Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:09:02.811Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

V. Civil Liberties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Robert E. Cushman
Robert E. Cushman
Affiliation:
Cornell University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Supreme Court's decisions dealing with civil liberties in the ten years under review fall into four groups: (1) cases involving the rights protected by the First Amendment—freedom of religion, speech, press, and assembly; (2) those concerned with racial discrimination; (3) cases enlarging the power of the federal government to protect civil rights against invasion by private persons; (4) war-time cases arising out of conflicts between civil liberty and military power. Decisions dealing with procedural due process and other rights of those accused of crime are discussed in another part of this symposium.

I. FIRST AMENDMENT—FREEDOM OF RELIGION, SPEECH, PRESS, AND ASSEMBLY

During the decade we are examining, the Supreme Court not only has decided a substantial number of cases involving freedom of speech, press, and religion, but it has developed a new and important judicial philosophy or doctrine with respect to them. In this judicial doctrine, three principles are fused. The first is that the four liberties protected by the First Amendment are so indispensable to the democratic process and to the preservation of the freedom of our people that they occupy a preferred place in our scheme of constitutional values.

Type
Ten Years of the Supreme Court: 1937–1947, Part II
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , February 1948 , pp. 42 - 52
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1948

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See the preceding paper by Professor Harris on “Due Process of Law.”

2 Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 1925.

3 Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47, 1919.

4 The new doctrine will be found clearly stated in the Court's opinion, by Mr. Justice Rutledge, in Thomas v. Collins, 323 U.S. 516, 1944.

5 Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 1941; Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U.S. 331, 1946; Craig v. Harney, decided May 19, 1947.

6 Nye v. united States, 313 U.S. 33, 1941.

7 Toledo Newspaper Co. v. United States, 247 U.S. 402, 1918.

8 Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 1940.

9 Carlson v. California, 310 U.S. 106, 1940.

10 Milk Wagon Drivers' Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies, 312 U.S. 287, 1941.

11 Hannegan v. Esquire, 327 U.S. 146, 1946.

12 United States v. Lovett, 328 U.S. 303, 1946.

13 United Public Workers v. Mitchell, decided Feb. 10, 1947.

14 McAuliffe v. New Bedford, 155 Mass. 216.

15 Friedman v. Schwellenbach. Certiorari denied on March 17, 1947; petition for rehearing denied on May 5, 1947.

16 Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 1945.

17 Schneiderman v. United States, 320 U.S. 118, 1943.

18 Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 1944.

19 322 U.S. 680, 1944.

20 Schenck v. United States, 247 U.S. 47, 1919.

21 Associated Press v. N.L.R.B., 301 U.S. 103, 1937.

22 Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 1945.

23 Oklahoma Press Publishing Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186, 1946.

24 Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 1938; Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U.S. 147, 1939; Largent v. Texas, 318 U.S. 418, 1943; Jamison v. Texas, 318 U.S. 413, 1943.

25 Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 1940.

26 Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141, 1943.

27 Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 1946.

28 Tucker v. Texas, 326 U.S. 517, 1946.

29 Jones v. Opelika, 316 U.S. 584, 1942.

30 Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105, 1943.

31 Follett v. McCormick, 321 U.S. 573, 1944.

32 Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 1940.

33 West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 1943.

34 Taylor v. Mississippi, 319 U.S. 583, 1943.

35 Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U.S. 569, 1941.

36 Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 1944.

37 United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 1929.

38 United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 1931.

39 United States v. Bland, 283 U.S. 636, 1931.

40 328 U.S. 61, 1946.

41 325 U.S. 561, 1945.

42 The felicitous title of an article by Powell, Thomas Reed in the Harvard Educational Review, Spring, 1947.Google Scholar

43 Everson v. Board of Education, decided Feb. 10, 1947.

44 163 U.S. 537, 1896.

45 Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, 305 U.S. 337, 1938.

46 112 Fed. 2d. 992, 1940.

47 311 U.S. 693, 1940.

48 Mitchell v. United States, 313 U.S. 80, 1941.

49 Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373, 1946.

50 Steele v. L. & N. Ry. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 1944.

51 Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210, 1944.

52 Railway Mail Association v. Corsi, 326 U.S. 88, 1945.

53 294 U.S. 587, 1935.

54 325 U.S. 398, 1945.

55 Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277, 1937.

56 307 U.S. 268, 1939.

57 Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 1915.

58 321 U.S. 649, 1944.

59 Newberry v. United States, 256 U.S. 232, 1921.

60 295 U.S. 45, 1935.

61 United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 1941.

62 Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 1945.

63 Taylor v. Georgia, 315 U.S. 25, 1942; Pollock v. Williams, 322 U.S. 4, 1944.

64 Hirabayashi v. United States, 320 U.S. 81, 1943.

65 Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214, 1944.

66 Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283, 1944.

67 Duncan v. Kahanamoku, and White v. Steer, 327 U.S. 304, 1946.

68 4 Wallace 2, 1866.

69 Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 1942.

70 In re Yamashita, 327 U.S. 1, 1946.

71 In re Homma, 327 U.S. 759, 1946.

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.