Jacob Erhart

Jacob Erhart

Mr Feeley and Mrs Gordon 

AP U.S. 

The rights promised to a citizen in the First Amendment are extensive, but cases including Schenck v. United States, Wisconsin v. Yoder, and Citizens United v. FEC illustrate just how complicated interpreting the breadth and depth of the amendment can be. All three cases landed in the Supreme Court and resulted in clarity over what can or cannot be considered a right protected under this amendment. 

During WWI, Charles Schneck, a leader in the U.S. Socialist Party distributed leaflets protesting the draft as a violation of the 13th Amendment. Schenck was arrested for violating the Espionage Act and “attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment” (Oyez). His case was first tried in the district court of Pennsylvania but, after a loss and an appeal it was later tried in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court voted unanimously against Schenck. Associate Justice Oliver Holmes famously related the issue at hand to shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre, which is not protected under the First Amendment either. Schenck guilty of three counts of conspiracy for violating the Espionage Act. This case was pivotal because it resulted in the first legal ruling that rejected the First Amendment in favor of another act because of the precarious conditions of war.  

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was a case that also tested the definition and parameters of freedom of speech. Citizens United, a nonprofit, released a movie in 2008, Hillary: The Movie, which was a film that sought to illustrate how Clinton would not be a good president. However, the movie’s release was considered a violation of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which was enacted by Congress in 2002. BCRA prohibits certain contributions for federal elections (Oyez) and the production of a movie was thought to be in violation of this. Citizens United argued that sections of the BCRA violated their First Amendment rights. The case was first heard in the United States District Court where the judges denied Citizens United’s claims by referring back to the case of Mcconell v. FEC where this was previously debated. The film was considered an “electioneering communication.” Citizens United then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court where it was argued in 2009. The Supreme Court voted in favor of Citizens United 5-4. The votes were split in half by ideological lines with the majority arguing that corporate funding for independent political broadcasts could not be limited in this case because, as Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy stated, “Regardless of where the speech comes from, political speech is indispensable to a democracy” (Oyez). The court ruled that it was legal for corporations/labor unions to support federal election candidates indirectly and Citizens United was able to release and distribute their film. 

 Wisconsin v. Yoder started after three Amish fathers including Jonas Yoder withdrew their kids from school just before high school. This was considered illegal under the Compulsory Attendance Act of Wisconsin that required all students living within the state to go to school at least until the age of 16 (Oyez). The Amish families argued that they had to remove their children from school as part of their religion and that fining them or demanding their kids attend school was a violation of their rights specifically the Freedom of Religion Act. The case was first heard in the Green Bay County Circuit Court in Wisconsin (Justia) who ruled against Yoder who continued to appeal until the case was sent to the Supreme Court with the question posed, what should take priority, the Freedom of Religion Act or the Compulsory Attendance Act? The ideologies of the Court were mixed again, but they all voted unanimously for prioritizing the Freedom of Religion. Chief Justice Warren E. Burger stated the programs and values of high school were "in sharp conflict with the fundamental mode of life mandated by the Amish religion"(Oyez). This case was similar to Schenck v. United States, because of its conflict regarding priority between laws. 

All three of these cases indicated that while the First Amendment is extremely inclusive, cases like these are inevitable because there are circumstances when rights can be interpreted differently. Schenck v. United States and Wisconsin v. Yoder were cases in which the Supreme Court had to decide the priority of the First Amendment over other laws. Citizens United v. FEC forced the court to redo details that were made previously made. This shows how easily details change and how barebones the definition of free speech is. Overall the First Amendment is slim when it is defined by the extent of the rights promised and it's up to cases and decisions made by the Supreme Court to state the extent of our rights.