Background: In January of 1942, the West Virginia Board of Education passed a resolution that made a daily flag salute a requirement in all public schools for both teachers and students. Refusal to participate in the flag salute by teachers was grounds for dismissal and readmission was to be denied until compliance was achieved.  For students, the punishment was expulsion from school that would be considered an “unlawful absence” and force the child’s parents or guardians to be liable for prosecution on charges of delinquency.  The Barnette sisters were Jehovah’s Witnesses and their father would not allow them to salute the flag as it violated the religion’s Ten Commandments which laid out that the only thing to be worshipped was God.  Barnette brought suit in the United States District Court seeking an injunction to restrain the enforcement of the resolution.  The suit alleged that the regulation was an unconstitutional denial of religious freedom, freedom of speech, and was invalid under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Supreme Court: Jackson wrote the majority opinion for the Court, which was split 6-3. Jackson held that making it compulsory to salute the flag and pledge allegiance was a violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments and was not able to be justified as a means of achieving patriotism and national unity.  Jackson reasoned that saying the pledge of allegiance was speech as it communicated an expression of set ideas.  By making this speech a requirement it violated the First Amendment values.

Legacy: The case was the definitive final answer in a long line of cases regarding religious liberty under the freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment brought by Jehovah’s Witnesses. It overruled their own earlier decision in Minersville School District v. Gobitis which upheld mandatory flag salute and expressions of patriotism within public schools.  The case has become a part of our nation’s civic pride, that in public schools every child has the right to believe and practice the ideas or faith that they choose.

Justice Jackson delivered the opinion the Court in this case which centered on the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company’s electric service lines alongside a highway that travelled through allotted Indian land. In this case, the United States requested both for a declaratory judgment that acknowledged that the Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company illegally occupied certain Indian land, and also, for an injunction to end the Company’s occupation of the aforementioned land. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court and dismissed the complaint.

Robert Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court in this case that dealt with the Brotherhood of Railroad’s call for the Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis to provide cabooses on all trains to accommodate the railroad switchmen. At the time, railroad switchmen were extremely vulnerable to injury since they were required to ride on the train’s top or side during travel. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the Brotherhood of Railroad and ruled that cabooses must be attached for switchmen on runs both within the state and across state borders.

Justice Jackson delivered the opinion of the Court in this case, which granted the respondent’s (Indiana & Michigan Electric Company) petition to remand the case to the Labor Board, with the inclusion of supplementary evidence.

In this case, the respondents were charged with defrauding the United States, via defrauding the local governmental units as opposed to the U.S. government, because of alleged collusive bidding on state sanctioned projects. The Supreme Court was not determining whether the collusive bidding occurred, but rather, whether the respondents could be prosecuted under the statue that the lower court employed. Ultimately, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the lower court to the dismay of Robert Jackson, who wrote a dissenting opinion.

The Endicott Johnson Corporation v. Perkins case surrounded the legitimacy of a subpoena issued by Perkins, the Secretary of Labor, against the Endicott Johnson Corporation. Perkins filed a subpoena to uncover the wages of the employees of Endicott Johnson Corporation, in order to find out if the corporation’s pay practices were in accordance with the contract it had signed with the government. After hearing the issues brought forth in the case, the Supreme Court decided that Perkin’s issuance of a subpoena was “clearly within the limits of Congressional authority” and denied Endicott Johnson Corporation’s defense against the subpoena.

Robert Jackson delivered the opinion of the court in the case of Spies v. United States, which dealt with the issue of income tax evasion. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for the crime of tax evasion to transpire one must “willfully” and overtly attempt to disregard due taxes.