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 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 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 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

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 Marbury v. Madison is about judicial review, and McCulloch v. Maryland is about federal power, then Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee is about who gets the final word on federal law. And the answer is: the U.S. Supreme Court does. That is why Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) is a foundational case in Constitutional Law and Federal Courts. It establishes that the Supreme Court may review state-court decisions on federal questions. This post is part of a Con Law for 1Ls

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

The highly publicized trial of Kouri Richins concluded with a guilty verdict, bringing national attention to a case that combined financial motive, forensic evidence, and strategic prosecution.