- First Amendment Center.org
- Center for Safe and Responsible Internet use
- American Civil Liberties Union
- American Library Association
- National School Boards Association
- Current First Amendment Issues

- Children's Internet Protection Act
- Deleting Online Predators Act
- The Establishment

Eslablishment Clause The prohibition of:
1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress or a Supreme Court Judge,
2) the preference of one religion over another or religion over non-religion.
Free Exercise Clause The freedom to believe, and the freedom to act.

1) Schenck v. United States (1919)
Concerning a conspiracy to obstruct the draft process. The Court held that Schenck's criminal conviction was constitutional. I disagree
2) Gitlow v. People (1925) Concerning the limits of protection of the First and Fourteenth Amendments with regard to public safety and the integrity of the state. The Court upheld the state law
3) Whitney v. California (1927) Concerning the jurisdiction of a state court over federal questions. The Court sustained Whitney's conviction.
4) Near v. Minnesota (1931) Concerning the regular publication of newspapers or magazines thought to be malicious. The Court held that the statute unconstitutional.
5) Stromberg v. California (1931) Concerning the display of a red flag in California, which is an illegal act. The Court ruled 7-2 that a 1919 California statute banning red flags was unconstitutional. I Agree.
6) Grosjean v. American Press Co., Inc. (1936) Concerning the types of taxes that may be levied against owners of newspapers. The Court in a unanimous decision, found the tax to be unconstitutional.
7) De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) Concerning criminal punishment for participation in public meetings, even if peaceful, because the sponsoring group advoates violence or popular uprising. The Court found that Dirk de Jonge had the right. I Agree.
8) Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization (1939) Concerning the ability of municipal officers to enforce the ordinances forbidding the distribution of printed matter. The Court
9) Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940) Concerning the state enactment of any law respecting religion. The Court found that Cantwell's action was protected.
10) Thornhill v. Alabama (1940) Concerning loitering or picketing about a lawful business to affect commerce. The Court reversed the conviction.
11) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) Concerning verbal insults in public places. The Court ruled that obscenity and fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection.
12) Marsh v. Alabama (1946) Concerning the distribution of religious literature on a sidewalk. The Court In a 5-3 decision, ruled in favor of Marsh.
13) Dennis v. United States (1951) Concerning the criminality of anyone knowingly advocating the overthrow of the United States. The Court In a 6-to-2 decision, upheld the convictions of the Communist Party leaders.
14) Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952)
Concerning the First Amendment protection of free speech in films. The Court It determined that certain provisions of the New York Education Law allowing a censor to forbid the commercial showing of any non-licensed motion picture film, or revoke or deny the license of a film deemed to be "sacrilegious," was a "restraint on freedom of speech".
15) Roth v. United States (1957) Concerning the mailing of obscene material. The Court In a 6-to-3 decision held that obscenity was not "within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press."
16) Communist Party of the United States v. Subsersive- Watkins v. United States (1957) Concerning witnesses before Congress refusing to answer questions. The Court decided 6-1 to overturn Watkins' conviction.
17) Yates v. United States (1957) Concerning the teaching of Communist principles. The Court ruled that the Smith Act did not prohibit “advocacy of forcible overthrow of the government as an abstract doctrine.”
18) The Communist Party vs Activities Control Bd. (1961) Concerning the registration of the Communist Party of the United States as a "Communist action organization." The Court found that the Communist Party of the United States was a "Communist action organization," within the meaning of the Act, and ordered it to register as such under § 7.
19) Scales v. United States (1961)
Concerning membership of organizations which advocate the overthrow of the United States. The Court In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the Security Act protects "per se" members of an organization from criminal prosecution.
20) Edwards v. South Carolina (1963) Concerning the arrest of peaceful demonstrators for criminal conduct. The Court The Court held that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers.
21) National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Button (1963) Concerning the enforcement of a state statute that violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court The unanimous Court held that the activities of the NAACP amounted to "modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
22) Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964) Concerning censorship of films deemed to be obscene. The Court The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the conviction.
23) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)
Concerning awards due in libel cases considering intent. The Court The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements, even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity). Under this new standard, Sullivan's case collapsed.
24) Cox v. Louisiana (1965) Concerning the content and location of a civil rights protest. The Court held that these could not sustain a breach of the peace conviction either. The constitutional rights of freedom of speech and assembly could not be denied because of hostility to their assertion or exercise.
25) Cox v. Louisiana (1965) Concerning related issues to the previous case. The Court
26) Zemel v. Rusk (1965) Concerning a citizen's request for a visa to Cuba. The Court found that restrictions to travel, if made in a nondiscriminatory fashion, were valid in the interests of national security. I Agree.
27) A Book Named "John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure" v. Attorney General of Massachusetts (1966) Concerning obscenity in a book. The Court Some forms of expression--among them obscenity and fighting words--do not convey ideas and thus are not subject to First Amendment protection. In this case, Chaplinsky uttered fighting words, i.e., words that "inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."
28) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts (1967) Concerning libel by a reporter against a football coach accused of fixing a game. The Court held that, while news organizations were protected from liability when printing allegations about public officials, they may still be sued by public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and unchecked.
29) Keyishian v. Board of Regents (1967) Concerning State University of New York teachers dismissed for refusing to certify that they were not Communists. The Court The Supreme Court struck the New York rules down, citing their vagueness.
30) United States v. O'Brien (1968) Concerning the burning of draft cards. The Court established a test to determine whether governmental regulation involving symbolic speech was justified.
31) Stanley v. Georgia (1969) Concerning the possession of obscene films. The Court held that the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibited making private possession of obscene materials a crime.
32) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School (1969) Concerning the suspension of students who wore black armbands protesting the police action in Vietnam. The Court wearing of armbands was "closely akin to 'pure speech'" and protected by the First Amendment.
33) Cohen v. California (1971) Concerning a state attempting to make the expression of four letter words a criminal offense. The Court protected two elements of speech: the emotive (the expression of emotion) and the cognitive (the expression of ideas).
34) Rosenbloom v. Metromedia (1971) Concerning libel stemming from a radio news broadcast of an arrest using perjorative language. The Court Upheld an appeals court ruling that even though a news broadcast contains information about a private citizen it is not libel unless the plaintiff can demonstrate a reckless disregard for the truth or malicious intent.
35) Grayned v. City of Rockford (1972) Concerning the permissable levels of noise of a person on grounds adjacent to a school building. The Court That the anti-picketing ordinance was overbroad and was therefore invalid; that the antinoise ordinance, which prohibited only noise that took place neara public school and might disrupt school activity, was valid; and that therefore Grayned's conviction under the anti-picketing ordinance was reversed while his conviction under the antinoise ordinance was upheld.
36) Police Dep't v. Mosley (1972) Concerning picketing at any school involved in labor disputes. The Court held that the exemption for labor picketing violated the equal protection clause.
37) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. (1974) Concerning the defamation of public officials in the public media.
38) Jenkins v. Georgia (1974) Concerning the conviction of a man for showing the film "Carnal Knowledge" in a movie theater. The Court held that the Georgia Supreme Court misapplied the obscenity test announced in Miller v. California (1973).
39) Buckley v. Valeo (1976) Concerning limits to campaign contributions. The Court
40) Greer v. Spock (1976) Concerning the distribution of political materials on federal military reservations. The Court
41) Young v. American Mini Theatres (1976) Concerning zoning restriction for movie theaters. The Court
42) Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Service Comm'n (1980) Concerning censorship of advertising. The Court
43) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins (1980)
Concerning petitioning in privately owned grounds. The Court
44) Heffron v. International Soc'y for Krishna Consciousness (1981) Concerning the distribution of any materials, including merchandies, at fairgrounds. The Court
45) Brown v. Hartlage (1982) Concerning the nature of campaign promises. The Court
46) New York v. Ferber (1982) Concerning the distribution of material promoting underage sex. The Court found that the state's interest in preventing sexual exploitation of minors was a compelling "government objective of surpassing importance." The law was carefully drawn to protect children from the mental, physical, and sexual abuse associated with pornography while not violating the First Amendment.
47) Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court (1982)
Concerning the limits of press coverage of sexual offenses involving victims under the age of 18. The Court held that the Massachusetts law violated the First Amendment.
48) Board of Educ. v. Pico (1982) Concerning the removal of books deemed to be anti-American, anti-Christian, and anti-Semitic, from public high school and junior high school libraries. The Court
49) Connick v. Myers (1983) Concerning the dismissal of an Assitant District Attorney for insubordination for questioning the policies of her supervisors. The Court
50) Clark v. Community for Creative Nonviolence (1984) Concerning sleeping in connection with protests. The Court
51) Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educ. Fund, (1985) Concerning charitable donations of federal employees. The Court
52) Hazelwood School Dist. v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
Concerning censorship of a high school newspaper. The Court
53) Massachusetts v. Oakes (1989) Concerning a man who photographed his 14-year-old stepdaughter nude.
Concerning allowable levels of noise from concerts in public parks. The Court
55) United States v. Eichman (1990) Concerning burning of the United States flag. The Court
56) Osborne v. Ohio (1990) Concerning the possession of material showing a minor in a state of nudity. The Court
57) Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois (1990)
Concerning the political nature of a state government hiring freeze. The Court held that Governor Thompson's practices amounted to an unconstitutional patronage system.
58) Rust v. Sullivan (1991)
Concerning the use of federal funds for family planning which advise patients of the possibility of abortion. The Court Should government subsidize one protected right (family planning), as it does in this case, it does not follow that government must subsidize analogous counterpart rights (abortion services).
59) Dawson v. Delaware (1992) Concerning the admission of a defendant's personal beliefs if they are irrelevant to the case. The Court
60) Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993) Concerning the use of public school property for religious meetings. The Court
61) Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of the University of Virginia, U.S. (1995) Concerning the distribution of student funds at a state university to groups with religious publications. The Court

First amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

My Opinion

I am for %100 free expression

I beleive the modern interpretation of the First Amendment should mean that we should have the absolute freedom to express ourselves in any way we see fit.

We need absolute freedom to live to our potential. Freedom doesn't allow us to be unruly and cause problems, it is the other way around. Only when we feel stripped of our personal freedoms will we challenge that lack of freedom by acting in unruly ways. If we merely aren't supposed to burn the flag then we won't burn the flag; but if it is made illegal to burn the flag, we will deliberately burn it in order to gain the freedom again, because intelligent people feel disrespected when we are treated like children, animals, or some kind of sub-human who doesn't know the difference between right and wrong.

It must be recognized, however, that there are certain stages of society where a significant percentage of society actually doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, thus necesitating certain laws. Certainly in feudal times we needed certain laws such as the prohibition of flag burning in order to keep the rulers in power, and thusly society harmonious, but times have changed. We need to understand that we have moved out of fuedalism, empires and monarchies, and moved into democracy where we have enough social enlightenment that we aren't in danger of rebellion.

It must also be understood, however, that each time a society decides that it is time to move to a higher form of government, it must be instigated by the citizens. The rulers can't be expected to decide for the people that they are ready for a democracy, only the people can decide that. It should go without saying that when the people make the decision to change the way their government is handled, that the people in power will not go along with it; it takes a special person to sacrifice their position for an untested new form of government.

We need to understand that as a society changes it is the responsibility of the individual citizens to push that change, but it is equally important for us to understand that every kind of change comes with friction. This friction is usually called "birthing pains". Birthing Pains happen everywhere. Women hurt when they give birth to babies, plants die when winter comes, things crack when water freezes, and erode when it thaws. The world becomes polluted with industrialization, people go out of business when new inventions are made. The list goes on and on.

Once we understand these two rules: 1) It is the individual peoples responsibility to change society, not the leaders, and 2) Changes come with friciton; along with the changes our society has made over the years, we will clearly see why our society has become freer over the years and why this new excersize in freedom has caused problems. More importantly, we will see, as if looking through a crystal ball, where our society is going in the future, and what we need to do to get there faster.

A lot of First Amendment cases have to do with disputes over business and money, and I don't see what that has to do with the freedom of speech and free expresion, so I will only address that part of it.

Schools

I find it fascinating that so many of the law suits involving the first amendment are between students and their school administrators, which involve schools punishing students for insulting them. I am glad that the courts upheld the constitution and ruled for the students. School administrators need to understand that their institutions are publicly funded and so they are subject to the US constitution. I believe private schools and companies should have the right to do what they want with their subjects, which brings another issue into play; the issue of deciding what should be private and what should be public. Industry and institutions that we need to survive should be public, and those smaller ones should be private. For example, energy companies, and schools should be public, whereas Chuches should be private. If a Church recieves public money they should be subject to public laws. I don't think any Church should recieve public money though, neither a privat school.

The cases involving the schools are interesting because they represent a microcosm of the problems we faced during feudalism, and the school administrators still think we live in a feudal world. For example, suspending a student for giving his teacher the finger is like a lord kicking his surf off his land for waving his shovel at him in anger. We graduated from the lord verses surfdom, and allowed people to own their own land for a reason. If the lord can do whatever he wants he will be corrupted. Remember the saying, "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely". If schools can kick students out of school for giving a teacher the finger, the school administrators and teachers may start believing they have the right to kick a student out of class for so much as disagreeing with them; I've seen it myself. If schools had this kind of power over students, students would be far less inclined to speek their minds on all kinds of subjects, and their minds will close down and they will become less intelligent. It is not the job of schools to make their students less intelligent. It is the job of schools to incourage all kinds of discourse, even if it is deemed distasteful. Children have different ways of expressing themselves than adults.

Students should have the right to make websites that are insulting to anybody they want to. No harm could come from a website no matter what its content is. One might argue that it could incite violence, but I say it is the exact opposite. The suppression of expresion is what incites violence. When people can't express themselves, they compress their negative emotions inside until they explode. If you believe someone expressing their grievances will cause a riot, you have an inacurate and negative view on human nature. We need to remember that civilized societies like the US are that way because the citizens are civilized. Punishing someone for insulting someone else, making a website about someone, or whatever, does more harm than good.

In fact, I beleive students who insult their school administrators online are doing their duties as upholding their freedom and rights in "redressing their grievances" with their government, their schools. The only problem is they are young and haven't been taught how to express those grievances in a tastefull manner.

A teachers desire to punish students for attacking

There are two areas concerning the first Amendment: 1) Censorship, and 2) Insults and Slander over the internet.

I think the First Amendment issues that are going around these days concerning on-line slander and insults in schools is the perfect stage for examining exactly how we need to change so schools can become a place for learning instead of a place for control.

The First Amendment is also the defining aspect of the place the United States of America plays in the world stage.  It is a legacy that is a constant reminder of what America came from.  Because of the First Amendment the American people are the freest minded in the world. This is evidenced by it's dominance in music, movies, and telivision, otherwise known as "pop" culture, around the world.

Because of our freedom of speech we aren't afraid to use our imaginations to do great things.  It is our adherence to this belief that shows our great faith in God.  When we believe in absolute freedom, we have absolute faith that there is no need to control any outside force because the forces of God, which are the forces of good, will always naturally shine supreme over evil. 

Censorship

Censorship is evil because it is caused by and causes fear.  Lets take the censureship of bad words for example.  People censure bad words because they are afraid that if people are allowed to say them then pretty soon everybody will be saying bad words and it will get out of control.  These people are afraid that if left alone, the evil of our mouths will come out freely. They don't believe that we are capable of self governing our expressions.  Another thing that is censured too much is pornography.  Pornography is the age old belief that showing ones bare genitals, whether they are covered with hair or not, bare bottoms, and breasts to others in public and photos is bad.  This belief is so old that we don't even bother to think about it, but we do bother to continue to enforce it.  People who support pornography laws are afraid that if people are allowed to publish and even look at naked photos of people than they will abuse that right and they will become a tax on society.  To look into that further

Comments

1) Tinker v Des Moines dist com (1969) Students who wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam war.
2) Bethel School District v Fraser (1986) Student suspended for making vulgar comments ("firm in the pants," "take you to the climax") at a school assembly. The Court ruled that the students first amendment rights were not violated when he was suspended. I disagree
3) Hazelwood School District v Kuhlmeier (1987) School took out an article about teen pregnancy and divorce. The Court ruled that it is OK for a school to edit its newspapers. I disagree

- Board of Education v Barnette (1943) Protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. I agree.
- Watts v US (1969) Petitioner's remark during political debate at small public gathering that if inducted into Army and made to carry a rifle, "The first man I want to get in my sights is L. B. J.," held to be crude political hyperbole which in light of its context and conditional nature did not constitute a knowing and willful threat against the President. I agree.
- Klein v Smith (1986) A high school student made a vulgar gesture to a teacher off-campus and after school hours. School officials suspended the student for ten days for "vulgar or extremely inappropriate language or conduct directed to a staff member." The student sued, claiming that the suspension violated his First Amendment free-speech rights. The Court sided with the student. I agree.
- Reno v ACLU (1997)
- Beussink v. Woodland R-IV School District (1998) Student made a critical home page of his school and was suspended for ten days. The Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to suspend him. I agree.
- Nick Emmett v. Kent School District No. 415 (2000) Posted mock "obituaries" of at least two of the Plaintiff's friends on a web site. He was expelled. The Court sided with the student. I agree.
- J.S. v. Bethlehem Area School District (2000) Student expelled for a website, "Teacher Sux," consisting of several web pages that made derogatory and threatening comments about J.S.'s algebra teacher, Mrs. Fulmer, and derogatory comments about Nitschmann Principal, Mr. Kartsotis. The Court sided with the student. I agree.
- Coy v Board of education of the North Canton city schools (2002) Student expelled for a website that contained a section entitled “losers.”  This section contained a picture of one student with a caption saying his mother had sexually molested him. The Court sided with the student. I agree.
- Mahhafey v Aldri (2002) A boy scetches violence at his school in his notebook and gets expelled. The Court sides with the school. I disagree.
- US v ALA (2003) concerning the Children's Internet Protection Act Whether the Children's Internet Protection Act (CIPA) induces public libraries to violate the 1st Amendment
- Layshock v Hermitage School District (2006) Student makes a myspace page making fun of his princal and is suspended for ten days. The Court sided with the school. I disagree.
- Killion v Franklin Regional School District (2006) Student suspended for making a website criticizing his school. The Court sided with student. I agree.

- United States v. Ballard (1944) Ballard claimed to possess the power to heal people and claimed to have had success in doing so in the past. He solicited contributions via mail in exchange for offering his healing abilities. The jury sided with Ballard.
- Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral (1952) The New York legislature passed a statute transferring control over the church from the Moscow synod to American control. The Court ruled for the Moscow synod.
- Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church (1969) Response to the attempts by two Georgia churches to withdraw from the control of the U.S. Presbyterian Church. The Court sided with the local Churches
- Jones v. Wolf (1979) A Presbyterian church had a schism that led to a vote over whether to separate from the national church structure. It was allowed to separate and form its own church.

- United States v. Schwimmer (1929) Hungarian woman wanted to be a citizen but refused to declare that she would take up arms to defend her country. The Court ruled to deny her citizenship.
- United States v. Macintosh (1931) A Canadian man refused to swear to take up arms for his country. The Court ruled against him.
- Hamilton v. Regents of the Univerisity of California (1934) Students suspended for refusing to do the school's ROTC program. The Court ruled against them.
- Girouard v. United States (1946) Canadian refused to swear to take up arms. The Court ruled for him.
- United States v. Seeger (1965) Upheld the Universal Military Training and Service Act for concientious objection.
- Welsh v. United States (1970) The Court allowed Welsh to be declared a conscientious objector even though he declared that his opposition to war was not based on religious convictions.
- Gillette v. United States (1971) The Court decided 8-1 that Congress did not act unconstitutionally by limiting conscientious objector status to those people who objected to all wars.

- Sherbert v. Verner (1963) The Supreme Court ruling 7-2 in favor of the woman’s right to refuse to work on her Sabbath without relinquishing her right to unemployment benefits.
- Trans World Airlines v. Hardison (1977) Man fired for not working on Friday night. Court ruled in his favor.
- Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools (1986) Woman fired for getting pregnant. Court ruled in favor of allowing a civil rights investigation.
- Corporation of the Presiding Bishops of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos (1987) Man fired from a church for not being a member of the church. The Court rules in favor of the church.
- Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990) Men fired by a private drug rehabilitation organization because they ingested peyote. The Court sided with the company.
- United States v. National Treasury Employees Union (1995) Federal employees lose funding to speak about religion but their superiors get extra money for their lost income from the appearances. The Court rules in favor of the lower level employees and allows them keep making money for speaking about religion.

- Torcaso v. Watkins (1961) Man denied appointment to Notary Public on Maryland because he refused to declare his belief in God. The Court rules in favor of him.
- McDaniel v. Paty (1978) The Court ruled in favor of an Ordained minister who was barred from serving in Tennessee’s constitutional convention.
- Goldman v. Weinberger (1986) Officer wanted to wear his yamuka inside. The Court ruled against him. I disagree.
- Bowen v. Roy (1986) Indians refuse to provide social security number for food stamps. The Court ruled against them. I Agree.

- R.A. v. City of St. Paul (1992) Kids get in trouble for burning a cross in someones lawn according to a statute that prohibits that kind of vandalism. The Court rules for the kids.

- Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) Amish stop going to school after eighth grade. The Court rules for them.
- Widmar v. Vincent (1981) School stops allowing students to use school property to distribute religious material. The Court ruled in favor of the students.
- Board of Education of the Westside Community Schools v. Mergens(1990) The Court decided 8-1 that the students had the right to begin a Christian Club.
- Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School District (1993)
The Court ruled unanimously to reject the school district's decision to refuse to allow school property to be used for religious activities.
- Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia (1995) The Court ruled 5-4 that the University of Virginia inappropriately denied funding to Wide Awake Productions because they were religious.

- Capital Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995) Ku Klux Klan wanted to put a cross in Columbus Ohio Capital Square for the holiday season. The Court upholds it.

- United States v. Lee (1982) Amishman didn't want to pay his social security taxes. Upheld.
- Bob Jones University v. United States (1983) The IRS revoked the tax exempt status of two racist schools. Upheld.

- Heffron v. International Society for Krishna Consciousness (1981) Krishnas weren't allowed to distribute literature in a Minnasota fair. Upheld 5-3-1.

- Lying v. Northwest Indian CPA (1988) Forest service wanted to build a six mile road through Chimney Rock in Six Rivers National Forest on Indian ceremonial land. Upheld.
- City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) Church wanted to enlarge their building in the historical district. The Court ruled against them 6-3

- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993) The Court unanimously invalidated the city ordinances that outlawed animal sacrifices.

- Flast v. Cohen (1968)
The Court ruled that the taxpayers could sue the federal government if its spending violated a specific limitation on its power.
- Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State (1982) The Court permitted 5-4 a grant of land to a Christian College stand.
- Bender v. Williamsport (1986) The Court ruled that one member of a School Board cannot use the interest of the Board to confer standing upon himself.

- Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York (1970) The Court upheld the tax exemption for churches by a vote of 8-1.
- Texas Monthly Inc. v. Bullock (1989) The Court decided that exempting religious publications from the state sales tax violated the Establishment Clause.

- McGowan v. Maryland (1961) Store fined for selling things on Sunday. The Court ruled that Maryland’s Sunday closing laws had evolved into furthering secular ends and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
- Braunfeld v. Brown (1961) Jew wanted his store open on Sunday. Court ruled 6-3 against him.
- Thorton v. Caldor (1985) Man didn't want to work on Sunday. The Court ruled 8-1 against him because it had a direct effect of advancing a particular religious practice.

- Larkin v. Grendel's Den
Bowen v. Kendrick (1988) Man wanted to sell liquor ten feet from a church. Court ruled 8-1 for him.
- Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School v. Grumet (1994) A school district was drawn specifically to include only Jews. The Court ruled 6-3 against them.

- Larson v. Valente (1982)
Unification Church didn't want to have to register with Minnesota's Department of Commerce. The Court ruled 5-4 for the Church.

- Lynch v. Donnelly (1984) The Court ruled 5-4 that the city of Pawtucket could continue to display a nativity scene as part of its Christmas display.
- County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989) Two religious symbals in Pittsburg, crèche outside County Courthouse and a menorah outside the City-County Building. The Court ruled for the menorah and against the creche in a fragmented decision.

- McCollum v. Board of Education (1948) The Court disallowed 6-1 the practice of allowing religious education to take place in public school classrooms during the school day.
- Zorach v. Clauson (1952)
The Court permitted 6-3 the public school students to travel to parochial schools to receive religious education.
- Engel v. Vitale (1962) The Court ruled that requiring students to recite prayer is unconstitutional.
- Abington Township School District v. Schempp (1963) Murray challenged the requirement of the Baltimore school board that the Lord's Prayer be recited prior to the beginning of the day's classes. The Court ruled 8-1 against the allowing the reciting of the Bible verses and the Lord's Prayer.
- Epperson v. Arkansas (1968) No teacher was permitted to teach "that mankind ascended or descended from a lower order of animals."
The Court ruled that Arkansas could not stipulate which models of creation could or could not be taught in school.
- Stone v. Graham (1980) A Kentucky law required the posting of the Ten Commandments in each public school classroom.
The Court ruled 5-4 the Kentucky law unconstitutional.
- Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) An Alabama law required that each school day begin with a moment of “silent meditation or voluntary prayer”. The Court ruled 6-3 that the Alabama law was unconstitutional.
- Agostini v. Felton (1997)
- Mitchell v. Helms (2000) In a 6-3 decision The Court ruled that it was permissible for loans to be made to religious schools.

- Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) Oregon cumpulsory education at a public school law challenged by a Catholic school. The Court Ruled for the school.
- Cochran v. Louisiana State Board of Education (1930) The Court upheld the Louisiana statute that provided state funds for the purchasing of textbooks for both religious and public school students.
- Everson v. Board of Education (1947) New Jersey pays for transport to private school.
Ruled 5-4 for the plan.
- Board of Education v. Allen (1968) New York paid for books for both public and private schools. Upheld.
- Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) Rhode Island paid 15% of private school teachers salaries. Ruled unanimously against it.
- Tilton v. Richardson (1971) Church sponsored institutions paid to build non-religious buildings, but in 20 years would go to them. Ruled 8-1 against the 20 year rule.
- Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist (1973)
The Court permitted New York’s plan to reimburse nonpublic schools for the costs resulting from offering and recording the results of state-mandated tests.
- Meek v. Pittenger (1975) The Court permitted Pennsylvania to purchase textbooks for non-public schools, but did not allow for the purchase of instructional materials or the supplication of special needs instructors.
- Roemer v. Board of Public Works of Maryland (1976) The Court permitted Maryland to pay non-public schools with the stipulation that the money only be spent on secular functions.
- Wolman v. Walter (1977) The Court allowed Ohio to provide textbooks, standardized tests, therapeutic and diagnostic services to non-public school children. However, the state could not offer educational materials or subsidize class field trips.
- Committee for Public Education and Religious
- Liberty v. Regan (1980) The Court permitted New York’s plan to reimburse nonpublic schools for the costs resulting from offering and recording the results of state-mandated tests.
- Mueller v. Allen (1983) A Minnesota law allowed parents to deduct from their state income taxes any school expenses. Ruled 5-4 to allow the deductions to be made by parents with students attending religious schools.
- Aguilar v. Felton (1985)
Court ruled 5-4 New York City's plan to pay the salaries of parochial school employees who offered remedial assistance to low-income students.
- Grand Rapids School District v. Ball (1985) Private schools rented rooms to public schools.
The Court invalidated the programs because they had the primary effect of advancing religion.
- Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School District (1993) Ruled 5-4 to make school district pay for a sign language interpreter for a boy at a Catholic school.

- Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) Evolution couldn't be taught in Lousiana without including creationism. The Court ruled 7-2 that they could teach evolution alone.