Schenck vs United States(1919) 249 US 47

Constitutional Issues Is a United States Supreme Court case concerning enforcement of the Espionage Act of 1917 during World War I. A unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes Jr., concluded that defendants who distributed fliers to draft-age men, urging resistance to induction, could be convicted of an attempt to obstruct the draft, a criminal offense. The First Amendment did not alter the well-established law in cases where the attempt was made through expressions that would be protected in other circumstances. In this opinion, Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished.

Parties Charles Schenck who was the secretary of the Socialists Party in Philadelphia. VS The United States

When and Where Agreed - January 9-10, 1919 Decided - March 3, 1919 The case took place in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Events Leading Up Schenck v. United States was the first in a line of Supreme Court Cases defining the modern understanding of the First Amendment. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. wrote the often-cited opinion in the case, because of events that were not publicly known at the time. The United States' entry into the First World War had caused deep divisions in society, and was vigorously opposed, especially by those on the radical left and by those who had ties to Ireland or Germany. The Woodrow Wilson Administration launched a broad campaign of criminal enforcement that resulted in thousands of prosecutions. Many of these were for trivial acts of dissent. In the first case arising from this campaign to come to the Court, Baltzer v. United States, the defendants had signed a petition criticizing their governor's administration of the draft, threatening him with defeat at the polls. They were charged with obstructing the recruitment and enlistment service, and convicted.

Historical Context The facts of the Schenck Case were as follows. Charles Schenk and Elizabeth Baer were members of the Executive Committee of the Socialist Party Philadelphia, of which Schenck was General Secretary. The executive committee authorized, and Schenck oversaw, printing and mailing more than 15,000 fliers to men slated for conscription during World War I. The fliers urged men not to submit to the draft, saying "Do not submit to intimidation", "Assert your rights", "If you do not assert and support your rights, you are helping to deny or disparage rights which it is the solemn duty of all citizens and residents of the United States to retain," and urged men not to comply with the draft on the grounds that military conscription constituted involuntary servitude, which is prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment.

Ruling Freedom of speech protection is in the first amendment could be restricted if the words present a danger. After WW1 Congress passed the Espionage Act which made it illegal to make false statement that interfere with the military.

Reasoning Charles Schenk tried to deliver fliers encourage men not to join the military which violates the Espionage Act of 1917 and violates the Thirteenth Amendment

Viewpoints Charles Schenk he was right to make people realize what their rights were and help make men make a decision based upon how they feel. The United States is right because what Schenk was doing violated the Thirteenth Amendment and unconstitutional. Plus is went against the newly created Espionage Act that was just establsihed in 1917.

Our Opinion Austin and I feel the decision of the court went the right way. People can’t interfere with the military trying to recruit fresh new young men to go to war to defend our freedom. In other countries today such as Iran for example has a requirement for men and women who have just turned 18 have to go and serve in the military for 2 years before being relieved of duty.

Is this a Landmark Case This case is considered a Landmark because Schenk went against an entire nation to help people realize their rights when it came to war. However no one else in the history of our great nation hasn't tried to recreate the same issue that Schenk brought to the courtroom since World War 1