Freedom of speech or the press did not exist in the colonies before the Constitution. British subjects were under the authority of the king, and the king punished dissenters. The king also controlled the press and censored content before it was published. After the colonists fought and won independence from England, the rules were changed when the Constitution was written.

Remembering the king’s actions, the Framers designed a government with three branches and a system of checks and balances to prevent the abuse of power. They also made the federal government responsible for protecting individual liberties and accountable to a separate, but all powerful group, the People.

Thomas Jefferson viewed the press as the “only safeguard for public liberty” and an informed citizenry as “the best army” for the task. Freedom of the press was seen as vital for protecting democracy so the Framers linked it to speech and included both in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law … abridging freedom of speech, or of the press…”

Experience not only made its mark on the Constitution, but it also affected judicial interpretations that followed. In World War I, the Supreme Court upheld government actions against people in the interest of national security. Over the next 200 years, the Court would continue to grapple with freedom of expression issues in wartime. All the while, a watchful press would keep the public informed and debate alive. In 1971, the Supreme Court reaffirmed freedom of the press even in the midst of a war by allowing the publication of the Pentagon Papers. It had come full circle in its views.

This lesson is based on the Annenberg Classroom video that explores the evolution of the free press doctrine, Freedom of the Press: New York Times v. United States

In its first constitutional challenge to the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear a case brought by a Chinese immigrant, not an American citizen.

Yick Wo believed city ordinances had been unfairly applied to him, so he challenged their constitutionality under the equal protection clause, and took his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Initiated by the Chinese in San Francisco, the precedent-setting case expanded the interpretation of the equal protection clause to include both citizens and noncitizens alike. It also established foundational principles of law.

In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court ruled that “an administration of a municipal ordinance . . . violates the Constitution . . . if it makes arbitrary and unjust discriminations founded on differences of race . . . ” “The guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to “all persons within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, without regard to differences of race, or color, or of nationality.” ” . . . the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws.”

In this lesson, based on the Annenberg Classroom video “Yick Wo and the Equal Protection Clause,” students explore the cause-and-effect relationships between historical events and the development of constitutional principles that protect the rights of all people in America today. The words inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building are a reminder of that protection: “Equal Justice Under Law.”

As part of the Bill of Rights, freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution, but it is not defined by it. That task is left up to the people through a representative government that makes the laws and a judicial system that interprets and applies the laws to resolve disputes. When people bring their First Amendment challenges into the court system and decisions are made, principles get established that help define the boundaries of free speech for everyone.

While most Americans believe there should be some limits to free expression, there is much disagreement about what constitutes speech and where those limits should be. Consequently, freedom of speech ends up being our most contested right.

In this lesson, based on the Annenberg Classroom video “A Conversation on the Constitution: Freedom of Speech,” students gain insight into the many challenges involved in defining and protecting free speech. They also learn about principles that come from Supreme Court decisions and case law that are applied to define the limits for us today.

The goal of the jury selection process in both civil and criminal proceedings is to seat an impartial jury. Longstanding processes and procedures are followed to ensure that a trial is fair for the two opposing parties. The Supreme Court decision in Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co. (1991), however, wasn’t about a violation related to either party’s constitutional rights; it was about the rights of prospective jurors. Constitutional protections apply to the rights of all private individuals in a courtroom, including prospective jurors.

Before Edmonson, the law only prevented race-based peremptory challenges in criminal trials. With Edmonson, the Court extended the prohibition to civil trials. “Racial discrimination,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote in the opinion of the Court, “has no place in the courtroom, whether the proceeding is civil or criminal.” It threatens the fairness and impartiality of the proceedings and violates equal protection principles.

In this lesson, students analyze the interplay of processes and procedures that courts use to seat an impartial jury and gain appreciation for the essential role of juries in the justice system. They also explore the responsibilities and limits placed on government by the Constitution in the context of civil and criminal trials.