A
A town council opens each monthly meeting with a prayer delivered by a rotating group of volunteer clergy from the local community. The practice has existed for over 50 years. Attendance at the meetings is open to the public. No one is required to participate in the prayer, and council members do not single out or penalize attendees who remain seated or silent.
Separately, a public middle school requires students to stand and recite a Christian prayer at the start of each school day. Students who refuse are reprimanded by teachers.
Both practices are challenged under the Establishment Clause.
Town council prayer: There is no Establishment Clause violation. The prayer practice has a long history of acceptance, participation is voluntary, and there is no coercion. Under the history-and-tradition approach, longstanding ceremonial religious practices are constitutional.
Public school prayer: There is an Establishment Clause violation because the government is coercing religious participation. Requiring students to engage in prayer, especially in a school setting, forces religion on individuals and violates the Establishment Clause.
A state department of health designs and distributes posters encouraging vaccination, healthy eating, and regular exercise. The posters are created by government employees, approved by agency leadership, and displayed in public buildings. A group challenges the posters, arguing the state is promoting a particular viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment.
The posters constitute government speech. Historically, governments have communicated public-health messages; the public would reasonably perceive the posters as coming from the state; and the government exercises full control over the content. Because the government is the speaker, the First Amendment does not apply, and the state may promote its own viewpoints.
A city enacts an ordinance capping campaign contributions, stating that large donations allow wealthy individuals to gain “undue influence” over elected officials and increased access to policymakers. There is no evidence that donors receive official acts in exchange for contributions. A donor challenges the law under the First Amendment.
The ordinance is unconstitutional because the asserted interest—preventing influence or access—is not sufficient. The Supreme Court recognizes only the prevention of quid pro quo corruption, meaning an exchange of money for the exercise of official duties. General influence, access, or ingratiation does not qualify. Without a valid anti-corruption interest, the contribution limit cannot be sustained.
A state passes a statute requiring newspapers that publish editorials criticizing political candidates to provide equal space for responses from the affected candidates. The state argues the law promotes fairness and informed public debate. A newspaper challenges the statute.
The statute is unconstitutional. The government may not control the content or editorial judgment of the press. Compelling newspapers to publish certain material interferes directly with editorial discretion and violates the First Amendment.
A city enacts an ordinance prohibiting the ritual slaughter of animals within city limits. Although facially neutral, the ordinance contains several exceptions for hunting, pest control, and commercial meat processing. The law is enforced exclusively against a small religious group whose faith requires ritual animal sacrifice. Members of the group challenge the ordinance under the Free Exercise Clause.
Separately, the city enforces a generally applicable noise ordinance against a religious group holding loud outdoor worship services late at night. The ordinance applies equally to concerts, parties, and religious gatherings.
Ritual slaughter ordinance: Although facially neutral, the ordinance targets religion as applied by singling out religious conduct while permitting comparable secular activities. Because the law targets religion as applied, it triggers strict scrutiny. The city cannot show that selectively burdening religious practice is narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest, so the ordinance violates the Free Exercise Clause.
Noise ordinance: The ordinance is generally applicable and imposes only an incidental burden on religion. Because it does not target religion on its face or as applied, the court applies rational basis review. The city has a legitimate interest in controlling noise, and the ordinance is rationally related to that interest. The regulation is constitutional.
A city installs a large electronic sign outside City Hall that alternates between displaying city announcements and messages submitted by private civic groups. The city reserves the right to approve or reject submissions but does not edit approved messages. The city rejects a message criticizing city leadership. The group sues under the First Amendment.
This is private speech, not government speech. Although the sign is on government property and the city controls access, the message content is generated by private speakers, the public would likely perceive the messages as belonging to the submitting groups, and the city’s role is limited to approval rather than authorship. The city’s rejection of a critical message constitutes viewpoint discrimination, which violates the First Amendment.
A city employee complains to coworkers and supervisors that her workload is unfair, her supervisor is rude, and she deserves a raise. She later posts similar complaints on her personal social media account. The city disciplines her for violating workplace conduct policies. She challenges the discipline under the First Amendment.
The speech is not protected. The employee is speaking on a matter of private concern—internal office affairs and terms of employment. When a government employee speaks on matters of private concern, the First Amendment provides no protection, and the court does not balance interests. The discipline is constitutional.
A trial court closes a criminal trial involving a minor victim to both the press and the public, citing the need to protect the victim from embarrassment and emotional distress. A newspaper challenges the closure under the First Amendment.
Closing a criminal proceeding to the press and public triggers strict scrutiny. Although protecting a minor victim is a compelling government interest, the closure is unconstitutional if it is not narrowly tailored—for example, if less restrictive alternatives (such as redacting names or limited closures) could protect the interest. Absent such tailoring, the closure violates the First Amendment.
A state enacts a statute requiring all nonprofit advocacy organizations to submit a list of their top 50 donors annually to the state attorney general. The state claims the requirement will help detect fraud. In the past 10 years, the state has investigated fewer than a dozen nonprofits for fraud and has previously obtained donor information through subpoenas when necessary. Several advocacy groups challenge the statute under the First Amendment.
The statute is unconstitutional. Compelled disclosure of an association’s membership or donor list triggers exacting scrutiny. Although preventing fraud is a sufficiently important state interest, the law fails because there is not a substantial relation between blanket disclosure and the interest, and the requirement is not narrowly tailored. The state has obvious alternative means—such as subpoenas or audits—that achieve the same goal with significantly less intrusion on associational privacy.
A state maintains a monument park on the grounds of its capitol building. The park contains monuments commemorating historical events and public values selected and approved by the state. A private group requests permission to place a monument promoting its religious beliefs in the park. The state denies the request.
The monuments constitute government speech. Historically, governments have used monuments to convey messages; the public perceives monuments on capitol grounds as expressing the state’s views; and the state exercises final control over which monuments are displayed. Because the park is used for government speech, the state may select which messages to convey without violating the First Amendment.
A public health department employee writes an op-ed in a local newspaper criticizing the agency’s handling of contaminated drinking water and alleging that officials ignored known health risks. The employee is disciplined for damaging office morale and public trust. The employee challenges the discipline under the First Amendment.
The speech involves a matter of public concern, as it addresses public health and government misconduct. The court therefore applies a balancing test, weighing the employee’s First Amendment interest in speaking against the agency’s interest in office morale, efficiency, and effective functioning. Because the speech addresses serious public health concerns and is made outside the workplace, the employee’s First Amendment interests likely outweigh the agency’s asserted interests, making the discipline unconstitutional.
A family court closes a civil divorce proceeding involving sensitive financial and custody information, denying access to both the press and the public. A media organization challenges the closure.
Denial of press access to a civil proceeding is evaluated under intermediate scrutiny. The government must show an important or substantial interest and that the restriction is narrowly tailored. Protecting privacy interests may qualify as important, and a narrowly tailored closure may be constitutional.
A private political advocacy organization devoted to promoting free-market economic policies excludes individuals who publicly support socialist economic systems. The state applies its public-accommodations law to require the organization to accept all applicants regardless of ideology, arguing that the law prevents discrimination and promotes equal access to civic participation. The organization challenges the law under the First Amendment.
The law is unconstitutional as applied. The organization is an expressive association, and forcing it to accept members who fundamentally oppose its message would significantly affect its ability to engage in expression. Although preventing discrimination may be a compelling interest, that interest is not unrelated to the suppression of ideas in this context, and the state can pursue its interest through less restrictive means that do not alter the group’s expressive message.
A state statute limits the amount a candidate may spend from their own personal funds during a campaign for public office. The state argues that the law promotes electoral fairness and prevents wealthy candidates from dominating elections.
This is a regulation of campaign expenditures, not contributions. Expenditure limits trigger strict scrutiny. Although the state asserts an interest in electoral fairness, the Supreme Court recognizes only the prevention of quid pro quo corruption or its appearance as a compelling interest in campaign finance cases. Limiting a candidate’s own spending does not prevent quid pro quo corruption and is not narrowly tailored. The law is unconstitutional.
A police officer publicly criticizes departmental leadership at a press conference, accusing supervisors of corruption. The statements are later shown to be exaggerated and cause significant disruption within the department, undermining teamwork and ongoing investigations. The officer is disciplined and sues under the First Amendment.
Although the speech involves a matter of public concern, the government may still discipline the employee if, after balancing, the agency’s interest in maintaining discipline, morale, and efficient operations outweighs the employee’s speech interests. Given the disruption to law enforcement operations, the discipline is constitutional.
A state requires all public employees to pay mandatory fees to a public-sector union, even if the employee chooses not to join the union. The state argues that mandatory fees are necessary to promote labor peace and ensure effective collective bargaining. Several employees challenge the requirement under the First Amendment.
The requirement violates the First Amendment. Compelled subsidies of a private association trigger Janus exacting scrutiny. Although the state asserts a compelling interest in labor stability, that interest can be achieved through less restrictive means, such as voluntary union membership or alternative bargaining structures. The state may not compel individuals to subsidize private speech with which they disagree.
A federal law limits individual contributions to candidates for federal office to a fixed dollar amount per election cycle. The government argues the law is designed to prevent donors from securing political favors in exchange for large contributions.
This is a regulation of campaign contributions, not expenditures. Contribution limits are reviewed under a less demanding standard than strict scrutiny. The government must show a sufficiently important interest, which it does: preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance. Because the limit is closely drawn and does not prohibit contributions altogether, the law is constitutional.
A state enacts a special gross-receipts tax that applies only to newspapers with a circulation above 100,000 copies per day. The legislature explains that large newspapers are “better able to shoulder the burden” and that the tax will help fund public education. A major newspaper challenges the law under the First Amendment.
The tax is unconstitutional. The government may not impose discriminatory taxes on the press. Singling out newspapers—especially based on size or influence—poses a serious risk of censorial motive and violates the First Amendment regardless of the asserted revenue purpose.