Schenck v. United States
E32820
Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.
All labels observed (6)
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
landmark free speech case ⓘ |
| areaOfLaw |
constitutional law
ⓘ
criminal law ⓘ freedom of speech ⓘ |
| arguedYear | 1919 ⓘ |
| category |
United States free speech case
ⓘ
World War I era civil liberties case ⓘ |
| citation | 249 U.S. 47 ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision | First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ |
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| court | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| decidedYear | 1919 ⓘ |
| decisionDate | 1919-03-03 ⓘ |
| defendant |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| doctrineEstablished | clear and present danger test ⓘ |
| factSummary |
Charles Schenck distributed leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I
ⓘ
Schenck v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form:
Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military
|
| famousPhrase | shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic ⓘ |
| fullName |
Schenck v. United States
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
|
| historicalContext | World War I ⓘ |
| holding |
Conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets during wartime was constitutional
ⓘ
Schenck v. United States self-linksurface differs ⓘ
surface form:
The First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent
|
| impact |
expanded government power to restrict speech during wartime
ⓘ
influenced later First Amendment jurisprudence ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | federal ⓘ |
| laterCharacterization | often criticized as overly restrictive of free speech ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
First Amendment freedom of speech
ⓘ
application of the Espionage Act of 1917 ⓘ |
| lowerCourt | United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ⓘ |
| lowerCourtOutcome | conviction affirmed ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ |
| opinionType | unanimous opinion ⓘ |
| page | 47 ⓘ |
| plaintiff | Charles T. Schenck ⓘ |
| precedentStatus | binding precedent at the time of decision ⓘ |
| relatedCase |
Abrams v. United States
ⓘ
Brandenburg v. Ohio ⓘ Debs v. United States ⓘ Gitlow v. New York ⓘ |
| reporter | United States Reports ⓘ |
| standardAnnounced | whether the words used create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent ⓘ |
| statuteInvolved | Espionage Act of 1917 ⓘ |
| subjectMatter |
anti-draft advocacy
ⓘ
political speech ⓘ |
| subsequentDevelopment | clear and present danger test later narrowed and modified by subsequent Supreme Court decisions ⓘ |
| timePeriod |
World War I
ⓘ
surface form:
World War I era
|
| volume | 249 ⓘ |
| vote | 9–0 ⓘ |
Referenced by (19)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.
this entity surface form:
"Clear and present danger" doctrine
this entity surface form:
Schenck v. United States opinion
this entity surface form:
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
this entity surface form:
The First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent
this entity surface form:
Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military