January 28 2016 Schneider v Irvington Municipal codes in four cities across the United States Milwaukee WI Los Angeles CA unconstitutional bans against distributing pamphlets were invalidated by the fundamental constitutional protection of free speech reduce littering Upon appeal in each case the Supreme Court consolidated the four Worcester MA and Irvington NJ banned hand to hand distribution of pamphlets in public places and private residences Defendants convicted of violating these ordinances in each city argued that the ordinances The cities argued that the bans upheld their municipal prerogative to keep streets clean and Court strikes down municipal regulations that interfere with the distribution of handbills as The First Amendment right to free speech was fundamental and substantially impaired by the Murdock v Pennsylvania The Borough of Jeannette Pennsylvania mandated that all solicitors that sold goods within Robert Murdock was a Jehovah s Witness who canvassed door to door within Jeannette He and other Jehovah s Witnesses were arrested for their solicitation of their texts They were The Jehovah s Witnesses appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania alleging that the ordinance violated the Free Speech Free Press and Free Exercise of Religion clauses of the First Amendment In a 5 4 decision the Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court of Pennsylvania and held Though the organization solicited donations in their distribution of literature freedom of convicted and ned for violating Jeannette s ordinance offering religious texts in exchange for donations the borough purchase a solicitation license the ordinance unconstitutional speech freedom of the press freedom of religion are available to all not merely to those who can pay their own way While the borough did have an interest in preserving the public peace the Jehovah s The judgement of the case introduces the Preferred Position Doctrine Witnesses were soliciting peacefully and quietly 1st Amendment freedoms crucial to democracy placed at the head of the Bill of Rights Indicates that certain fundamental human rights have prerogative The courts should be astute to examine the content of the challenged legislation must be protected by the Court Substantive Due Process argument Presumption of unconstitutionality This also includes peaceful picketing During the Court s conservative period peaceful picketing had been outlawed In 1921 the Court allowed one picket for each entrance and each exit for each business or factory that was being picketed 7 Points for Brie ng a Case Facts what happened Statute or government action at issue Provision of Constitution at issue Outcome who wins loses Legal reasoning of the majority Doctrine s Policies complete sentence Alternative solution s Thornhill v Alabama Facts Byron Thornhill joined a picket line that was protesting against his former employer Section 3448 of Alabama state law made it an offense to picket Pursuant to the law Thornhill was arrested and ned 100 Thornhill a union president was the only picketer to be arrested and tried under the law Provision of Constitution at issue 1st Amendment freedom of speech as incorporated under Outcome Court reversed the ruling lower courts ruled in favor of Thornhill Reasoning of the majority Peaceful picketing in labor disputes conveys information to the the 14th Amendment public this is a freedom of speech that is protected by the 1st and 14th Amendment Statute too broad prevents getting facts to the public Alabama statute is blocking freedom of speech is unconstitutional Only clear and present danger can stop picketing Echo of Holme s dissent in Abraham v US the Constitution Major Doctrines peaceful picketing is an exercise of freedom of speech and is protected by Only in the case of clear and present danger of substantive evil does the government have the Alternative Solution Uphold law as valid exercise of police power Thomas v Collins 1945 A Texas law required union of cials to obtain an organizer s card before soliciting possible Thomas a union leader de ed the statute He was arrested tried and convicted The Supreme Court 5 4 struck down the statute as it violated freedom of speech and right to prevent something that would normally fall under free speech like picketing members assembly The statute was not a valid business practice regulation infringes on freedom of speech Previous identi cation requirement could be used to punish speech Emphasis of preferred position are not to be treated lightly they have a preferred position in the Constitution Only a clear and present danger can warrant intrusions Unequivocal language of majority The Court made it clear that 1st Amendment freedoms Dissent law is a valid exercise of police powers Majority legislating its values using substantive due process Court s double standard defers to gov t in economic matters but not 1st Amendment What Lochner v New York was to freedom of contract Thomas v Collins was to freedom of Four major free speech issues speech What leeway if any should government have in regulating speech Do some forms of speech deserve greater protection than others Different criteria for What to do when freedom of speech con icts with other values e g fair trial different forms Court more civil libertarian in federal criminal procedure cases than in state criminal procedures of rst degree murder and sentenced him to death degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment Palko v Connecticut 1937 Frank Palko had been charged with rst degree murder He was convicted instead of second The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial this time the court found Palko guilty Palko claims protection against double jeopardy The main question was whether the effect of the trial was to place Palko in jeopardy twice for Does Palko s second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment s due process clause Justice Cardozo rejects the blanket incorporation thesis He noted that some Bill of Rights guarantees such as freedom of thought and speech are the same offense fundamental and that the Fourteenth Amendment s due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right turned down is turned down and subsequently convicted The Court rejected the Hurtado Doctrine Betts v