If Texas v. Johnson teaches that the government cannot punish offensive symbolic political speech, R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul teaches a related but more technical First Amendment rule: Even within categories of unprotected speech, the government generally cannot discriminate based on viewpoint or selectively punish only certain ideas. That is why R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992) is one of the most important First Amendment cases every 1L should know. It involve

If Tinker teaches that symbolic speech can be protected in schools, Texas v. Johnson teaches that symbolic political protest can be protected even when it deeply offends many people. The basic lesson is this: The government cannot punish expressive conduct simply because society finds the message offensive or disagreeable. That is why Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) is one of the most important First Amendment cases every 1L should know. It held that burning the America

If Tinker, Fraser, Hazelwood, and Morse are the classic student-speech cases, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. brings that doctrine into the social media age. The basic lesson is this: Schools may sometimes regulate off-campus student speech, but their authority is weaker when the speech happens outside school and outside school activities. That is why Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., 141 S. Ct. 2038 (2021) is one of the most important modern student-speech cases eve

If Brandenburg v. Ohio teaches when the government can punish incitement, Tinker v. Des Moines teaches a different First Amendment lesson: Students do not lose their free speech rights just because they go to public school. That is why Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) is one of the most important student-speech cases every 1L should know. It established the famous rule that schools may not suppress student expression unless the s

If New York Times Co. v. Sullivan protects harsh criticism of public officials, Brandenburg v. Ohio protects something even more uncomfortable: abstract advocacy of unlawful or violent ideas, unless it crosses the line into incitement of imminent lawless action. That is why Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) is one of the most important First Amendment cases every 1L should know. It gives us the modern incitement test and sharply limits the government’s ability to punis

If New York Times Co. v. United States is about prior restraints on the press, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan is about defamation liability for speech criticizing public officials. The basic lesson is this: Public officials cannot win defamation cases over statements about their official conduct unless they prove “actual malice.” That is why New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) is one of the most important First Amendment cases every 1L should know. It constitu

If Youngstown is about the limits of presidential power in an emergency, United States v. Nixon is about the limits of presidential secrecy in a criminal case. The basic lesson is simple: The President has executive privilege, but that privilege is not absolute. That is why United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) is one of the core separation-of-powers cases every 1L should know. It is the case that forced President Richard Nixon to comply with a subpoena for the Watergat

If Lopez, Morrison, and Raich are your modern Commerce Clause trilogy, NFIB v. Sebelius is the next major case because it asks: Can Congress require people to buy health insurance? The Supreme Court’s answer was complicated: No, not under the Commerce Clause. Yes, as an exercise of the Taxing Power. And no, at least not in the way Congress tried to pressure states to expand Medicaid. That is why National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012) is o

If Lopez and Morrison tell you that the Commerce Clause has limits, Gonzales v. Raich tells you something equally important: Congress still has very broad authority when it regulates economic markets comprehensively. That is why Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) is one of the key modern federal power cases every 1L should know. It holds that Congress could apply the federal Controlled Substances Act to locally grown and locally used medical marijuana, even when state law a

If United States v. Lopez says that Congress cannot regulate every local non-economic activity under the Commerce Clause, United States v. Morrison says the same basic thing again — and then adds: Congress also cannot use Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to regulate purely private conduct in this setting. That is why United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) is one of the most important follow-up cases to Lopez. It is a major federalism case because it limits both:

If Gibbons v. Ogden teaches that Congress’s commerce power can be broad, United States v. Lopez teaches the next major point: The commerce power still has limits. That is why United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) is one of the most important federal power cases in modern Constitutional Law. It was the first case in decades in which the Supreme Court struck down a federal statute as exceeding Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. This post is part of a Con Law for

If Baker v. Carr opened the courthouse door to reapportionment claims, Reynolds v. Sims told courts what the Constitution requires once they get inside. The basic answer is the phrase every 1L eventually memorizes: one person, one vote. That is why Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) is one of the most important Equal Protection and voting-rights cases in Constitutional Law. It held that seats in both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned on a population basis s

If Youngstown is about the limits of presidential power, Baker v. Carr is about a different threshold question: When will federal courts refuse to hear a constitutional dispute because it is a “political question”? And the Court’s answer in Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) was hugely important: This case is not a political question. The federal courts can hear it. That is why Baker is one of the core Con Law cases every 1L should know. It is famous for: making legislative r

If Cooper v. Aaron is about whether states can resist the Constitution, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer is about whether the President can act without Congress in the name of emergency. The Supreme Court’s answer was: Not here. That is why Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) is one of the most important separation-of-powers cases every 1L should know. It is famous both for: the Court’s holding that President Truman could not seize the steel mills,

If McCulloch v. Maryland teaches 1Ls that federal power can be broad, Gibbons v. Ogden teaches the next major point: Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce is broad too. That is why Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) is one of the core Constitutional Law cases in the federal power unit. It helps define: what counts as commerce, what it means for commerce to be among the several states, and why conflicting state laws must give way when Congress validly regulates inte

If Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee teaches that the Supreme Court can review state-court decisions on federal questions, then Cohens v. Virginia teaches the next important point: That review also extends to state criminal cases. That is why Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. 264 (1821) is such an important case for 1Ls. It reinforces the Supreme Court’s power to review state-court judgments when a federal issue is properly raised—even where a state itself is a party and even where the cas

If Marbury v. Madison teaches 1Ls about judicial review, then McCulloch v. Maryland teaches them about federal power. This is one of the most important Constitutional Law cases you will read because it answers two huge questions: Can Congress do things that are not expressly listed in the Constitution? Can a state interfere with a valid federal institution? Chief Justice John Marshall’s answer to both questions was basically: federal power is broad within its constitutional s

If you are a 1L in Constitutional Law, there are a few cases you absolutely need to know cold. Marbury v. Madison is one of them. In fact, it may be the case your professor uses to introduce the role of the Supreme Court in the constitutional system. Why? Because Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) is the case that gave us the foundational idea of judicial review: the power of courts to refuse to enforce laws that conflict with the Constitution. This post is part of a Con L

Week one of bar prep doesn't have to break you. Learn how to use your commercial program strategically — skip the videos you don't need, memorize black letter law, pace yourself, and know when to ask for help.

Bar prep does not reward the hardest workers.It rewards the most efficient ones. Most candidates go in with the same mindset: do everything, watch every lecture, read every outline, and hope it all sticks. The result is predictable—burnout, wasted time, and inconsistent progress. This approach comes from passing the Florida Bar in July 2024 and preparing for the Illinois UBE in July 2026—two very different exams that require one consistent skill: studying strategically, not