If Virginia v. Black teaches that true threats are not protected by the First Amendment, Counterman v. Colorado answers the next question: What mental state must the government prove before speech can be punished as a true threat? The Supreme Court’s answer: At least recklessness. That is why Counterman v. Colorado, 143 S. Ct. 2106 (2023) is one of the most important modern First Amendment cases for understanding threats, online speech, stalking, and criminal punishment for e

If R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul teaches that the government cannot selectively punish disfavored ideas even within categories like fighting words, Virginia v. Black teaches a related but different rule: Cross burning may be punished when it is done with intent to intimidate. That is why Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003) is one of the most important First Amendment cases every 1L should know. It explains when cross burning is protected expression and when it becomes a const

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 Tinker protects nondisruptive student political speech, Fraser lets schools regulate lewd student speech, and Hazelwood lets schools control school-sponsored speech, Morse v. Frederick adds another student-speech category: Schools may restrict student speech at a school-supervised event when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. That is why Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 (2007) is one of the key modern student-speech cases every 1L should know.

If Tinker v. Des Moines says students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school, Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser adds an important limit: Schools may discipline students for lewd, vulgar, or plainly offensive speech at a school-sponsored event. That is why Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) is one of the key student-speech cases every 1L should know. It distinguishes the silent political protest in Tinker from vulgar speech deliver

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. 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 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 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 Brown v. Board of Education said that state-sponsored school segregation violates the Constitution, Cooper v. Aaron answered the next question: What happens when state officials refuse to comply? The Supreme Court’s answer was simple and forceful: They still must comply. That is why Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) is a foundational Constitutional Law case. It stands for the proposition that state officials are bound by the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Cour

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