Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Keyishian Vs. Board of Regents

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jan 23, 1967

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

46 entries 5 linked 41 unlinked
Show
  1. Wieman Vs. Updegraff US Supreme Court · Dec 15, 1952
  2. Baggett Vs. Bullitt US Supreme Court · Jun 01, 1964
    Relied / Followed
  3. Shelton Vs. Tucker US Supreme Court · Dec 12, 1960
  4. Speiser Vs. Randall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1958
  5. Torcaso Vs. Watkins US Supreme Court · Jun 19, 1961
  6. Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  7. of Regents - 385 U.S. 589 (1967) U.S. Supreme Court Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  8. of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 (1967) Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  9. Adler v. Board
    Search
  10. We reverse. I We considered some aspects of the constitutionality of the New York plan 15 years ago in Adler v. Board
    Search
  11. See New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
    Search
  12. See Herndon v. Lowry
    Search
  13. Yates v. United
    Search
  14. Noto v. United
    Search
  15. Scales v. United
    Search
  16. is not inapplicable because the legislation is aimed at keeping subversives out of the teaching ranks. In De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search
  17. United States v. Associated
    Search
  18. Press, 52 F.Supp. 362, 372. In Sweezy v. New
    Search
  19. N.A.A.C.P. v. Button
    Search
  20. must be guarded against by sensitive tools which clearly inform teachers what is being proscribed. See Stromberg v. California
    Search
  21. Cramp v. Board
    Search
  22. found to be fatal to the oaths considered in Cramp and Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  23. F.2d 236, 239. Indeed, that theory was expressly rejected in a series of decisions following Adler. See Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  24. Slochower v. Board
    Search
  25. Schware v. Board
    Search
  26. U. S. 488 . In Sherbert v. Verner
    Search
  27. is not a constitutionally adequate basis for exclusion from such positions as those held by appellants. In Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search
  28. any showing of 'specific intent,' would run afoul of the Constitution was set at rest by our decision in Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  29. aims, could not constitutionally warrant deprivation of the right to travel abroad. As we said in Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  30. even with knowledge of the Party's unlawful goals, cannot suffice to justify criminal punishment, see Scales v. United
    Search
  31. nor may it warrant a finding of moral unfitness justifying disbarment. Schware v. Board
    Search
  32. the overthrow of government by force, or (c) a denial that the teacher has knowledge of such advocacy. Lederman v. Board
    Search
  33. Aptheker v. Secretary
    Search
  34. Saia v. New
    Search
  35. U.S. Supreme Court Keyishian v. Board
    Search
  36. In De Jonge v. Oregon
    Search
  37. In Sweezy v. New
    Search
  38. See Stromberg v. California
    Search
  39. Cramp and Baggett v. Bullitt
    Search
  40. Adler. See Wieman v. Updegraff
    Search
  41. Schware v. Board
    Search
  42. In Sherbert v. Verner
    Search
  43. In Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search
  44. Schneiderman v. United
    Search
  45. Lederman v. Board
    Search
  46. Elfbrandt v. Russell
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial