Majority, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): "undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough." Which best states the reasoning?

Majority, Barnette (1943): national unity is a valid end, but the question is whether "compulsion as here employed is a permissible means" for reaching it. What is the line of reasoning?

Majority, Plessy v. Ferguson (1896): separate-car laws "do not necessarily imply the inferiority" of either race. Which reasoning supports the holding?

Court, Brown v. Board (1954): the decision cannot turn on "tangible" factors but on "the effect of segregation itself." What reasoning follows?

Majority, Schenck v. United States (1919): "It is a question of proximity and degree." Which best delineates the reasoning?

Majority, Texas v. Johnson (1989): Johnson's act was "intentional and overwhelmingly apparent" as political expression. What step in the reasoning is this?

Majority, Miranda v. Arizona (1966): statements require "procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege." What is the reasoning?

Majority, Barnette (1943): "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox." Which premise is doing the most work?

Majority, Texas v. Johnson (1989): the "bedrock principle" bars punishing ideas as "offensive or disagreeable." Which principle controls?

Majority, Korematsu (1944): "Pressing public necessity may sometimes justify" racial restrictions; "racial antagonism never can." What premise controls?

Court, Brown v. Board (1954): education "must be made available to all on equal terms." Which premise drives the opinion?

Majority, Tinker (1969): students in school are "persons" under the Constitution. Which premise follows?

Tinker (1969): majority says fear is "not enough"; Black dissents that pupils need "to learn, not teach." How does the dissent answer?

Barnette (1943): majority rejects forcing one to "utter what is not in his mind"; Frankfurter says courts are not a "super-legislature." How does he answer?

Plessy (1896): majority says separation implies inferiority only because one race "chooses to put that construction upon it"; Harlan says "There is no caste here." How does he answer?

Korematsu (1944): majority says it cannot reject military judgment; Murphy dissents that the order falls into "the ugly abyss of racism." How does he answer?

Texas v. Johnson (1989): majority rejects punishment for an "offensive" idea; Rehnquist says the flag is not "simply another 'idea.'" How does the dissent answer?

Miranda (1966): majority says custodial questioning needs safeguards; Harlan calls the new regime "hazardous experimentation." How does the dissent answer?

Plessy (1896): majority distinguishes "social" from "political" equality; Harlan says travel together is a matter of "personal liberty." Where is the disagreement?

Barnette (1943): majority prefers "individual freedom of mind"; Frankfurter stresses "reasonable legislators." What is the real disagreement?

Texas v. Johnson (1989): majority declines a flag "exception"; Stevens says "The question is unique." What is the point of disagreement?

Miranda (1966): majority sees "inherent compulsion"; Harlan says the Fifth Amendment gives "little solid support." Where do they disagree?

Brown (1954): "We cannot turn the clock back to 1868" or 1896, and "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal." How is precedent handled?

Jackson, dissenting, Korematsu (1944): racial-discrimination precedent is pushed from "mild measures" to "very harsh ones." What is his criticism?

Texas v. Johnson (1989) quotes Barnette: "National unity as an end" may be fostered, but not by "compulsion." How does this precedent function?