Other Free Encyclopedias » Law Library - American Law and Legal Information » Notable Trials and Court Cases - 1918 to 1940

Schenck v. United States - Significance, "largely Instrumental In Sending The Circulars About", Clear And Present Danger Test, Further Readings

henry appellant court john

Appellant

Charles T. Schenck

Appellee

United States

Appellant's Claim

That his speech was protected by the First Amendment.

Chief Lawyers for Appellant

Henry J. Gibbons, Henry John Nelson

Chief Lawyer for Appellee

John Lord O'Brian

Justices for the Court

Louis D. Brandeis, John Hessin Clarke, William Rufus Day, Oliver Wendell Holmes (writing for the Court), Charles Evans Hughes, Joseph McKenna, James Clark McReynolds, Willis Van Devanter, Edward Douglass White

Justices Dissenting

None

Place

Washington, D.C.

Date of Decision

3 March 1919

Decision

Schenck's speech was not protected by the First Amendment and his conviction under the Espionage Act was upheld.

Related Cases

  • Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616 (1919).
  • Gitlow v. United States, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

Sources

Abraham, Henry J. and Barbara A. Perry. Freedom & The Court: Civil Rights & Liberties in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.

The Scottsboro Trials: 1931-37 - "legal Lynching … Victims Of 'capitalist Justice", "you Can't Mix Politics With Law" [next] [back] Schenck v. U.S. Appeal: 1919 - "largely Instrumental In Sending The Circulars About", Suggestions For Further Reading

User Comments

Your email address will be altered so spam harvesting bots can't read it easily.
Hide my email completely instead?

Cancel or

Vote down Vote up

over 7 years ago

Ah, federalist, is it?
You know Jefferson, who was not much for federalists had something to say about setting aside the law when it comes to clear and present danger. "A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means."

Vote down Vote up

over 9 years ago

AMAZING INFORMATION

Vote down Vote up

over 9 years ago

Very Very helpful!

Vote down Vote up

almost 10 years ago

very helpful

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

This was hard to understand at some points in the reading but in the end I got almost everything i needed. There were one or two questions i couldnt get answered because I couldnt find the answers to them. Other than that, good job.

Vote down Vote up

about 9 years ago

good information, But if I was a judge on the supureme cort, and if they had any sence, The cort would have decited in favor of Schenck, Every one has the freedom of speach in America. That is what America is for, the frist admendment says that the goverment can make NO law abridging the freedom of speach and press

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

>.<

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

i like boys and you guys are stupid

Vote down Vote up

almost 7 years ago

I agree with Christina 100% !!

Brian, good point with Jefferson.

Also, KD is a dummy and, -spelling aside, his opinion doesn't matter.

Vote down Vote up

over 7 years ago

No, "Me" I'm saying uneducated people shouldn't spout off about nonsense that they don't even know what they are talking about.



Brian, thankyou, I agree with you. Law would not exist if there was not some sort of limitation to the power a citizen can hold.

Vote down Vote up

about 8 years ago

Shut up Christina u federalist! Read on how Madison drafted the 1st amendment against fearful people like you and to keep the government from doing things like it did to Schenk. And even if KD did misspell, how does that give of take away value from his opinion.. So that would mean people who dont have the same abilities as others have opinions that are worth less??? If you pride yourself in your country, and im assuming you do since you want to protect it from harm, then uphold the laws and what they intended to do. 1st amendment reads no congress shall pass any law prohibiting the free exercise of speech +press or to peacefully petition.


Vote down Vote up

about 8 years ago

So maybe his comment was from a year ago..but I have to protest, KD is a complete and utter idiot if he/she thinks that there can't be some sort of limitations of power that citizens hold.



KD, when you learn to spell, maybe your opinion will be worth a bit more merit. If the situation brings about a clear and present danger, and is a possible threat to society, would it be more beneficial to let it happen, or stop it in its tracks?



Vote down Vote up

about 9 years ago

Thank you really great site! Incredibly Helpful!

Vote down Vote up

over 8 years ago

Who were the judges durring the case

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

i like men

Vote down Vote up

over 4 years ago

yall thank i am stupd i wil kick ur but u shld go die in a whole u stpd hore. yall are stupid yanks

Vote down Vote up

over 5 years ago

wow