Connection lost
Server error
Brandenburg v. Ohio Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Ku Klux Klan leader was convicted for inflammatory speech. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the government cannot punish abstract advocacy of violence unless it is directed at inciting, and is likely to incite, imminent lawless action.
Legal Significance: This case established the “imminent lawless action” test, the modern standard for restricting speech that advocates for violence. It significantly strengthened First Amendment protections for political speech by replacing the less-protective “clear and present danger” test and explicitly overruling Whitney v. California.
Brandenburg v. Ohio Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Clarence Brandenburg, a leader of a Ku Klux Klan group, organized and spoke at a rally in rural Ohio. He invited a television news crew to film the event. The footage showed 12 hooded figures, some carrying firearms, gathered around a burning cross. In a speech, Brandenburg made derogatory remarks about Black and Jewish people and stated that if the U.S. government continued to “suppress the white, Caucasian race, it’s possible that there might have to be some revengeance taken.” He also announced a future march on Washington, D.C. Based on these filmed statements, Brandenburg was convicted under the Ohio Criminal Syndicalism Act, which prohibited advocating for “crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform.” The conviction rested solely on the content of his speech.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a state criminal syndicalism statute that punishes the mere advocacy of violence, without distinguishing whether such advocacy is directed to inciting and is likely to incite imminent lawless action, violate the free speech protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Yes. The Ohio statute is unconstitutional because it punishes mere advocacy and Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillu
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does a state criminal syndicalism statute that punishes the mere advocacy of violence, without distinguishing whether such advocacy is directed to inciting and is likely to incite imminent lawless action, violate the free speech protections of the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
Conclusion
*Brandenburg* established the modern, highly speech-protective "imminent lawless action" test, which remains Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis
Legal Rule
The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit i
Legal Analysis
In a landmark *per curiam* opinion, the Supreme Court established a new, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The government cannot punish advocacy of force unless the speech is