Connection lost
Server error
Schenck v. United States 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: Socialist party members were convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets during WWI. The Supreme Court upheld the convictions, finding their speech was not protected by the First Amendment because it created a “clear and present danger” to the war effort.
Legal Significance: This case established the “clear and present danger” test, a seminal (though later modified) standard for determining when the government may constitutionally restrict speech, particularly when it poses a threat to national security or public order.
Schenck v. United States 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
During World War I, Charles Schenck, the General Secretary of the Socialist Party, and another defendant, Elizabeth Baer, were charged with violating the Espionage Act of 1917. They conspired to print and mail approximately 15,000 leaflets to men who had been drafted into the military. The front of the leaflet argued that the military draft was a monstrous wrong and a form of involuntary servitude prohibited by the Thirteenth Amendment. The back, titled “Assert Your Rights,” urged draftees not to submit to intimidation and to support their right to oppose the draft through peaceful means, such as petitioning for the repeal of the Conscription Act. The document characterized the draft as an “infamous conspiracy” for the benefit of “Wall Street’s chosen few.” The defendants were convicted on counts of conspiracy to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct the recruiting and enlistment service. They appealed, arguing that their conviction violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets to military draftees during wartime violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech?
No. The convictions were affirmed because the defendants’ speech was not protected 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
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 conviction under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets to military draftees during wartime violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech?
Conclusion
Schenck established the influential "clear and present danger" test, marking the Court's 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
Legal Rule
The First Amendment does not protect speech that is "used in such 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
Legal Analysis
Writing for a unanimous Court, Justice Holmes articulated a new standard for 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 do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim v
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Upheld convictions under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets during