Question: What date was the amendment adopted to the constitution that was central to the Supreme Court case California Democratic Party v. Jones

Context articles: Bolling v. Sharpe
Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Town of Greece v. Galloway
Samson v. California
George Anastaplo
United States v. Sprague
California Democratic Party v. Jones
Osborne v. Ohio
United States v. Graham

Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools.
 Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before "Brown v. Board of Education", 347 U.S. 483 (1954), "Bolling" was reargued on December 8 and 9, 1953, and was unanimously decided on May 17, 1954, the same day as "Brown."
 The "Bolling" decision was supplemented in 1955 with the second "Brown" opinion, which ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed."
 "Bolling" did not address school desegregation in the context of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which applies only to the states, but held that school segregation was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 In "Bolling," the Court observed that the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution lacked an Equal Protection Clause, as in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 The Court held, however, that the concepts of Equal Protection and Due Process are not mutually exclusive.
Rodríguez v. Popular Democratic Party, 457 U.S. 1 (1982) , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States heard on appeal from the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico whether Puerto Rico may by statute vest in a political party the power to fill an interim vacancy in the Puerto Rico Legislature.
 The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico held that such a procedure did not violate the United States Constitution, and the US Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico.
 The case was of some interest to close followers of the Court as it featured the one and only return of former associate justice, Abe Fortas, now in private practice, at oral argument on behalf of the appellee.
The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, ensuring that there is no prohibition on the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.
 It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights.
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) , is a United States Supreme Court case in which the court decided that the Town of Greece, New York may permit volunteer chaplains to open each legislative session with a prayer.
 The plaintiffs were Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens, represented by Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
 They argue that the prayers violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled against the town, and on May 20, 2013 the Supreme Court agreed to rule on the issue.
 On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of the Town of Greece, and that the town's practice of beginning legislative sessions with prayers does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843 (2006), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court affirmed the decision of the California Court of Appeal; which held that suspicionless searches of parolees are lawful under California law and that the search in this case was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it was not arbitrary, capricious, or harassing.
 This case answered in the affirmative a variation of the question the Court left open in "United States v. Knights", 534 U.S. 112, 120 n.6 (2001), "whether a condition of release can so diminish or eliminate a released prisoner's reasonable expectation of privacy that a suspicionless search by a law enforcement officer would not offend the Fourth Amendment."
George Anastaplo (November 7, 1925 – February 14, 2014) was a professor at Loyola University Chicago School of Law and author who was famously denied admission for many years to the Illinois Bar.
 The denial of his admission became a Supreme Court case, In re Anastaplo, in which he insisted that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects the privacy of political affiliations; in particular, he refused to answer questions about membership in the Communist Party.
 Anastaplo's stand was based on Constitutional principles and consequent rejection of McCarthyism, and nobody alleged that he had membership in the Communist Party.
 The Supreme Court's majority upheld the lower courts' ruling in favor of the Illinois Bar, although Justice Hugo Black dissented.
 After his Supreme Court case and denial of admission to the Bar, Anastaplo supported his family by teaching at the University of Chicago and other universities and colleges.
 He wrote many articles and books on philosophy, many of which acknowledged the influence of his teacher, Leo Strauss.
United States v. Sprague, 282 U.S. 716 (1931) was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the Fifth Article of the US Constitution.
 The defendants had been indicted under the National Prohibition Act and were attempting to quash their indictments, arguing that the Eighteenth Amendment had not been properly ratified.
 Their reasoning was that the Congress of the United States had chosen to ratify it by usage of state legislatures instead of constitutional conventions.
 If this were held true, Congress would have exceeded its authority in passing the NPA.
 The court did not agree, however, ruling that the Constitution explicitly authorized Congress to determine the method used in ratifying amendments.
 In part, Article Five states that any amendment "shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, "as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress"" (emphasis added).
 Furthermore, the court rejected the defendants' claim that the Eighteenth Amendment needed to be ratified by state conventions since "all [previous amendments] save the Eighteenth dealt solely with governmental means and machinery rather than with the rights of the individual citizen."
 The Constitution does not make a difference between types of amendments, the court held, so the amendment, "by lawful proposal and ratification, has become a part of the Constitution."
California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 U.S. 567 (2000), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that California's blanket primary violates a political party's First Amendment freedom of association.
Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990) , is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the First Amendment allows states to outlaw the mere possession, as distinct from the distribution, of child pornography.
 In so doing, the Court extended the holding of "New York v. Ferber", 458 U.S. 747 (1982) , which had upheld laws banning the distribution of child pornography against a similar First Amendment challenge, and distinguished "Stanley v. Georgia", 394 U.S. 557 (1969) , which had struck down a Georgia law forbidding the possession of pornography by adults in their own homes.
 The Court also determined that the Ohio law at issue was not overbroad, relying on a narrowing interpretation of the law the Ohio Supreme Court had adopted in prior proceedings in the case.
 However, because it was unclear whether the State had proved all the elements of the crime, the Court ordered a new trial.
United States v. Graham, 846 F. Supp.
 2d 384 (D. Md. 2012), was a Maryland District Court case in which the Court held that historical cell site location data is not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
 Reacting to precedent established by the recent Supreme Court case "United States v. Jones" in conjunction with the application of the third party doctrine, Judge Richard D. Bennett, found that "information voluntarily disclosed to a third party ceases to enjoy Fourth Amendment protection" because that information no longer belongs to the consumer, but rather to the telecommunications company that handles the transmissions records.
 The historical cell site location data is then not subject to the privacy protections afforded by the Fourth Amendment standard of probable cause, but rather to the Stored Communications Act, which governs the voluntary or compelled disclosure of stored electronic communications records.