West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette - wikipedia West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette This article 's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia 's guide to writing better articles for suggestions. ( October 2008 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Supreme Court of the United States Argued March 11, 1943 Decided June 14, 1943 Full case name West Virginia State Board of Education, et al. v. Walter Barnette, et al. Citations 319 U.S. 624 ( more ) 63 S. Ct. 1178 ; 87 L. Ed. 1628 ; 1943 U.S. LEXIS 490 ; 147 A.L.R. 674 Prior history Injunction granted, 47 F. Supp. 251 ( S.D.W. Va. 1942 ) Holding The Free Speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits public schools from forcing students to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance. District Court affirmed. Court membership Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone Associate Justices Owen J. Roberts Hugo Black Stanley F. Reed Felix Frankfurter William O. Douglas Frank Murphy Robert H. Jackson Wiley B. Rutledge Case opinions Majority Jackson, joined by Stone, Black, Douglas, Murphy, Rutledge Concurrence Black, joined by Douglas Concurrence Murphy Dissent Frankfurter Dissent Roberts, Reed Laws applied U.S. Const. amend. I ; W. Va. Code § 1734 ( 1941 ) This case overturned a previous ruling or rulings Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ( 1943 ), is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protected students from being forced to salute the American flag and say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. The Court 's 6 -- 3 decision, delivered by Justice Robert H. Jackson, is remembered for its forceful defense of free speech and constitutional rights generally as being placed `` beyond the reach of majorities and officials. '' It was a significant court victory won by Jehovah 's Witnesses, whose religion forbade them from saluting or pledging to symbols, including symbols of political institutions. However, the Court did not address the effect the compelled salutation and recital ruling had upon their particular religious beliefs but instead ruled that the state did not have the power to compel speech in that manner for anyone. Barnette overruled a 1940 decision on the same issue, Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( also involving the children of Jehovah 's Witnesses ), in which the Court stated that the proper recourse for dissent was to try to change the school policy democratically. However, in overruling Gobitis the Court primarily relied on the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Free Exercise Clause. Contents 1 Background 2 Facts of the case 3 Arguments 4 Decision of the Court 4.1 Majority opinion 4.2 Concurring opinion 4.3 Dissenting opinion 5 Subsequent history 6 See also 7 Footnotes 8 References 9 Further reading 10 External links Background In the 1930s, the government of Nazi Germany began arresting thousands of Jehovah 's Witnesses who refused to salute the Nazi flag and sent them to concentration camps. In the United States, Jehovah 's Witness national leaders advocated demonstrating solidarity with German Jehovah 's Witnesses by refusing to participate in the daily flag salutes that had become compulsory in American schools. The Witnesses taught and still teach that the obligation imposed by the law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government. Their religious beliefs include a literal version of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5, which says : ' Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth ; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them. ' They consider that the flag is an ' image ' within this command. For this reason, they refused to salute the flag. Children of Jehovah 's Witnesses had been expelled from school and were threatened with exclusion for no other cause. Officials threatened to send them to reformatories maintained for criminally inclined juveniles. Parents of such children had been prosecuted and were being threatened with prosecutions for causing delinquency. In 1935, 9 - year - old Carlton Nichols was expelled from school and his father arrested in Lynn, Massachusetts for such a refusal. Additional refusals followed, one such leading to Minersville School District v. Gobitis Even after the Gobitis decision, Jehovah 's Witnesses continued to refuse to say the pledge. Facts of the case Following the Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision, the West Virginia Legislature amended its statutes to require all schools in the state to conduct courses of instruction in history, civics, and in the Constitutions of the United States and of the State `` for the purpose of teaching, fostering and perpetuating the ideals, principles and spirit of Americanism, and increasing the knowledge of the organization and machinery of the government. '' The West Virginia State Board of Education was directed to `` prescribe the courses of study covering these subjects '' for public schools. The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court 's Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become `` a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools, '' that all teachers and pupils `` shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag ; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly. '' The resolution originally required the `` commonly accepted salute to the Flag '' which it defined. Objections to the salute as `` being too much like Hitler 's '' were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl Scouts, the Red Cross, and the General Federation of Women 's Clubs. Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah 's Witnesses. What was required after the modification was a `` stiff - arm '' salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated : `` I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands ; one Nation indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. '' Students pledging to the flag with the Bellamy salute, March 1941. Failure to comply was considered `` insubordination '' and dealt with by expulsion. Readmission was denied by statute until the student complied. This expulsion, in turn, automatically exposed the child and their parents to criminal prosecution ; the expelled child was considered `` unlawfully absent '' and could be proceeded against as a delinquent, and their parents or guardians could be fined as much as $50 and jailed up to thirty days. Marie and Gathie Barnett were Jehovah 's Witnesses attending Slip Hill Grade School near Charleston, West Virginia, who were instructed by their father not to salute the flag or recite the pledge, and were expelled for their refusal. On the advice of an early attorney, Mr. Horace S. Meldahl of Charleston, the Barnetts had avoided the further complications by having their expelled girls return to school each day, though the school would send them home. The Barnetts brought suit in the United States District Court for themselves and others similarly situated asking its injunction to restrain enforcement of these laws and regulations against Jehovah 's Witnesses, and prevailed, with the 3 - judge panel stating : Ordinarily we would feel constrained to follow an unreversed decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, whether we agreed with it or not.... The developments with respect to the Gobitis case, however, are such that we do not feel that it is incumbent upon us to accept it as binding authority. The school district subsequently appealed. Arguments This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia 's quality standards. The specific problem is : The section says `` Given the clear indications that at least five justices were ready to lay aside the Gobitis precedent, there was little else the state 's lawyers could do, '' but provides no information on when or how those indications were given, ie, why they were so clear. Please help improve this section if you can. ( September 2016 ) The state 's principal argument was that Barnette raised no substantial federal question because Gobitis settled the constitutional questions raised by the flag - salute expulsions. The state 's brief quoted extensively from Justice Frankfurter 's Gobitis opinion. Given the clear indications that at least five justices were ready to lay aside the Gobitis precedent, there was little else the state 's lawyers could do. The American Legion 's amicus curiae brief filed in support of the state 's appeal did little more than duplicate the West Virginia argument. Hayden Covington answered the state 's appeal in a brief that was a mixture of Jehovah 's Witnesses Bible teachings and Constitutional arguments. He included a fiery attack on the Court 's Gobitis opinion, especially rejecting Justice Frankfurter 's deference to legislative policymaking authority. Such deference, he argued, allowed the legislature to define its own powers. He emphasized the nationwide persecution of Jehovah 's Witnesses that had followed Gobitis and concluded with a long list of law journal and newspaper articles that criticized the decision. The American Bar Association 's Committee on the Bill of Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union filed amicus curiae briefs that argued Gobitis was bad law and should be overruled. Decision of the Court The Court held, in a 6 - to - 3 decision delivered by Justice Jackson, that it was unconstitutional for public schools to compel students to salute the flag. It thus overruled its decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis, finding that the flag salute was `` a form of utterance '' and `` a primitive but effective means of communicating ideas. '' `` Compulsory unification of opinion, '' the Court wrote, was doomed to failure and was antithetical to the values set forth in the First Amendment. The Court eloquently stated : `` If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. '' To underscore its decision, the Supreme Court announced it on Flag Day. Majority opinion Justice Robert Jackson, who had joined the court only two years earlier, wrote the decision, echoing the free - expression sentiments of Stromberg v. California. The opinion that Justice Felix Frankfurter had authored three years earlier in Gobitis rested on four arguments. In Barnette Justice Jackson addressed each element of Frankfurter 's Gobitis decision. Jackson began with Frankfurter 's designation of the flag as a national symbol. He did not question Frankfurter 's designation of the flag as a national symbol ; instead, he criticized the pedestal on which Frankfurter put such national symbols. Jackson called symbols a `` primitive but effective way of communicating ideas, '' and explained that `` a person gets from a symbol the meaning he puts into it, and what is one man 's comfort and inspiration is another 's jest and scorn. '' Next Jackson denied Frankfurter 's argument that flag - saluting ceremonies were an appropriate way to build the `` cohesive sentiment '' that Frankfurter believed national unity depended on. Jackson rejected Frankfurter 's argument, citing the Roman effort to drive out Christianity, the Spanish Inquisition of the Jews and the Siberian exile of Soviet dissidents as evidence of the `` ultimate futility '' of efforts to coerce unanimous sentiment out of a populace. Jackson warned that `` ( t ) hose who begin coercive elimination of dissent soon find themselves exterminating dissenters. Compulsory unification of opinion achieves only the unanimity of the graveyard. '' Then Jackson dealt with Frankfurter 's assertion that forcing students to salute the flag, and threatening them with expulsion if they chose not to, was a permissible way to foster national unity. Jackson 's rejection of this section of Frankfurter 's argument has proved the most quoted section of his opinion. In his Gobitis opinion Frankfurter 's solution was for the dissenters to seek out solutions to their problems at the ballot box. Jackson responded that the conflict, in this case, was between authority and the individual and that the founders intended the Bill of Rights to put some rights out of reach from majorities, ensuring that some liberties would endure beyond political majorities. Jackson wrote : The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One 's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote ; they depend on the outcome of no elections. The last leg of Frankfurter 's Gobitis opinion reasoned that matters like saluting the flag were issues of `` school discipline '' that are better left to local officials rather than federal judges. Justice Jackson rejected this argument as well : The case is made difficult not because the principles of its decision are obscure but because the flag involved is our own. Nevertheless, we apply the limitations of the Constitution with no fear that freedom to be intellectually and spiritually diverse or even contrary will disintegrate the social organization. To believe that patriotism will not flourish if patriotic ceremonies are voluntary and spontaneous instead of a compulsory routine is to make an unflattering estimate of the appeal of our institutions to free minds. We can have intellectual individualism and the rich cultural diversities that we owe to exceptional minds only at the price of occasional eccentricity and abnormal attitudes. When they are so harmless to others or to the State as those we deal with here, the price is not too great. But freedom to differ is not limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the existing order. If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us. Concurring opinion Two of the justices who changed their minds between Minersville and West Virginia v. Barnette -- Hugo Black and William O. Douglas -- would become the most ardent supporters of the First Amendment. `` Words uttered under coercion are proof of loyalty to nothing but self - interest, '' wrote Black and Douglas in a concurring opinion. `` Love of country must spring from willing hearts and free minds, inspired by a fair administration of wise laws enacted by the people 's elected representatives within the bounds of express constitutional prohibitions. '' Dissenting opinion Justice Felix Frankfurter Three years earlier seven justices had followed Frankfurter 's reasoning and joined his majority opinion in Gobitis. In Barnette however, only Frankfurter filed a written dissent, while Justices Owen Roberts and Stanley Reed dissented in silence. Frankfurter said that the court was overstepping its bounds in striking down the West Virginia law. He said, too, that freedom of religion did not allow individuals to break laws simply because of religious conscience. Frankfurter argued that `` Otherwise each individual could set up his own censor against obedience to laws conscientiously deemed for the public good by those whose business it is to make laws. '' Frankfurter 's response to Jackson 's systematic destruction of his Gobitis decision was one of anger, and Justices Roberts and Murphy tried to get him to revise his opinion, arguing that the first two lines were `` much too personal ''. However, Frankfurter ignored the advice of his fellow justices, taking the overruling of his Gobitis decision as a personal affront and insisting on speaking his mind. Frankfurter began with a reference to his Jewish roots : `` One who belongs to the most vilified and persecuted minority in history is not likely to be insensible to the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. '' This was the passage Justices Roberts and Frank Murphy felt was out of place. Frankfurter, however, insisted that the passage was necessary since he claimed he was `` literally flooded with letters '' following the Court 's decision in Gobitis that said he should be more sensitive to the protection of minorities due to his Jewish heritage. Frankfurter 's dissent continued, `` Were my purely personal attitudes relevant I should wholeheartedly associate myself with the generally libertarian views in the Court 's opinion... But as judges we are neither Jew nor Gentile, neither Catholic nor agnostic. '' Having responded to his critics and the Court 's reversal on a personal level, he now responded on a judicial one, with the remainder of his opinion focusing on judicial restraint. `` As a member of this Court, I am not justified in writing my private notions of policy into the Constitution... It can never be emphasized too much that one 's own opinion about the wisdom or evil of a law should be excluded altogether when one is doing one 's duty on the bench. '' Frankfurter continued, arguing that if the Court is frequently striking down laws it is circumventing the democratic process since the Court can not work to reach a compromise. It either strikes down a law or lets it stand ; it can not simply modify or qualify a law as a legislature can. Finally, Frankfurter rejected Justice Stone 's rational basis test that Stone laid out in United States v. Carolene Products Co... Instead, Frankfurter focused on his belief that there were no provisions within the constitution that occupied a `` preferred position '' over others. Subsequent history The majority opinion in Barnette is considered one of the Court 's greatest and most sweeping statements about the fundamental freedoms established by the Bill of Rights. After Barnette the Court began to turn away from the belief - action doctrine altogether, creating a religious exemption for believers of different creeds. In Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ), for example, the Court upheld a Seventh - day Adventist 's claim to unemployment benefits even though she declined to make herself available to work on Saturday ( her Sabbath ) as the law required. In Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ), the Court upheld the right of Amish parents not to send their children to public schools past the eighth grade. At 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Justice Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, Supreme Court law clerks from that Court were on a panel with the two eponymous Barnettes. Just as she and her sister had in 1942, Gathie Barnette Edmonds noted that her own son was also sent to the principal 's office for not saluting the flag. See also Wooley v. Maynard Criticism of the Pledge of Allegiance List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 319 Footnotes Jump up ^ This was the wording of the pledge at the time ; the words `` under God '' were added later, in 1954. Jump up ^ `` Barnett '' is the correct family spelling, a court clerk misspelled the name when filing the papers, see http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/woman-in-barnette-reflects-on-famous-flag-salute-case References Jump up ^ `` The Flag Salute Cases '', Historic U.S. Court Cases by John W. Johnson, © 2001, Routledge, page 953, `` Though the Flag Salute Cases are generally seen as involving freedom of religion, that issue is virtually absent from Jackson 's majority opinion. He accepted, without question, that the Jehovah 's Witnesses sincerely held beliefs which made it impossible for them to conscientiously salute the flag. But Jackson did not offer any analysis of the importance of that belief or even of the role of religious freedom in striking down the mandatory flag salute. Rather than grounding his opinion in terms of freedom of religion, Jackson analyzed the case as one of freedom of speech and expression. '' Online Jump up ^ Hanstein, Woody. `` From the Bulldog 's Desk : A lesson on patriotism from a 9 - year - old boy. '' The Daily Bulldog '. 16 January, 2013. Jump up ^ `` Article : Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette '', ST. JOHN 'S LAW REVIEW, Fall 2007, Volume 81, Number 4, page 770 - 771, from April 28, 2006, proceedings cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York : Moderator : What was your parents ' decision about how to handle this situation : The school has a mandatory flag salute, thanks to the State Education Department regulation, and you have your religious belief ? ( Gathie Barnette ) Edmonds : When we went home, of course, they understood and they said not to worry about it. And our uncle helped us get a lawyer, Mr. Horace Meldahl in Charleston, who was a very understanding person, a nice person. He told us that we had to go back to school every morning for a while. Moderator : Why was that ? Edmonds : So they would n't fine our dad or put him in jail. ( Marie Barnette ) Snodgrass : So they could n't say we were just being truant. And so we went every morning and stayed until the flag salute, and they 'd tell us to go home. It was fortunate that we lived fairly close -- we did n't have a long distance to go. Moderator : And that was the end of the school day for you ? Edmonds : Yes. Once the truant officer came and asked my mother why we were n't in school, and she could say, `` Well, we sent ' em and they sent ' em home. '' So that kind of took, you know, the edge off of them. Our parents did n't keep us home. Jump up ^ Hudson, David. `` Woman in Barnette reflects on the famous flag - salute case. '' First Amendment Center. 28 December 2009 ^ Jump up to : Manwaring, Render Unto Caesar Jump up ^ West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, Majority Opinion, item 3 ( US 1943 ). Jump up ^ `` Article : Recollections of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette '', St. John 's Law Review, Fall 2007, Volume 81, Number 4, page 792 ( 38 / 42 ), from April 28, 2006 proceedings cosponsored by the Robert H. Jackson Center and the Supreme Court Historical Society, at the Jackson Center in Jamestown, New York, `` ( The older of the two Barnett girls, Gathie Barnett ) Edmonds :... I remember when my older son was sent to the office for not saluting the flag. The principal came back and said your teacher obviously does n't remember the Supreme Court decision. '' Further reading Alley, Robert S. ( 1999 ). The Constitution & Religion : Leading Supreme Court Cases on Church and State. Amherst, NY : Prometheus Books. pp. 428 -- 436. ISBN 1 - 57392 - 703 - 1. Irons, Peter H. ( 1999 ). A People 's History of the Supreme Court. New York : Viking. ISBN 0 - 670 - 87006 - 4. Kommers, Donald P. ; Finn, John E. ; Jacobsohn, Gary J. ( 2004 ). American Constitutional Law. Vol. 2 ( 2nd ed. ). Lanham, MD : Rowman & Littlefield. ISBN 0 - 7425 - 2688 - 7. Sandmann, Warren ( 2003 ). `` West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ''. In Parker, Richard A. ( ed. ). Free Speech on Trial : Communication Perspectives on Landmark Supreme Court Decisions. Tuscaloosa, AL : University of Alabama Press. pp. 100 -- 115. ISBN 0 - 8173 - 1301 - X. CS1 maint : Extra text : editors list ( link ) External links Wikisource has original text related to this article : West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette Text of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 ( 1943 ) is available from : Findlaw Justia Cornell LII First Amendment Library entry on West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett What We Owe Jehovah 's Witnesses, by Sarah Barringer Gordon, April / May 2011 American History magazine ; article on Barnette 's effects on Constitutional Law. United States First Amendment case law Establishment Clause Public funding Everson v. Board of Education ( 1947 ) McCollum v. Board of Education ( 1948 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) Lemon v. Kurtzman ( 1971 ) Tilton v. Richardson ( 1971 ) Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist ( 1973 ) Sloan v. Lemon ( 1973 ) Wolman v. Walter ( 1977 ) Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Mueller v. Allen ( 1983 ) Aguilar v. Felton ( 1985 ) Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet ( 1994 ) Agostini v. Felton ( 1997 ) Mitchell v. Helms ( 2000 ) Zelman v. Simmons - Harris ( 2002 ) Locke v. Davey ( 2004 ) Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn ( 2011 ) Public displays Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Lynch v. Donnelly ( 1984 ) Board of Trustees of Scarsdale v. McCreary ( 1985 ) County of Allegheny v. ACLU ( 1989 ) McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky ( 2005 ) Van Orden v. Perry ( 2005 ) Pleasant Grove City v. Summum ( 2009 ) School prayer Zorach v. Clauson ( 1952 ) Engel v. Vitale ( 1962 ) Abington School District v. Schempp ( 1963 ) Stone v. Graham ( 1980 ) Wallace v. Jaffree ( 1985 ) Lee v. Weisman ( 1992 ) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ( 2000 ) Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow ( 2004 ) Creationism Epperson v. Arkansas ( 1968 ) Edwards v. Aguillard ( 1987 ) Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ( M.D. Pa. 2005 ) Legislature prayer Marsh v. Chambers ( 1983 ) Town of Greece v. Galloway ( 2014 ) Establishment Clause, Other McGowan v. Maryland ( 1961 ) Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York ( 1970 ) McDaniel v. Paty ( 1978 ) Widmar v. Vincent ( 1981 ) Larkin v. Grendel 's Den, Inc. ( 1982 ) Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc. ( 1985 ) Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock ( 1989 ) Hosanna - Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ( 2012 ) Free Exercise Clause Vidal v. Girard 's Executors ( 1844 ) Reynolds v. United States ( 1879 ) Davis v. Beason ( 1890 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) Murdock v. Pennsylvania ( 1943 ) United State v. Ballard ( 1944 ) Braunfeld v. Brown ( 1961 ) Torcaso v. Watkins ( 1961 ) Sherbert v. Verner ( 1963 ) Presbyterian Church v. Hull Church ( 1969 ) Wisconsin v. Yoder ( 1972 ) NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago ( 1979 ) Harris v. McRae ( 1980 ) Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division ( 1981 ) United States v. Lee ( 1982 ) Bob Jones University v. United States ( 1983 ) Bowen v. Roy ( 1986 ) Goldman v. Weinberger ( 1986 ) Employment Division v. Smith ( 1990 ) Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah ( 1993 ) City of Boerne v. Flores ( 1997 ) Watchtower Society v. Village of Stratton ( 2002 ) Cutter v. Wilkinson ( 2005 ) Gonzales v. UDV ( 2006 ) Trinity Lutheran Church of Columbia, Inc. v. Comer ( 2017 ) Freedom of speech ( portal ) Sedition and imminent danger Alien and Sedition Acts ( 1798 ) Masses Publishing Co. v. Patten ( S.D.N.Y. 1917 ) Schenck v. United States ( 1919 ) Abrams v. United States ( 1919 ) Gitlow v. New York ( 1925 ) Whitney v. California ( 1927 ) Dennis v. United States ( 1951 ) Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board ( 1955, 1961 ) Yates v. United States ( 1957 ) Bond v. Floyd ( 1966 ) Brandenburg v. Ohio ( 1969 ) False speech Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) United States v. Alvarez ( 2012 ) Fighting words and the heckler 's veto Cantwell v. Connecticut ( 1940 ) Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire ( 1942 ) Terminiello v. Chicago ( 1949 ) Feiner v. New York ( 1951 ) Gregory v. Chicago ( 1969 ) National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie ( 1977 ) R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul ( 1992 ) Snyder v. Phelps ( 2011 ) Elonis v. United States ( 2015 ) Freedom of assembly and public forums Hague v. CIO ( 1939 ) Schneider v. New Jersey ( 1939 ) Thornhill v. Alabama ( 1940 ) Martin v. City of Struthers ( 1943 ) Marsh v. Alabama ( 1946 ) Niemotko v. Maryland ( 1951 ) Edwards v. South Carolina ( 1963 ) Cox v. Louisiana ( 1965 ) Brown v. Louisiana ( 1966 ) Adderley v. Florida ( 1966 ) Carroll v. Town of Princess Anne ( 1968 ) Coates v. Cincinnati ( 1971 ) Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe ( 1971 ) Lloyd Corp. v. Tanner ( 1972 ) Pruneyard Shopping Center v. Robins ( 1980 ) Widmar v. Vincent ( 1981 ) Hill v. Colorado ( 2000 ) McCullen v. Coakley ( 2014 ) Packingham v. North Carolina ( 2017 ) Symbolic speech Stromberg v. California ( 1931 ) United States v. O'Brien ( 1968 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) Smith v. Goguen ( 1974 ) Texas v. Johnson ( 1989 ) United States v. Eichman ( 1990 ) Virginia v. Black ( 2003 ) Compelled speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Wooley v. Maynard ( 1977 ) Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System v. Southworth ( 2000 ) Davenport v. Washington Education Association ( 2007 ) Knox v. Service Employees International Union, Local 1000 ( 2012 ) Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc. ( 2013 ) Loyalty oaths American Communications Association v. Douds ( 1950 ) Garner v. Board of Public Works ( 1951 ) Speiser v. Randall ( 1958 ) Keyishian v. Board of Regents ( 1965 ) Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb ( 1974 ) School speech Minersville School District v. Gobitis ( 1940 ) West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette ( 1943 ) Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District ( 1969 ) Island Trees School District v. Pico ( 1982 ) Bethel School District v. Fraser ( 1986 ) Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier ( 1988 ) Rosenberger v. University of Virginia ( 1995 ) Morse v. Frederick ( 2007 ) Obscenity Rosen v. United States ( 1896 ) United States v. One Book Called Ulysses ( S.D.N.Y. 1933 ) Roth v. United States ( 1957 ) One, Inc. v. Olesen ( 1958 ) Marcus v. Search Warrant ( 1961 ) MANual Enterprises v. Day ( 1962 ) Jacobellis v. Ohio ( 1964 ) Quantity of Books v. Kansas ( 1964 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Memoirs v. Massachusetts ( 1966 ) Redrup v. New York ( 1967 ) Ginsberg v. New York ( 1968 ) Stanley v. Georgia ( 1969 ) Cohen v. California ( 1971 ) United States v. Thirty - seven Photographs ( 1971 ) Kois v. Wisconsin ( 1972 ) Miller v. California ( 1973 ) Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton ( 1973 ) United States v. 12 200 - ft. Reels of Film ( 1973 ) Jenkins v. Georgia ( 1974 ) Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville ( 1975 ) Young v. American Mini Theatres ( 1976 ) New York v. Ferber ( 1982 ) American Booksellers v. Hudnut ( 7th Cir., 1985 ) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc. ( 1986 ) Osborne v. Ohio ( 1990 ) United States v. X-Citement Video ( 1994 ) Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 1997 ) United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group ( 2000 ) Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ( 2002 ) Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union ( 2002 ) Nitke v. Gonzales ( S.D.N.Y., 2005 ) United States v. Williams ( 2008 ) FCC v. Fox Televisions Stations - 2 cases ( 2009 and 2012 ) American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression v. Strickland ( 6th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Kilbride ( 9th Cir., 2009 ) United States v. Stevens ( 2010 ) Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association ( 2011 ) Public employees Pickering v. Board of Education ( 1968 ) Perry v. Sindermann ( 1972 ) Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth ( 1972 ) Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle ( 1977 ) Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District ( 1979 ) Connick v. Myers ( 1983 ) Rankin v. McPherson ( 1987 ) Waters v. Churchill ( 1994 ) Garcetti v. Ceballos ( 2006 ) Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri ( 2011 ) Heffernan v. City of Paterson ( 2016 ) Hatch Act and similar laws Ex parte Curtis ( 1882 ) United Public Workers v. Mitchell ( 1947 ) United States Civil Service Commission v. National Association of Letter Carriers ( 1973 ) Broadrick v. Oklahoma ( 1973 ) Licensing and restriction of speech Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio ( 1915 ) Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson ( 1952 ) Freedman v. Maryland ( 1965 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc. ( 1982 ) Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans ( 2015 ) Matal v. Tam ( 2017 ) Commercial speech Valentine v. Chrestensen ( 1942 ) Rowan v. U.S. Post Office Dept. ( 1970 ) Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations ( 1973 ) Bigelow v. Commonwealth of Virginia ( 1974 ) Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council ( 1976 ) Bates v. State Bar of Arizona ( 1977 ) Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro ( 1977 ) Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Ass'n ( 1978 ) Friedman v. Rogers ( 1979 ) Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission ( 1980 ) Consol. Edison Co. v. Public Serv. Comm'n ( 1980 ) Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products ( 1983 ) Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel ( 1985 ) Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California ( 1986 ) Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico ( 1986 ) San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee ( 1987 ) 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island ( 1996 ) Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc. ( 2011 ) Campaign finance and political speech Buckley v. Valeo ( 1976 ) First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti ( 1978 ) Citizens Against Rent Control v. City of Berkeley ( 1981 ) California Medical Association v. FEC ( 1981 ) Brown v. Socialist Workers ' 74 Campaign Committee ( 1982 ) Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington ( 1983 ) FEC v. National Conservative Political Action Committee ( 1985 ) FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life ( 1986 ) Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce ( 1990 ) McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission ( 1995 ) Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC ( 1996 ) Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC ( 2000 ) FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee ( 2001 ) Republican Party of Minnesota v. White ( 2002 ) McConnell v. FEC ( 2003 ) FEC v. Beaumont ( 2003 ) Randall v. Sorrell ( 2006 ) FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. ( 2007 ) Davis v. FEC ( 2008 ) Citizens United v. FEC ( 2010 ) McComish v. Bennett ( 2011 ) American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock ( 2012 ) McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ( 2014 ) Williams - Yulee v. The Florida Bar ( 2015 ) Freedom of the press Prior restraints and censorship Near v. Minnesota ( 1931 ) Lovell v. City of Griffin ( 1938 ) Hannegan v. Esquire, Inc. ( 1946 ) New York Times Co. v. United States ( 1971 ) Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo ( 1974 ) Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart ( 1976 ) Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia ( 1978 ) Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co. ( 1979 ) Tory v. Cochran ( 2005 ) Privacy Time, Inc. v. Hill ( 1967 ) Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn ( 1975 ) Florida Star v. B.J.F. ( 1989 ) Taxation and privileges Grosjean v. American Press Co. ( 1936 ) Branzburg v. Hayes ( 1972 ) Minneapolis Star Tribune Company v. Commissioner ( 1983 ) Defamation Beauharnais v. Illinois ( 1952 ) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan ( 1964 ) Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts ( 1967 ) Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. ( 1974 ) Time, Inc. v. Firestone ( 1976 ) Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc. ( 1984 ) Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. Greenmoss Builders, Inc. ( 1985 ) McDonald v. Smith ( 1985 ) Hustler Magazine v. Falwell ( 1988 ) Harte - Hanks Communications v. Connaughton ( 1989 ) Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. ( 1990 ) Obsidian Finance Group, LLC v. Cox ( 9th Cir., 2014 ) Broadcast media Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC ( 1969 ) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation ( 1978 ) Turner Broadcasting v. FCC ( 1994 ) Bartnicki v. Vopper ( 2001 ) Freedom of association Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. McGrath ( 1951 ) Watkins v. United States ( 1957 ) NAACP v. Alabama ( 1958 ) Baggett v. Bullitt ( 1964 ) In re Primus ( 1978 ) Roberts v. United States Jaycees ( 1984 ) Hurley v. Irish - American Gay, Lesbian, & Bisexual Group of Boston ( 1995 ) Boy Scouts of America v. Dale ( 2000 ) Retrieved from `` https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Virginia_State_Board_of_Education_v._Barnette&oldid=789075557 '' Categories : 1943 in education 1943 in religion 1943 in United States case law 1943 in West Virginia American Civil Liberties Union litigation Education in West Virginia Flag controversies in the United States Legal history of West Virginia Pledge of Allegiance Jehovah 's Witnesses litigation in the United States United States education case law United States Free Speech Clause case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court decisions that overrule a prior Supreme Court decision United States Supreme Court cases of the Stone Court Christianity and law in the 20th century Hidden categories : Wikipedia articles needing style editing from October 2008 All articles needing style editing Articles needing cleanup from September 2016 All pages needing cleanup Cleanup tagged articles with a reason field from September 2016 Wikipedia pages needing cleanup from September 2016 CS1 maint : Extra text : editors list Talk Contents About Wikipedia Add links This page was last edited on 5 July 2017, at 05 : 47. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution - ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia ® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. About Wikipedia

Question: who won west virginia state board of education v barnette
Answer: Jehovah's Witnesses