Tom McInnis earned a Ph.D. from the University of Missouri in political science in 1989. He taught and researched at the University of Central Arkansas for 30 years before retirement. He published two books on the Fourth Amendment, “The Christian Burial Case: An Introduction to Criminal and Judicial Procedure,” and “The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment.” He also has published multiple articles on civil rights and liberties.
More Articles from this Author
Alberts v. California (1957)
Alberts v. California (1957) marks the first time the Supreme Court specifically ruled that obscenity does not fall under the protection of the First Amendment.
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991)
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc. (1991) ruled that states could regulate nude dancing without violating the First Amendment, even though such performances were expressive conduct.
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972)
Branzburg v. Hayes (1972) ruled that the First Amendment did not create a constitutional privilege protecting reporters from having to testify in grand jury proceedings.
Braunfeld v. Brown (1961)
Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) ruled that a state law that required retail businesses to close on Sunday did not violate the First Amendment’s free exercise clause.
Butler v. Michigan (1957)
Butler v. Michigan (1957) struck down a law against obscene materials that could be harmful to youths. The law violated the First Amendment by being overbroad.
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984)
Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence (1984) said camping ban near the White House was a reasonable time, place and manner restriction on First Amendment-protected speech.
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967)
Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) upheld a libel judgment and gave the Court the opportunity to clarify the First Amendment standard of libel for public figures.
Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee (1963)
In Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Committee, the court held that the state must show compelling interest to intrude on First Amendment rights.
Herbert v. Lando (1979)
Herbert v. Lando (1979) held there is no protection under the First Amendment shielding the editorial process for new stories when the stories provoke libel charges.
Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board (1976)
In Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no right to exercise free speech in privately owned malls under the First Amendment.
Mishkin v. New York (1966)
Mishkin v. New York (1966) ruled that adult materials pandering to a deviant sexual group rather than the community at large are not protected by the First Amendment.
National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998)
National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley (1998) ruled that requiring standards of decency and respect to be considered with funding decisions by the NEA was constitutional.
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976)
In Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), the Court ruled that a gag order prior to jury impanelment violated the First Amendment right of freedom of the press.
Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980)
Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment (1980) said requiring 75 percent of donations from door-to-door solicitations to be used for charity violated the First Amendment.
Street v. New York (1969)
Street v. New York (1969) ruled in a flag-burning case by citing the First Amendment’s protection of “words” but side-stepped the controversial “action” of flag-burning.
Stromberg v. California (1931)
Stromberg v. California (1931) said the conviction of a California woman for flying the red flag of the Soviet Union violated the First Amendment free speech rights.
Thomas v. Collins (1945)
In Thomas v. Collins (1945), a labor case, the Supreme Court enunciated the preferred position doctrine for First Amendment freedoms of speech and assembly.
United States v. Reidel (1971)
The Supreme Court in 1971 affirmed a federal law forbidding the distribution of obscene material through the mail despite an earlier ruling that held a person had a First Amendment right to possess obscene material in their own homes. The court said in United States v. Reidel that if people were unhappy about obscenity laws, they could seek to amend statutes.
United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs (1971)
United States v. 37 Photographs (1971) said a law allowing custom officials to seize obscene materials did not provide procedural safeguards against First Amendment violations.