PITTSBURGH PRESS CO. v. PITTSBURGH COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONS et al.
Supreme Court Cases
413 U.S. 376 (1973)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
LEATHERS, COMMISSIONER OF REVENUES OF ARKANSAS v. MEDLOCK et al.
Decided:
Whether the First Amendment prevents a state from imposing a sales tax on only selected segments of the media.
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.
BUTTERWORTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF FLORIDA, et al. v. SMITH
Decided:
Whether a Florida statute prohibiting grand jury witnesses from disclosing his own testimoy after the grand jury's term has ended violates the First Amendment.
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Decided:
Whether First Amendment principles of academic freedom require a judicial finding of a specific need before peer review materials relating to discrimination charges are disclosed to the EEOC
THE FLORIDA STAR v. B. J. F.
Decided:
FORT WAYNE BOOKS, INC. v. INDIANA et al.
Decided:
Whether the seizure of a bookstore and its contents for selling obscene materials under RICO, with only "probable cause" was a form of prior restraint and violated 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.
PRESS-ENTERPRISE CO. v. SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
Decided:
Whether a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal proceedings applied to preliminary hearings as conducted in California
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.
SEATTLE TIMES CO., DBA THE SEATTLE TIMES, et al. v. RHINEHART et al.
Decided:
Whether a newspaper involved in civil litigation has a First Amendment right to disseminate, in advance of trial, information gained through the pretrial discovery process.
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.
MINNEAPOLIS STAR & TRIBUNE CO. v. MINNESOTA COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
Decided:
Whether a "use tax" on the cost of paper and ink products consumed in the production of periodic publications violates the guaranted of the freedom of the press in the First 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.
RICHMOND NEWSPAPERS, INC., et al. v. VIRGINIA et al.
Decided:
Whether the right of the public and press to attend criminal trials is guaranteed under the United States Constitution.
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.
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:
HOUCHINS, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, CALIFORNIA v. KQED, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the news media have a constitutional right of access to a county jail, over and above that of other persons, to interview inmates and make sound recordings, films, and photographs for publication and broadcasting.
ZURCHER, CHIEF OF POLICE OF PALO ALTO, et al. v. STANFORD DAILY et al.
Decided:
Whether a police search of a student newspaper, conducted pursuant to a warrant, violated the First Amendment when the information sought pertained to criminal investigations.
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.
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.
LANDMARK COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. VIRGINIA
Decided:
Whether a Virginia statute criminalizing the publication of truthful information about judicial review proceedings violated the First Amendment's freedom of speech guarantee.
NIXON v. WARNER COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al.
Decided:
Whether the DC District Court should release to a broadcast company for broadcasting and sale to the public. tapes admitted into evidence at the trial of President Nixon's former advisers.
BATES et al. v. STATE BAR OF ARIZONA
Decided:
Whether an Arizona rule that restricts attorney advertising violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
NEBRASKA PRESS ASSN. et al. v. STUART, JUDGE, et al.
Decided:
Did a state trial judge, presiding over a widely publicized murder trial, violate the First Amendment when he entered an order which, as modified by the Nebraska Supreme Court, restrained petitioner newspaper, broadcasters, journalists, news media associations, and national newswire services from publishing or broadcasting accounts of confessions or admissions made by the accused to law enforcement officers or third parties, except members of the press, and other facts "strongly implicative" of the accused
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"?
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.
COX BROADCASTING CORP. et al. v. COHN
Decided:
Did the Georgia law violate the freedom of the press as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
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.
SAXBE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. WASHINGTON POST CO. et al.
Decided:
Whether a federal prison policy prohibiting newspaper interviews of individually designated inmates of federal prisons abridges the First Amendment's freedom of the press.
PELL et al. v. PROCUNIER, CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al.
Decided:
Whether a California prison regulation barring media interviews with specific individual inmates infringed on the First Amendments' guarantees of speech and of the press.
ALEXANDER et al. v. VIRGINIA
Decided:
Whether RICO's forfeiture provisions constituted a prior restraint on speech and were overbroad thereby violating the First Amendment.
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.
BRANZBURG v. HAYES et al., JUDGES
Decided:
Whether reporters can refuse to disclose sources to state grand juries.
NEW YORK TIMES CO. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
Whether the New York Times and the Washington Post could be enjoined from publishing excerpts from a classified Defense Department study of U.S. involvement in the Indochina War. More broadly, whether the First Amendment protects the publication of "classified information."
HOYT et al. v. MINNESOTA
Decided:
BLOSS et al. v. DYKEMA
Decided:
CARLOS v. NEW YORK
Decided:
HENRY v. LOUISIANA
Decided:
FELTON et al. v. CITY OF PENSACOLA
Decided:
I.M. AMUSEMENT CORP. v. OHIO.
Decided:
CHANCE v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
BECKLEY NEWSPAPERS CORP. v. HANKS
Decided:
POTOMAC NEWS CO. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
CONNER v. CITY OF HAMMOND
Decided:
AVANSINO et al. v. NEW YORK
Decided:
BOOKS, INC. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
KENEY v. NEW YORK
Decided:
SCHACKMAN et al. v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
COBERT v. NEW YORK
Decided:
FRIEDMAN v. NEW YORK
Decided:
SHEPERD et al. v. NEW YORK
Decided:
ADAY et al. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
ROSENBLOOM v. VIRGINIA
Decided:
RATNER et al. v. CALIFORNIA
Decided:
TRALINS v. GERSTEIN, STATE ATTORNEY
Decided:
BANTAM BOOKS, INC., et al. v. SULLIVAN et al.
Decided:
Whether a state commission with broad discretion to define obscenity, and that allowed police enforcement of obscenity laws, was constitutional under the First Amendment.
TIMES FILM CORP. v. CITY OF CHICAGO et al.
Decided:
Whether a Chicago ordinance requiring submission of films for examination by city officials as prerequisite to granting of permit for public exhibition of such films violates the First Amendment.
CAMMARANO et ux. v. UNITED STATES
Decided:
BREARD v. ALEXANDRIA
Decided:
Whether a "Green River Ordiance" which bans the soliciting of individuals on their property without their consent violates the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment freedom of speech rights of magazine solicitors.
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
CRAIG ET AL. v. HARNEY, SHERIFF
Decided:
Whether a citation for contempt of court could, consistent with the First Amendment, be upheld against a Corpus Christi newspaper which published critical news and commentary about a pending court case, even if that information was not entirely true.
PENNEKAMP et al. v. FLORIDA
Decided:
Whether a citation for contempt of court against an editor of the Miami Herald for publishing two editorials critical of the court and its judges violated the First Amendment's free press guarantee.
JONES v. OPELIKA
Decided:
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.
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.
NEAR v. MINNESOTA EX REL. OLSON, COUNTY ATTORNEY
Decided:
Whether a Minnesota statute that allowed "abatement"鈥攁n injunction against future publication鈥攐f printed material deemed to be a public nuisance constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
LEWIS PUBLISHING COMPANY v. MORGAN, POSTMASTER IN NEW YORK CITY
Decided:
Whether a post office regulation compelling newspapers to disclose the names and addresses of all editors and stockholders as well as circulation information, and to mark all paid material "advertisement" violates the First Amendment's free press guarantees.
HALTER v. NEBRASKA
Decided:
Does a Nebraska statute criminalizing the use of the American flag on advertisements violate the Fourteenth Amendment?