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. Sullivan teaches that public officials must prove actual malice to win defamation cases, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. teaches the next essential rule: Private individuals get more protection in defamation law than public officials or public figures. That is why Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) is one of the most important First Amendment defamation cases every 1L should know. It explains the difference between: public officials, public

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 United States v. Nixon is about presidential secrecy in the face of criminal process, New York Times Co. v. United States is about government secrecy in the face of the First Amendment. The basic lesson is simple: The government faces an extremely heavy burden when it tries to stop the press from publishing information before publication. That is why New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) is one of the most important First Amendment cases every 1L should

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