Schenck v. United States

E32820

United States Supreme Court case landmark free speech case

Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Disambiguation Statements Elicitation Referenced by

AI illustration

All labels observed (6)

Label	Occurrences
Schenck v. United States canonical	14
"Clear and present danger" doctrine	1
Schenck v. United States opinion	1
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)	1
Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military	1
The First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent	1

How this entity was disambiguated

This entity first appeared as the object of triple T252939 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.

NED1 Entity disambiguation (via context triple) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Schenck v. United States
Context triple: [First Amendment to the United States Constitution, hasLandmarkCase, Schenck v. United States]

A. Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
C. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
D. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
E. Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
F. None of above. chosen
G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.

NED2 Entity disambiguation (via description) gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07

Target entity: Schenck v. United States
Target entity description: Schenck v. United States is a 1919 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the “clear and present danger” test, allowing the government to restrict speech during wartime.

A. Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow v. New York is a 1925 U.S. Supreme Court case that marked a major step in applying First Amendment free speech protections to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
B. Printz v. United States
Printz v. United States is a 1997 U.S. Supreme Court decision that limited federal power by holding that Congress cannot compel state or local officials to implement federal regulatory programs.
C. Reynolds v. United States
Reynolds v. United States is an 1879 U.S. Supreme Court case that established the distinction between protected religious belief and regulable religiously motivated conduct, holding that the Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from compliance with otherwise valid criminal laws such as those banning polygamy.
D. Bolling v. Sharpe
Bolling v. Sharpe is a 1954 U.S. Supreme Court case that held racial segregation in Washington, D.C. public schools unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
E. Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp v. Ohio is a landmark 1961 U.S. Supreme Court case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state criminal prosecutions.
F. None of above. chosen

Statements (49)

Predicate	Object
instanceOf	United States Supreme Court case ⓘ landmark free speech case ⓘ
areaOfLaw	constitutional law ⓘ criminal law ⓘ freedom of speech ⓘ
arguedYear	1919 ⓘ
category	United States free speech case ⓘ World War I era civil liberties case ⓘ
citation	249 U.S. 47 ⓘ
constitutionalProvision	First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
country	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
court	Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ
decidedYear	1919 ⓘ
decisionDate	1919-03-03 ⓘ
defendant	United States ⓘ linked to: United States of America
doctrineEstablished	clear and present danger test ⓘ
factSummary	Charles Schenck distributed leaflets urging resistance to the military draft during World War I ⓘ Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act by attempting to cause insubordination in the military ⓘ linked to: Schenck v. United States
famousPhrase	shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic ⓘ
fullName	Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) ⓘ linked to: Schenck v. United States
historicalContext	World War I ⓘ
holding	Conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets during wartime was constitutional ⓘ The First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a clear and present danger of a significant evil that Congress has power to prevent ⓘ linked to: Schenck v. United States
impact	expanded government power to restrict speech during wartime ⓘ influenced later First Amendment jurisprudence ⓘ
jurisdiction	federal ⓘ
laterCharacterization	often criticized as overly restrictive of free speech ⓘ
legalIssue	First Amendment freedom of speech ⓘ application of the Espionage Act of 1917 ⓘ
lowerCourt	United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ⓘ
lowerCourtOutcome	conviction affirmed ⓘ
majorityOpinionBy	Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. ⓘ
opinionType	unanimous opinion ⓘ
page	47 ⓘ
plaintiff	Charles T. Schenck ⓘ
precedentStatus	binding precedent at the time of decision ⓘ
relatedCase	Abrams v. United States ⓘ Brandenburg v. Ohio ⓘ Debs v. United States ⓘ Gitlow v. New York ⓘ
reporter	United States Reports ⓘ
standardAnnounced	whether the words used create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent ⓘ
statuteInvolved	Espionage Act of 1917 ⓘ
subjectMatter	anti-draft advocacy ⓘ political speech ⓘ
subsequentDevelopment	clear and present danger test later narrowed and modified by subsequent Supreme Court decisions ⓘ
timePeriod	World War I era ⓘ linked to: World War I
volume	249 ⓘ
vote	9–0 ⓘ

How these facts were elicited

Referenced by (19)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution → hasLandmarkCase → Schenck v. United States ⓘ

Espionage Act of 1917 → usedInCase → Schenck v. United States ⓘ

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. → notableWork → "Clear and present danger" doctrine ⓘ