Thomas v. Collins’s Empirical Analysis
323 U.S. 516 · 1945
Citation profile
719 federal appellate · 177 district · 612 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,394 later decisions (298 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Connick v. Myers (1983), Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
719 federal appellate · 177 district · 612 state decisions — followed in 39 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Meyer v. State of Nebraska · Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary Same · Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Thornhill v. Alabama
Cited together with National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Cantwell v. State of Connecticut · Schneider v. State · Thornhill v. Alabama · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2,394 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[o]nly the gravest abuses, endangering paramount interests, give occasion for permissible limitation.”
51 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bridges v. Wixon · Kovacs v. Cooper“[A] rough distinction always exists, I think, which is more shortly illustrated than explained. A state may forbid one without its license to practice law as a vocation, but I think it could not stop an unlicensed person from making a speech about the rights of man or the rights of labor, or any other kind of right, including recommending that his hearers organize to support his views. Likewise, the state may prohibit the pursuit of medicine as an occupation without its license, but I do not think it could make it a crime publicly or privately to speak urging persons to follow or reject any school of medical thought. This wider range of power over pursuit of a calling than over speech-making is due to the different effects which the two have on interests which the state is empowered to protect. The modern state owes and attempts to perform a duty to protect the public from those who seek for one purpose or another to obtain its money. When one does so through the practice of a calling, the state may have an interest in shielding the public against the untrustworthy, the incompetent, or the irresponsible, or against unauthorized representation of agency.”
26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Such a distinction offers no security for free discussion. In these conditions it blankets with uncertainty whatever may be said. It compels the speaker to hedge and trim.”
18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.