Side by Side Trivia Quiz

Answer: South Carolina

Edwards v. South Carolina was decided by the Supreme Court in 1963 and their ruling was almost unanimous, with only Justice Tom Clark dissenting. Edwards was one of 187 petitioners who asked the highest court of the land to review their convictions, which had been affirmed by the state's courts of law. The case originated from a civil rights march in 1961, where African-American students peacefully demonstrated near the South Carolina state house. When ordered to disperse, the students refused and police arrested them.

In a majority opinion written by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court held that the police had infringed on the petitioners' First Amendment speech and assembly rights because they were arrested while protesting peacefully. The Court also applied the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that a citizen's Constitutional rights cannot be ignored by the state per the first sentence of the amendment.

Answer: Baton Rouge

Benjamin Elton Cox was a minister and civil rights activist who was part of the group CORE (Congress of Racial Equality) in Louisiana. Cox led thousands of people in protesting what they thought was the unjust arrest of 23 of its members for "illegal picketing". Despite the fact that protesters showed no violent behavior, Baton Rouge police dispersed the crowds by force by using tear gas. Cox was then arrested and charged, after which he asked the Supreme Court to review these convictions because the statutes were unconstitutionally vague.

In a majority opinion written by Justice Arthur Goldberg, the Court ruled that the Louisiana statutes that forbade picketing in front of a courthouse, "disturbing the peace," and "obstructing public passages" were unconstitutional because they violated Cox's First and Fourth Amendment rights. Cox's conviction was therefore overturned.

Answer: Jail

The 1960s saw a number of different civil rights protests take place all over the United States. This Supreme Court case originated in Leon County, Florida, beginning with a protest against racial segregation by Florida A&M University students. Harriett Adderley and other students then convened outside the jailhouse to peacefully demonstrate against the detention of their fellow students. A sheriff ordered them to leave and after refusing, they were arrested for trespassing. Following convictions in the County, Circuit, and District Courts, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the constitutional question of whether the protesters' rights were violated.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the convictions should be upheld and that there was no constitutional violation. Justice Hugo Black reasoned that states are permitted to control their property as long as the means are not of discriminatory nature. In this case, the jailhouse was state property and therefore Florida was allowed to stop protests in or around them. Black compared a jail and its secure facilities with government buildings that are generally considered open to the public.

Liberal Justice William Douglas wrote the dissent, emphasizing that he believed the jail was public property and as such, state law could not be used to punish speech without violating the First Amendment. Though the holding of the case is narrow in that it only applies to protests held in jails, the practical implications were that states were allowed to arrest protesters on certain state property.

Answer: Thurgood Marshall

In 1963, minister and civil rights activist Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth led a group of protesters in Birmingham, Alabama. Even though the protest was peaceful, police arrested Shuttlesworth because he violated a statute requiring potential protesters to get a permit to protest in public streets. The case reached the Alabama Supreme Court, where his conviction was affirmed, and after which Shuttlesworth asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case. The Court unanimously held that the statute's restriction on free speech and freedom of assembly in public spaces was unconstitutional and that the conviction should not stand. Justice Stewart argued that if the city continued to require people to apply for permits before a demonstration, that could open doors for otherwise legitimate discourse to be stopped by city officials.

Shuttlesworth was represented by civil rights lawyer James Nabrit III, who, like his father James Nabrit Jr., argued several cases in the U.S. Supreme Court for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Justice Thurgood Marshall was nominated and confirmed to serve on the Supreme Court in 1967. President Lyndon B. Johnson selected Marshall after he served as Chief Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and as U.S. Solicitor General during Johnson's administration.

Answer: Dick Gregory

Gregory v. City of Chicago was argued before the Supreme Court in December 1968 and was decided exactly three months later, in March 1969. In a striking unanimous opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren opened with the words: "This is a simple case." It all began with a protest against Chicago school officials for their perceived lack of action in desegregating the city's schools. Gregory led a small group of marchers in a procession to the mayor's house. Their protest was peaceful and in fact they were accompanied by police, but when the protest reached the mayor's neighborhood, a larger crowd of bystanders started to form and police felt that violence could ensue. In an attempt to disperse the protest, police threatened the marchers with arrest and then did arrest for disorderly conduct them following their refusal.

Despite Chicago courts upholding the convictions, the Supreme Court decided to overturn them because the marchers had a First Amendment right to peacefully demonstrate, they were not afforded the due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and because the convictions arose from the protest itself and not from refusing to follow orders of law enforcement.

Dick Gregory (1932-2017) was a stand-up comedian from Missouri who gained popularity by making fun of racism in the U.S in local comedy clubs. One time, magazine publisher Hugh Hefner saw Gregory perform and offered him a job at the Chicago Playboy Club. Gregory then dedicated the rest of his life to various causes, most notably to civil rights.

Answer: War

During the 1970s, anti-war protests were present all over the U.S. because of its involvement in the Vietnam War. One of these protests was a student demonstration at Indiana University Bloomington, where Gregory Hess was one of the hundreds of people present. Allegedly, Hess yelled out something along the lines of "we'll take the street again or later", which prompted a sheriff to arrest and charge him for disorderly conduct.

The Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion (which means no single justice signs his or her name to the opinion) reversing the conviction. The Court argued that the statute used to charge Hess was unconstitutionally vague and was a violation of the First Amendment. The Court also took this opportunity to clarify what is called the Brandenburg test, named after a 1969 case about incitement. Using that test, the Court reasoned that what Hess said could not be construed as inciting future violence. Justices Rehnquist, Burger, and Blackmun dissented.

Answer: Illinois

Carey v. Brown arose after civil rights protesters picketed outside of the Mayor of Chicago's home. The Illinois statute barred almost any kind of picketing, with a narrow exception for houses that also served as a place of employment. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found this distinction unconstitutional. After the protesters were arrested and convicted, they petitioned the Supreme Court for review of the constitutionality of the statute.

In an opinion written by Justice Brennan, the Court found a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment in the statute's text and how it was being applied. Specifically, Brennan described the prohibition as a "content-based restriction" because the statute effectively allowed some groups (labor groups) to protest in public places but not others. Justices Rehnquist, Burger, and Blackmun dissented just like in Hess v. Indiana.

This case was reminiscent of another Illinois case, Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley (1972), where the Supreme Court also struck down a statute. Chicago is one of the most populous cities in Illinois and is often nicknamed the "Windy City".

Answer: A boycott of white merchants

Since the beginning of the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s, great progress had been made by 1982. School integration, a federal ban on discrimination in places of public accommodation, and voting rights legislation had all begun to take effect. However, the fight for racial equality was far from over. The facts from NAACP v Claiborne Hardware Co. go all the way back to 1966, when Black citizens of Claiborne County, Mississippi made certain demands to their government to eradicate racial segregation. Joined by their local NAACP chapter, the citizens responded to their government's inaction with a boycott of white-owned businesses. Protesters like Charles Evers warned other citizens that failure to adhere to the boycott would cost them public humiliation and once said "we're going to break your neck". A group of merchants in the area sued in 1969 to recover the losses stemming from the boycott and also sought to enjoin future boycotts.

In a unanimous 8-0 opinion written by Justice John Paul Stevens (Justice Marshall did not participate in the decision), the Supreme Court sided with the protesters because the non-violent elements of the boycott were protected by the First Amendment and the right to free speech it confers. The decision reversed a prior ruling from the Mississippi Supreme Court that had deemed the boycott illegal. Stevens made sure to distinguish between a state's right to regulate economic activity and its right to regulate non-violent speech (the latter is federally protected by the First Amendment).

Answer: No

The events in this case took place in the town of Brookfield, Wisconsin. Sandra Schultz and Robert Braun joined with other citizens who opposed abortion to picket in front of a doctor's home. Following the protest, the city passed a new ordinance banning all picketing in residential areas, except for labor picketing. The town later amended that statute because of previous Supreme Court precedent making it unconstitutional to distinguish between peaceful labor picketing and other peaceful picketing. The new statute essentially functioned as a blanket ban for all picketing in residential areas. Schultz and her co-plaintiffs then sued Frisby (a town board supervisor) and the town in federal court because they alleged their First Amendment rights had been violated. Schultz won an injunction in district and circuit court, after which the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

In a 6-3 opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Court decided that the statute did not contravene the First Amendment of the Constitution because the town's government had a legitimate interest in protecting the homes of its residents. The Court evaluated the statute with strict scrutiny because the street involved in the protest is a traditional public forum. However, O'Connor decided that the statute could remain in force because it was "content-neutral" and there are other alternative places where the protesters could demonstrate.

Answer: Phelps

The Westboro Baptist Church was established in 1931 in Topeka, Kansas. It is recognized by many organizations, such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League, as a hate group. It holds discriminatory views against homosexuality, Islam, Jews, Catholics, and other religious, ethnic, and social groups. On March 3, 2006, a funeral was being held for U.S. Marine Matthew A. Snyder, a 20-year-old who was killed in Iraq. People affiliated with the church picketed in front of the funeral on public property, holding signs with discriminatory messages and somehow connecting the marine's death to God's punishment for tolerance of homosexuality in the country.

The Snyder family sued the Westboro Baptist Church and its founder Fred Phelps for emotional distress and defamation. The district court initially awarded the family millions of dollars in damages, but the circuit court reversed on First Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court now had to decide whether the protesters were protected from civil liability, despite their intentional infliction of emotional distress (a recognized common law tort). In a majority opinion written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court reasoned that even if the speech was hurtful and outrageous, the First Amendment still protects public protests as long as they are done in compliance with the law and in public places. Justice Alito was the only one to file a dissenting opinion.

The swimmer alluded to in the question is Michael Phelps, an American swimmer who broke multiple records in Olympic competitions between 2004 and 2016.