Landmark cases produced in partnership with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 Historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr chief justice. Good evening, welcome to see spencers landmark cases. Tonights case is the New York Times Company Versus the United States, in this 1971 case, the Supreme Court ruled six to three against the knicks this Nixon Administration in a big win for journalism. The decision upheld the New York Times in the Washington Post, which you just saw depicted in this recent movie, the right to project published classified information on the history of the vietnam war over significant objections from the pentagon and the white house. We have to terrific guests at the table tonight, to help us understand how this case unfolded. And what it means for us today in our society. Let me introduce you to flloyd abrams, the bestknown First Amendment lawyer counsel in the New York Times case and he is the attorney in new y
Court nominations. You are watching American History tv on cspan three. My name is naomi and im 11 years old. Me and my friend carter led a walkout earner alum entry school and are on the 14th. Im a sophomore at aubergine aversive three years ago, i stood exactly where yall are today and attended my first march for life. We march for our whole generation. We are the generation. One more cases, cspans special history series. Produced in partnership with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 Historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice, made please the court. Good evening, and welcome to cspans landmark cases. Tonights case is tinker versus Des Moines Independent Community School District. In this 1969 case, a court in a seven to two decision ruled that students First Amendment rights to free speech are still protected even when they are at school. For the next 90 minutes, we will learn more about the history of this case
Captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2008 they followed your lead, published the papers. At least were not alone. I have to tell the audience just a small eye roll here, because the New York Times was the first to publish the papers, but thats drama, after all. I wanted to ask both of you from a legal strategy standpoint, Daniel Ellsberg sending it out to so many papers, how does that change the governments ability to prosecute the case . Well, floyd should be the one to answer that first because he was directly involved. Right. Well, it did make it harder to prosecute the prior restraint case, the case that weve been talking about, against the times and then other papers. They did bring actions against the post, and the Christian Science monitor and other papers, you know, who got the papers from elsberg, to stop them as well. But one judge in the District Of Columbia board of appeals put it very well when lawyers were in front of him on this case. He said, youre asking u
We know that from the kilo case where Justice Scalia said when cuttingedge technology is used in that case to invade the privacy of the home then a warrant was presumptively required and the jones case suggested that even outside the home you might have an expectation of privacy against cuttingedge technology. In the end, the government is limited in its ability to record our conversations in public by state and federal laws, but the expectation of privacy test would have protected you against the laser beam. James, welcome to landmark cases. Youre on. Hi. When Justice Stewart delivered the opinion in court he took issue with the way the petitioner act tomorrow lated the questions which included a, whether a public telephone booth was a publicly protected area and physical penetration was necessary before search and seizure could be said were violations to the Fourth Amendment to the United States constitution. He added a couple of words in there. One was in place of right to privacy.
Cspan3. All persons having persons before the honorable, Supreme Court of the United States who admonish to draw near and give their attention. Landmark cases, cspan special history series produced in partnership with the National Constitution center exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice may it please the court. Quite often in many of the most famous decisions are ones that the court took that were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of different people who help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan landmark cases. Tonights case is katz versus the United States, it is a 1967 case and the person who gave his name to the case is somewhat of an unlikely hero. He was a bookmaker specializing in College Basketball games and he took his wiretapping case to the Supreme Court an