The Supreme Court of the United States, in a unanimous decision, upheld the authority of the federal government to halt the strike. among the several states,” and to establish post offices and post roads. When the American Railway Union struck, it interfered with the railroad’s ability to carry commerce and mail which benefited the needs and “general welfare” of all Americans.
A New York law set limits on how many hours bakery employees could work. Lochner was convicted and fined fifty dollars for permitting an employee to work more than the lawful number of hours in one week. On appeal, Lochner claimed that the New York law infringed on his right to make employer/employee contracts. At issue was whether a law which limited the number of hours bakery employees were allowed to work interfered with the bakery owner’s right to make employer/employee contracts.
It was overturned twelve years later in Bunting v
The Supreme Court of the United States held that even though states have the power to regulate in the areas of health, safety, morals, and public welfare, the New York law in question was not within the limits of these “police powers” of the State. [This decision marked the beginning of the “substantive due process” era, in which the Court struck down a number of state laws that interfered with an individual’s economic and property rights. Oregon. (Source – PATCH – See link below)
Ruled for the first time that the First Amendment covers libelous statements. The court said public officials atory statements regarding their official conduct unless they can prove actual “malice,” that is, that the statements were made knowing that they were false or with reckless disregard of whether they were true or false.
The New York Times received secret info about the US involvement in the Vietnam War, specifically what had “really” happened at the Gulf of Tonkin. It turned out that the President had exaggerated the incident and used that exaggeration to gain increased war powers form congress (the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution). The New York Times sought to publish the information and the government attempted to get an injunction barring them from going to press with it. The Times sued claiming that the government was infringing upon their first amendment right of freedom of speech. The government claimed that a limitation of that right was in order because it was dangerous to the security of the nation.
Kathy Kuhimeier and two other journalism students wrote articles on pregnancy and divorce for their school newspaper. Their teacher submitted page proofs to the principal for approval. The principal objected to the articles because he felt that the students described in the article on pregnancy, although not named, could be identified, and the father discussed in the article on divorce was not allowed to respond to the derogatory article. The principal also said that the language used was not appropriate for younger students. When the newspaper was printed, two pages containing the articles in question as well as four otherarticles approved by the principal were deleted.
The Court distinguished this case from the Tinker decision (school officials could not punish students for wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam war “students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate”) because the Tinker case involved a student’s personal expression
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the Hazelwood School District did not violate the First Amendment right of the students. The Court ruled that School officials need not tolerate speech which is inconsistent with the school’s basic educational mission. This was, instead, a school newspaper, and as such could reasonably be perceived to bear the “imprimatur” of the school. They justified this because the publication of Spectrum was a part of the curriculum, i.e., it was in the curriculum guide as a part 
of the Journalism course, it was taught during school hours by a faculty member, the students received grades and academic credit, the faculty advisor exercised control over the publication, and the principal had to review it. The school’s policies did not reflect an intent to expand the students’ rights by converting a curricular newspaper into a public forum. The court further added that the principal’s fears were reasonable: he was concerned that the students’ identities could not be assured, that the privacy interests of boyfriends and parents were not adequately protected, and that parents mentioned in the divorce article were not given an opportunity to defend themselves. (Source – PATCH – See link below)