# data[].attributes.body
1. 1973
2.  Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
3. The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.
4. 7-2 decision for Jane Roe

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1977
2. Did Washington's ban on physician assisted-suicide violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause by denying competent terminally ill adults the liberty to choose death over life?
3. No. Analyzing the guarantees of the Due Process Clause, the Court focused on two primary aspects: the protection of our nation's objective fundamental, historically rooted, rights and liberties; and the cautious definition of what constitutes a due process liberty interest. The Court held that the right to assisted suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause since its practice has been, and continues to be, offensive to our national traditions and practices.
4. Unanimous vote for Washington

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1919
2. Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
3. Holmes concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent. Famously, he compared the leaflets to shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre, which is not permitted under the First Amendment.
4. All voted on the side of the US.

# data[].attributes.body
1.  1962
2.  Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment?
3. The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not required and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion. Justice Douglas concurred in the judgment on the ground that the state's financing a religious exercise violated the First Amendment.
4. 6-1 decision for Engle

# data[].attributes.body
1. 2011
2. May corporations assert personal privacy interests to prevent the government from releasing documents about them?
3. The court held that corporations do not have a right of personal privacy that would protect them from the disclosure of public records that have been handed over to federal agencies.
4. 8 - 1 vote for FCC

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1963
2. Did the Pennsylvania law requiring public school students to participate in classroom religious exercises violate the religious freedom of students as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
3. Public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord’s Prayer under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The Court affirmed the Pennsylvania decision, and reversed and remanded the Maryland decision because the mandatory reading from the bible before school each day was found to be unconstitutional.
4. 8-1 vote for Schempp

# data[].attributes.body
1. 2011
2. Does the government violate a federal contract employee's constitutional right to privacy by asking her whether she has received counseling or treatment for recent illegal drug use in the past year, or by asking her references if they have any reason to believe she is unsuited to work in a federal facility?
3. The court reversed the lower court decision and upheld the background checks that NASA uses for employees of companies working under contract in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito.
4. 8 - 1 vote for NASA

# data[].attributes.body
1. 2000
2. Does the Santa Fe Independent School District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?
3. Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the District's policy permitting student-led, student-initiated prayer at football games violates the Establishment Clause.
4. 6-3 vote for Doe

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1964
2. Did Alabama's libel law unconstitutionally infringe on the First Amendment's freedom of speech and freedom of press protections?
3. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Brennan, the Court ruled for the Times. When a statement concerns a public figure, the Court held, it is not enough to show that it is false for the press to be liable for libel.
4. All voted for New York Times

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1969
2. Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
3. They decided/said that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time. Because the appearance of the armbands distracted students from their work, they detracted from the ability of the school officials to perform their duties, so the school district was well within its rights to discipline the students. In his separate dissent, Justice John M. Harlan argued that school officials should be afforded wide authority to maintain order unless their actions can be proven to stem from a motivation other than a legitimate school interest.
4. 7-2 decision for tinker

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1986
2. Does the First Amendment prevent a school district from disciplining a high school student for giving a lewd speech at a high school assembly?
3. The Court found that it was appropriate for the school to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive language. Chief Justice Burger distinguished between political speech which the Court previously had protected in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) and the supposed sexual content of Fraser's message at the assembly. Burger concluded that the First Amendment did not prohibit schools from prohibiting vulgar and lewd speech since such discourse was inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."
4. 7-2 decision for Bethel School District

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1989
2. Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?
3. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive conduct and had a distinctively political nature. The fact that an audience takes offense to certain ideas or expression, the Court found, does not justify prohibitions of speech. The Court also held that state officials did not have the authority to designate symbols to be used to communicate only limited sets of messages, noting that "[i]f there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."
4. 5-4 decision

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the courts tend to switch back and forth throughout time depending on who is hearing the case. They tend to switch between favoring the government and favoring the people but they typically make choices that are more torward the interests of the privacy of the people.

# data[].attributes.body
I feel like the courts have stayed the same in a lot of ways over time such as not getting stricter over time. Something that has changed over time is the amount of votes. They are not consistent with them at all.

# data[].attributes.body
I think that the courts decision over time haven't changed. They side with the schools still.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1974
2. Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
3. No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege.
4. Unanimous decision for US.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 2000
2. Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1 Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution?
3. Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
4. 7 - 2

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1896
2. Does the Separate Car Act violate the Fourteenth Amendment?
3. The Court held that the state law was constitutional. In an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, the majority upheld state-imposed racial segregation. Justice Brown conceded that the 14th Amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law, but held that separate treatment did not imply the inferiority of African Americans.
4. In dissent, John Marshall Harlan argued that the Constitution was color-blind and that the United States had no class system. Accordingly, all citizens should have equal access to civil rights.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1953
2. Does the segregation of public education based solely on race violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
3. Separate but equal educational facilities for racial minorities is inherently unequal. violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
4. Unanimous decision for Brown.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1964
2. Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by depriving places of public accommodation of the right to choose their own customers?
3. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Clark, the Court held the government could enjoin the motel from discriminating on the basis of race under the Commerce Clause.
4. Unanimous decision

# data[].attributes.headline
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United states

# data[].attributes.subject
Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United states

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1935
2. Did Congress unconstitutionally delegate legislative power to the President by giving him power to regulate certain industries without also providing guiding standards?
3. The President cannot be allowed to have unbridled control to make whatever laws he believes to be necessary to achieve a certain goal. The law did not establish rules or standards to evaluate industrial activity, meaning Congress failed to provide the necessary guidelines for the implementation of this functionally legislative process.
4. Unanimous decision for Schechter

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1964
2. Was Escobedo denied the right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment?
3. the Court ruled that Escobedo’s Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The Court reasoned that the period between arrest and indictment was a critical stage at which an accused needed the advice of counsel perhaps more than at any other.
4. 5-4 decision for Escobedo

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1961
2. Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?
3.  In an opinion authored by Justice Tom C. Clark, the majority brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. The decision launched the Court on a troubled course of determining how and when to apply the exclusionary rule. Justices Black, Douglas, and Stewart concurred.  Justice Harlan, joined by Justices Frankfurter and Whittaker, wrote a dissenting opinion.
4. 6-3 decision for Mapp

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1944
2. Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
3. In an opinion written by Justice Black, the Court ruled that the evacuation order violated by Korematsu was valid. The majority found that the Executive Order did not show racial prejudice but rather responded to the strategic imperative of keeping the U.S. and particularly the West Coast (the region nearest Japan) secure from invasion.
4. 6 - 3 vote for the United States

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1966
2. Does the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?
3. The court ruled the the police must read you your Miranda rights before you get arrested.
4. Justice White wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so.

# data[].attributes.body
Hughes

Van Devanter

McReynolds

Butler

# data[].attributes.body
1.1963
2. Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts?
3. The Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a right to assistance of counsel applies to criminal defendants in state court by way of the Fourteenth Amendment. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Hugo L. Black, the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. The Court reasoned that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental and essential right made obligatory upon the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived.
4. Unanimous for Gideon

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1919
2. Did Schenck's conviction under the Espionage Act for criticizing the draft violate his First Amendment right to freedom of speech?
3. The Court held that the Espionage Act did not violate the First Amendment and was an appropriate exercise of Congress’ wartime authority. Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes concluded that courts owed greater deference to the government during wartime, even when constitutional rights were at stake.
4. Holmes concluded that the First Amendment does not protect speech that approaches creating a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1969
2. Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the students' freedom of speech protections guaranteed by the First Amendment?
3. The Court also held that the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property.
4. Black wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the First Amendment does not provide the right to express any opinion at any time.

# data[].attributes.body
1. 1857
2. Was Dred Scott free or slave?
3. The majority held that “a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves,” whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore did not have standing to sue in federal court. Because the Court lacked jurisdiction, Taney dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
4. 7-2 for Sanford