The Supreme Court determined that Johnson was protected under his 1^st Amendment right of free expression, especially because his act was inherently political. It is not in the hands of officials to determine the sanctity of symbols, as that would go directly against the 1^st Amendment. Neither disgust nor disapproval constitutes enough legal weight to restrict expressiveness.

This is a very difficult question—for two reasons: first, there are two correct answers, but only one that is best, which is what the question asks you to choose. Second, this is a fairly abstract case, although one that is very important in terms an “era” of the court. Regardless, the best answer is “[Lochner’s] analysis of the right to freely contract . . .” although “[Lochner’s] analysis of the right to freely contract . . .” is also correct. The former is the best answer because it includes the most important fact surrounding the case: that it established as precedent the right to freely contract as a liberty guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. 

In this Supreme Court decision, Brandenburg’s freedom of speech and equal protection of rights under the 1^st and 14^th Amendments were constitutionally upheld. The court found that his speech would not result in direct criminal activity, despite its abrasive nature, and was thus protected.

In the Supreme Court decision Fletcher v. Peck, the Court found that Georgia’s voided laws that had, when enacted, granted Peck land were not constitutionally allowed to nullify the land deal between Peck and Fletcher. This deal had occurred years after Peck’s original acquisition. The Court noted that bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, so the legal sale of the estate from Peck to Fletcher was constitutional. This invalidated Georgia’s legislation.

Habeas corpus is protection from unlawful imprisonment, and does not relate to this case.

Miller v. California (1973) is a Supreme Court case that tested the limits of the 1^st Amendment. The Court found that Miller’s distribution of certain materials through the mail qualified as obscene when they used a three-pronged decency test. Much of the Supreme Court’s activity during this era was not only in defence of individual rights, but also in defining the boundaries of those rights – as this case demonstrates.

United States v. Windsor was a landmark ruling for gay rights. DOMA, the Defence of Marriage Act, was legislation that the Court ruled to be in contradiction to the equal protection guaranteed by the 5^th Amendment. This case hinged on the concept of marital taxation exemptions. Windsor was left her spouse’s estate in a will, but the fact that their marriage was not federally recognized (New York did recognize their union) brought the case to the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court decision McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court found that Maryland did not have the power to tax the national government. Congress has enumerated powers spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court expounded on the unenumerated, or non-disclosed powers Congress also possesses.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a Supreme Court case that is one of the lesser lights in the Court's history. Dred Scott, a slave, had traveled across the Missouri border with his master to a territory where slavery was unlawful - the Louisiana Territory. Dred Scott later argued in a Missouri court that crossing the border meant he had been freed, but the Supreme Court disagreed at this time. Not only was the issue of slavery at the center of this case, but also the hot-button issue of states' rights, both of which helped pave the road to the Civil War.

When Chaplinsky cursed at an officer, he was arrested for disturbing the peace.  He argued that his 1st Amendment rights had been violated, but the Supreme Court disagreed. They ruled against Chaplinsky because they determined that some forms of expression - like the fighting words that Chaplinsky had said to the officer - are not ideas that are subject to the 1st Amendment's protections.  

This runs parallel to the law that you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no danger - not all words and expressions are completely protected by the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller resulted in a win for gun rights advocates. The Court determined that the 2^nd Amendment provides the right of gun ownership for an individual, even without military affiliation. The condition on that ruling is that the gun or guns are owned and operated in lawful purposes.