar, acting with state authorization, constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.
In re PRIMUS
Decided:
Whether the sanctioning of an ACLU lawyer for informng a woman through direct mail about legal assistance available from the ACLU violated speech and associational freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment.
BATES et al. v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
Decided:
Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY et al. v. VIRGINIA CITIZENS CONSUMER COUNCIL, INC., et al.
Decided:
Under the First Amendment as applied to the states, can a licensed pharmacist be disciplined for unprofessional conduct if he "publishes, advertises or promotes, directly or indirectly, in any manner whatsoever, any amount, price, fee, premium, discount, rebate or credit terms . . . for any drugs which may be dispensed only by prescription"?
GREER, COMMANDER, FORT DIX MILITARY RESERVATION, et al. v. SPOCK et al.
Decided:
Whether a government ban on political rallies on military bases violates the 1st Amendment.
HUDGENS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD et al.
Decided:
Whether striking union members have a First Amendment free speech right to picket inside a shopping center in order to advertise their strike against the owner of one of the stores.
ERZNOZNIK v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE
Decided:
Whether a Florida ordinance making it a public nuisance and a punishable offense for a drive-in movie theater to exhibit films containing nudity, when the screen is visible from a public street or place, violates the First Amendment guarantee to freedom of speech and expression.
BIGELOW v. VIRGINIA
Decided:
An advertisement carried in appellants newspaper led to his conviction for a violation of a Virginia statute that made it a misdemeanor, by the sale or circulation of any publication, to encourage or prompt the procuring of an abortion. The issue is whether the editor-appellant's First Amendment rights were unconstitutionally abridged by the statute.
LEHMAN v. CITY OF SHAKER HEIGHTS et al.
Decided:
Whether a city-owned placard on the side of a city bus, which has been opened for commericial advertising use but not political advertising, is a public forum.
HESS v. INDIANA
Decided:
Whether a state may punish speech that is not part of 鈥渘arrowly limited classes of speech鈥 outside First Amendment protection (such as incitement, obscenity, or fighting words), and whether advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future period qualifies as incitement.
COLUMBIA BROADCASTING SYSTEM, INC. v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE
Decided:
Whether a broadcast licensee's general policy of not selling advertising time to individuals or groups wishing to speak out on issues they consider important violates the Federal Communications Act or the First Amendment.
GRAYNED v. CITY OF ROCKFORD
Decided:
Whether the city鈥檚 鈥渁nti-picketing鈥 ordinance and 鈥渁nti-noise鈥 ordinance violated the First Amendment.
POLICE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF CHICAGO et al. v. MOSLEY
Decided:
Does a Chicago city ordinance which bans non-union picketing within 150 feet of a school building violate both the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
LLOYD CORP., LTD. v. TANNER et al.
Decided:
Whether respondents, in exercise of asserted First Amendment rights, may distribute handbills in a private shopping mall contrary to the owner's wishes and contrary to a policy enforced against all handbilling.
COHEN v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
Whether arresting someone for wearing a jacket that says 鈥淔uck the Draft鈥 under a California statute which prohibits 鈥渙ffensive conduct鈥 violated the First Amendment.
ROWAN, DBA AMERICAN BOOK SERVICE, et al. v. UNITED STATES POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT et al.
Decided:
Whether a statute under which an individual can require a mailer to stop all future mailings that the person "believes to be erotically arousing or sexually provocative" violates the mailer's rights of free speech and due process.
AMALGAMATED FOOD EMPLOYEES UNION LOCAL 590 et al. v. LOGAN VALLEY PLAZA, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether large shopping plazas are "public forums" where all citizens have a First Amendment right to petition and engage in peaceful expression. Picketing as protected free expression and the distinction between public forum v. property rights were also at issue.
ADDERLEY et al. v. FLORIDA
Decided:
Whether 1st and 14th Amendment freedoms give students the right to engage in peaceful protests on jailhouse grounds.
BROWN et al. v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Whether a breach of the peace conviction arising out of a peaceful sit-in in a segregated library infringed upon the petitioners First Amendment free speech, assembly, and petition rights.
COX v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Do statutory "disturbance of the peace" and "obstruction of public passageways" convictions, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?
COX v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
Do statutory "disturbance of the peace" and "obstruction of public passageways" convictions, for a peaceable demonstration that contains speech that may potentially incite violence, infringe on a demonstrator's First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly?
EDWARDS et al. v. SOUTH CAROLINA
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment was violated when civil rights protestors, marching in front of the state house, were arrested after refusing to disperse when a crowd gathered.
CAMMARANO et ux. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
KUNZ v. NEW YORK
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance which prescribes no appropriate standard for administrative action and gives an administrative official discretionary power to control in advance the right of citizens to speak on religious matters on the city streets is invalid under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
DONALDSON, POSTMASTER GENERAL, v. READ MAGAZINE, INC. ET AL.
Decided:
Whether an order issued by the Postmaster General that mail to Read Magazine be marked "fraudulent" and returned to sender violated the First Amendment
MARSH v. ALABAMA
Decided:
Whether a state, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, can impose criminal punishment on a person who undertakes to distribute religious literature on the premises of a company-owned town contrary to the wishes of the town's management.
MURDOCK v. PENNSYLVANIA (CITY OF JEANNETTE)
Decided:
Whether a Pennsylvania ordinance imposing a tax on sale of religious materials violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
MARTIN v. CITY OF STRUTHERS
Decided:
Whether a local ordinance that prohibited any person from "distributing handbills, circulars or other advertisements to ring the door bell, sound the door knocker, or otherwise summon" a home dweller violated the First and Fourteenth Amendemnts.
JONES v. OPELIKA
Decided:
COX et al. v. NEW HAMPSHIRE
Decided:
Whether a state law prohibiting a parade or procession on a public street without a special license violates the First Amendment.
SCHNEIDER v. NEW JERSEY
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance mandating a permit to canvass or distribute circulars violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech
HAGUE, MAYOR, et al. v. COMMITTEE FOR INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION et al.
Decided:
Whether a city ordinance that forbade public assembly in the streets or parks of the city without a permit is an unconstitutional violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments freedoms of speech and assembly.
LOVELL v. CITY OF GRIFFIN
Decided:
Whether a local ordinance that prohibited the distribution of literature of any kind, and in any way, without first obtaining written permission from the city manager violated the First Amendment.
HALTER v. NEBRASKA
Decided:
Does a Nebraska statute criminalizing the use of the American flag on advertisements violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
DAVIS v. MASSACHUSETTS
Decided:
Whether a city can prohibit an individual from preaching on a citys common without a permit from the mayor.