Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
He was accused of stealing but was too poor to afford counsel. The Court ruled that, under the Sixth Amendment, every person should have the right to a counsel.
Citizens United v. FEC (2011)
A provision of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibiting unions, corporations and not-for-profit organizations from broadcasting electioneering communications within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary election violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed.
Gitlow v. New York (1927)
Though the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from infringing free speech, the defendant was properly convicted under New York's criminal anarchy law for advocating the violent overthrow of the government, through the dissemination of Communist pamphlets.
Rostker v. Goldberg (1981)
Jimmy Carter and his Militar Selective Service System that included women but Court ruled draft men but not women
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)
Fighting words protected
Boy Scouts America v. Dale (2000)
A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws.
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Midnight judges, judicial review etc.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Maryland tried to impede the bank's operations by taxing its bank notes. Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. Because federal laws have supremacy over state laws, Maryland had no power to interfere with the bank's operation by taxing it. Maryland Court of Appeals reversed.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
Pennsylvania. Remember something about teachers getting reimbursed for secular teaching material? ------ test: must have secular legislative purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting a religion, and must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion
Engel v. Vitale (1962)
New Hyde park, NY. Government-directed prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, even if the prayer is denominationally neutral and students may remain silent or be excused from the classroom during its recitation.
Santa Fe independent school district v. Doe (2000)
Student-led, student-initiated prayer at high school football games violates the Establishment Clause.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
train incident where 1/16 white but still not allowed, and Court ruled that segregation is okay as long as equal in quality
Brown v. Topeka Board of Education (1954)
Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson by arguing that separate but equal was inherently unequal, so now integrated public schools
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenberg Board of Education (1971)
Busing appropriate for racial unity
Regents of the UC v. Bakke (1978)
The Court held that while affirmative action systems are constitutional, a quota system based on race is unconstitutional.
Korematsu v. US (1944)
Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)
Dred Scott said that since he lived in Minnesota, a free state, for several years, he was free and no longer the property of the owner, but since he was not a citizen, he couldn't bring this issue to court so invalid
Miller v. California (1973)
He advertised pornography by mailing them but the Court ruled that obscene materials were not protected by the First Amendment, thus producing the Miller test
Reno v. ACLU (1997)
CDA protected minors from obscene material online but Court ruled that against First Amendment; Internet entitled to full protection of media
Schenk v. US (1919)
Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting practices of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that public school officials may impose some limits on what appears in school-sponsored student publications.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
deemed abortion a fundamental right under the Constitution
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
The court did not need to consider the constitutionality of the law's preamble, as it is not used to justify any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under Roe v. Wade.
The prohibitions on the use of public employees, facilities, and funds did not violate any of the Court's abortion decisions, as no affirmative right to the use of state aid for nontherapeutic abortions existed. The state could allocate resources in favor of childbirth over abortion if it so chose.
Provisions requiring testing for viability after 20 weeks of pregnancy were constitutional, but those limiting abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy were unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
A Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Requirements for parental consent, informed consent, and 24-hour waiting period were constitutionally valid regulations. Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
The Court held that both inculpatory and exculpatory statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them.