Volume 354 — United States Reports

Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), was a 6–2 landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that United States citizen civilians outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States cannot be tried by a United States military tribunal, but instead retain the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution, in this case, trial by jury. Additionally, a plurality of the Court also reaffirmed the president’s ability to enter into international executive agreements, though it held that such agreements cannot contradict federal law or the Constitution.

Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178 (1957), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the power of the United States Congress is not unlimited in conducting investigations and that nothing in the United States Constitution gives it the authority to expose the private affairs of individuals.

Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U.S. 234 (1957), was a case before the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that jailing an academic when he refused to answer questions about university lectures he had given was a violation of due process. On a larger scale, the decision established constitutional protections for academic freedom and reined in the investigative powers of state legislatures.

Held: was for 'an unlawful purpose,' since Wis.Stat. § 111.06(2)(b) made it an unfair labor practice for an employee individually or in concert with others to 'coerce, intimidate or induce any employer to interfere with any of his employes in the enjoyment of their legal rights * * * or to engage in any practice with regard to his employes which would constitute an unfair labor practice if undertaken by him on his own…

Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the First Amendment protected radical and reactionary speech, unless it posed a "clear and present danger".

Held: that one or the other must govern. The departmental proceedings against petitioner were begun and were conducted under the 1949 Regulations.

Carroll v. United States, 354 U.S. 394 (1957), was a federal court case dealing with the appealability of a suppression order issued by the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia for an unlawful warrant under the Fourth Amendment.

Kingsley Books, Inc. v. Brown, 354 U.S. 436 (1957), was a Supreme Court case that addressed issues of obscenity, free speech, and due process. The case stemmed from the confiscation and destruction of books from a New York City bookstore. The court's determination was that: A state injunction against distribution of material designated as "obscene" does not violate freedom of speech and press protected by the First Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Morey v. Doud, 354 U.S. 457 (1957), was a U.S. Supreme Court case where Doud and two partners sold 'Bondified' brand money orders in Illinois, directly or through agents such as drug and grocery stores. A state law required any seller or issuer of money orders to secure a license and submit to state regulation, except that the statute, by name, explicitly exempted the American Express Company from these requirements.

Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), along with its companion case Alberts v. California, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States which redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment. The Court, in an opinion by Justice William J. Brennan Jr. created a test to determine what constituted obscene material: Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the material appeals to a prurient interest in sex, and whether the material was utterly without redeeming social value. Although the Court upheld Roth’s conviction and allowed some obscenity prosecutions, it drastically loosened obscenity laws.

Wilson v. Girard, 354 U.S. 524 (1957), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court refused to stop the executive branch from handing United States Army soldier William S. Girard over to Japanese authorities for trial. Girard was accused of killing a Japanese woman while assigned to the U.S. Army in Japan, precipitating a major international incident remembered as the "Girard incident".