Here are a list of precedents for the case.
R.A.V. v. St. Paul (1992): The Supreme Court held the St. Paul ordinance unconstitutional. Even though the current First Amendment allows regulation over a limited class of speech known as "fighting words." the Court ruled that the St. Paul ordinance applies to fighting words only as they insult or provoke "on the basis of race, color, creed, religion or gender." Thus, those who wish to use fighting words in connection with other ideas "to express hostility, for example, on the basis of political affiliation, union membership, or homosexuality - are not covered. The First Amendment does not permit St. Paul to impose special prohibitions on those speakers who express views on disfavored subjects."
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette (1995): The Cour acknowledged that to this day regardless of whether the message is a political one or is also meant to intimidate, the burning of a cross is a symbol of hate.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942): The Court held that the government may regulate certain categories of expression consistent with the Constitution.
Watts v. U.S. (1969): States are permitted to ban true threats which encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals.