Landmark decisions in the United States
Encyclopedia
-- This section is linked from ists of United, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from State supreme court
s are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
Capital punishment
Landmark decisions in First Amendment
Freedom of Religion
Landmark decisions in Second Amendment
State supreme court
In the United States, the state supreme court is the highest state court in the state court system ....
s are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
Discrimination based on race
- Dred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. SandfordDred Scott v. Sandford, , also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that people of African descent brought into the United States and held as slaves were not protected by the Constitution and could never be U.S...
, Blacks, whether free or slaves, cannot be U.S. citizens. Consequently, they cannot sue in federal courts. Also, slavery cannot be outlawed in the western territories before they access statehood. After the Civil WarAmerican Civil WarThe American Civil War was a civil war fought in the United States of America. In response to the election of Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States, 11 southern slave states declared their secession from the United States and formed the Confederate States of America ; the other 25...
, this decision was voided by the subsequent ThirteenthThirteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution officially abolished and continues to prohibit slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime. It was passed by the Senate on April 8, 1864, passed by the House on January 31, 1865, and adopted on December 6, 1865. On...
and FourteenthFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
AmendmentsConstitutional amendmentA constitutional amendment is a formal change to the text of the written constitution of a nation or state.Most constitutions require that amendments cannot be enacted unless they have passed a special procedure that is more stringent than that required of ordinary legislation...
. - Plessy v. FergusonPlessy v. FergusonPlessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in private businesses , under the doctrine of "separate but equal".The decision was handed...
, Segregated facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional under the doctrine of separate but equalSeparate but equalSeparate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities was to...
, which held for close to 60 years. - Korematsu v. United StatesKorematsu v. United StatesKorematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case concerning the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps during World War II....
, American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights; first application of the strict scrutinyStrict scrutinyStrict scrutiny is the most stringent standard of judicial review used by United States courts. It is part of the hierarchy of standards that courts use to weigh the government's interest against a constitutional right or principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or...
test. - Brown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which...
, , , , , segregated schools in the several states are unconstitutional in violation of the 14th Amendment. Found that "The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 , has no place in the field of public education." - Bolling v. SharpeBolling v. SharpeBolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case which deals with civil rights, specifically, segregation in the District of Columbia's public schools. Originally argued on December 10–11, 1952, a year before Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S...
, The companion case to BrownBrown v. Board of EducationBrown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 , was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students unconstitutional. The decision overturned the Plessy v. Ferguson decision of 1896 which...
, which held that segregated schools in the District of Columbia violated the 5th AmendmentFifth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
. - Loving v. VirginiaLoving v. VirginiaLoving v. Virginia, , was a landmark civil rights case in which the United States Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, declared Virginia's anti-miscegenation statute, the "Racial Integrity Act of 1924", unconstitutional, thereby overturning Pace v...
, Laws that prohibit marriage between races (anti-miscegenation statutesAnti-miscegenation lawsAnti-miscegenation laws, also known as miscegenation laws, were laws that enforced racial segregation at the level of marriage and intimate relationships by criminalizing interracial marriage and sometimes also sex between members of different races...
) are unconstitutional. - Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.Jones v. MayerJones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 , is a United States Supreme Court case which held that Congress could regulate the sale of private property in order to prevent racial discrimination: " bars all racial discrimination, private as well as public, in the sale or rental of property, and that...
, The federal government may prohibit discrimination in housing by private parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1968Civil Rights Act of 1968On April 11, 1968 U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 is commonly known as the Fair Housing Act, or as CRA '68, and was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964...
. - Gates v. CollierGates v. CollierGates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 , was a landmark case decided in U.S. federal court that brought an end to the Trusty system and the flagrant inmate abuse that accompanied it at Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi...
, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1972) Brought an end to the trustee system and flagrant inmate abuse at Mississippi State PenitentiaryMississippi State PenitentiaryMississippi State Penitentiary , also known as Parchman Farm, is the oldest prison and the only maximum security prison for men in the state of Mississippi, USA....
at Parchman, Mississippi. It was the first case of a body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit holding that a variety of forms of corporal punishmentCorporal punishmentCorporal punishment is a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable...
against prisoners was considered cruel and unusual punishmentCruel and unusual punishmentCruel and unusual punishment is a phrase describing criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to the suffering or humiliation it inflicts on the condemned person...
and abolished racial segregationRacial segregationRacial segregation is the separation of humans into racial groups in daily life. It may apply to activities such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a public toilet, attending school, going to the movies, or in the rental or purchase of a home...
in prison. - Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. BakkeRegents of the University of California v. BakkeRegents of the University of California v. Bakke, was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that ruled unconstitutional the admission process of the Medical School at the University of California at Davis, which set aside 16 of the 100 seats for African American...
, Race based set-asides in educational opportunities violate the Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection ClauseThe Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
of the ConstitutionConstitutionA constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. These rules together make up, i.e. constitute, what the entity is...
. The decision leaves the door open to some race usage in admission decisions. See Grutter v. BollingerGrutter v. BollingerGrutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School...
. - Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, Race based discrimination, including discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
- Grutter v. BollingerGrutter v. BollingerGrutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the affirmative action admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School...
, A narrowly tailored use of race in student admission decisions may be permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as a diverse student body is beneficial for all students (as hinted in Regents v. Bakke). - Ricci v. DeStefanoRicci v. DeStefanoRicci v. DeStefano, 129 S. Ct. 2658, 2671, 174 L. Ed. 2d 490 is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States arising from a lawsuit brought against the city of New Haven, Connecticut by twenty city firefighters alleging that the city discriminated against them with regard to promotions...
, Municipalities may not decline to certify the results of an otherwise fair exam merely because it would have made disproportionately more white applicants eligible for promotion.
Discrimination based on sex
- Frontiero v. RichardsonFrontiero v. RichardsonFrontiero v. Richardson, , was an Equal Protection case in which the Supreme Court decided that benefits given by the United States military to the family of service members cannot be given out differently because of gender....
, Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A statute giving benefits to the spouses of male, but not female members of the uniformed services (on the assumption that only the former were dependent) is unconstitutional. - Craig v. BorenCraig v. BorenCraig v. Boren, , was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications had to be subjected to an intermediate standard of judicial review...
, Setting different minimum ages according to sex (female 18, male 21) to be allowed to buy beer is unconstitutional sex-based discrimination, contrary to the equal protection clause. - United States v. VirginiaUnited States v. VirginiaUnited States v. Virginia, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the Virginia Military Institute's long-standing male-only admission policy in a 7-1 decision...
, Sex-based "separate but equalSeparate but equalSeparate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law that justified systems of segregation. Under this doctrine, services, facilities and public accommodations were allowed to be separated by race, on the condition that the quality of each group's public facilities was to...
" military training facilities violate the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
's Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection ClauseThe Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation
- Bowers v. HardwickBowers v. HardwickBowers v. Hardwick, , is a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld, in a 5-4 ruling, the constitutionality of a Georgia sodomy law criminalizing oral and anal sex in private between consenting adults when applied to homosexuals. Seventeen years after Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court...
, A state may declare the private practice in one's bedroom of certain sex acts to be a crime; this statute was later struck down by the Georgia State Supreme Court as a violation of the Georgia State Constitution in the case of Powell v. GeorgiaPowell v. GeorgiaPowell v. State of Georgia, S98A0755, 270 Ga. 327, 510 S.E. 2d 18 was a decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia. Powell was charged with a complaint in which he had performed non-consensual oral sex upon a 17-year-old female in his house. The jury acquitted him of the non-consensual portion of...
(actually Powell v. State). Overruled by Lawrence v. TexasLawrence v. TexasLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by proxy, invalidated sodomy laws in the thirteen other states where they remained in existence, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal in...
. - Romer v. EvansRomer v. EvansRomer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with civil rights and state laws. It was the first Supreme Court case to deal with LGBT rights since Bowers v...
, A law cannot prohibit anti-discrimination protected class laws for sexual orientation (specifically for homosexuals and bisexuals in this instance) (decision founded on the Equal Protection Clause). - Lawrence v. TexasLawrence v. TexasLawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 , is a landmark United States Supreme Court case. In the 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down the sodomy law in Texas and, by proxy, invalidated sodomy laws in the thirteen other states where they remained in existence, thereby making same-sex sexual activity legal in...
, TexasTexasTexas is the second largest U.S. state by both area and population, and the largest state by area in the contiguous United States.The name, based on the Caddo word "Tejas" meaning "friends" or "allies", was applied by the Spanish to the Caddo themselves and to the region of their settlement in...
lawLawLaw is a system of rules and guidelines which are enforced through social institutions to govern behavior, wherever possible. It shapes politics, economics and society in numerous ways and serves as a social mediator of relations between people. Contract law regulates everything from buying a bus...
that prohibits homosexualsHomosexualityHomosexuality is romantic or sexual attraction or behavior between members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to "an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions" primarily or exclusively to people of the same...
from engaging in consensual sodomySodomySodomy is an anal or other copulation-like act, especially between male persons or between a man and animal, and one who practices sodomy is a "sodomite"...
in private is prohibited by Fourteenth Amendment due processDue processDue process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
clause as lacking a rational basis and a right to privacy.
Birth control and abortion
- Griswold v. ConnecticutGriswold v. ConnecticutGriswold v. Connecticut, , was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives...
, Married people are entitled to use contraception and making it a crime to sell to them same is unconstitutional. (A later case, Eisenstadt v. BairdEisenstadt v. BairdEisenstadt v. Baird, , was an important United States Supreme Court case that established the right of unmarried people to possess contraception on the same basis as married couples and, by implication, the right of unmarried couples to engage in potentially nonprocreative sexual intercourse .The...
, extended this to unmarried adults.) - Roe v. WadeRoe v. WadeRoe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,...
, Struck down abortionAbortionAbortion is defined as the termination of pregnancy by the removal or expulsion from the uterus of a fetus or embryo prior to viability. An abortion can occur spontaneously, in which case it is usually called a miscarriage, or it can be purposely induced...
laws restricting abortion prior to viability as unconstitutionalConstitutionalityConstitutionality is the condition of acting in accordance with an applicable constitution. Acts that are not in accordance with the rules laid down in the constitution are deemed to be ultra vires.-See also:*ultra vires*Company law*Constitutional law...
, prohibiting most restrictions in the first trimester and permitting only health-related restrictions in the second. - Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. CaseyPlanned Parenthood v. CaseyPlanned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the constitutionality of several Pennsylvania state regulations regarding abortion were challenged...
, Placed tighter restrictions on abortion by upholding parts of Pennsylvania's abortion laws. Also reaffirmed the decisions of Roe v. WadeRoe v. WadeRoe v. Wade, , was a controversial landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. The Court decided that a right to privacy under the due process clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion,...
but permitted additional restrictions in the first trimester. - Gonzales v. CarhartGonzales v. CarhartGonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 , is a United States Supreme Court case that upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. The case reached the high court after U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in favor of...
, 550 U.S. 124Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2007) Held that the Congress can prohibit a specific abortion procedure (Intact dilation and extractionIntact dilation and extractionIntact dilation and extraction is a procedure done in late term abortion. It is also known as intact dilation and evacuation, dilation and extraction , intrauterine cranial decompression and, vernacularly in the United States, as partial birth abortion...
—also known as partial-birth abortion) on grounds that it "implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."
End of life
- Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of HealthCruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of HealthCruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 , was a United States Supreme Court case argued on December 6, 1989 and decided on June 25, 1990...
, Family having requested the termination of life-sustaining treatments of their vegetative relative, the state may constitutionally oppose this request, for lack of evidence of a clear earlier wish by said relative. - Washington v. GlucksbergWashington v. GlucksbergWashington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that a right to assistance in committing suicide was not protected by the Due Process Clause.-Facts:Dr...
, Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide is constitutional. - Vacco v. QuillVacco v. QuillVacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great...
, New York's prohibition on assisting suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. - Gonzales v. OregonGonzales v. OregonGonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that the United States Attorney General could not enforce the federal Controlled Substances Act against physicians who prescribed drugs, in compliance with Oregon state law, for the assisted suicide of...
, The Controlled Substances ActControlled Substances ActThe Controlled Substances Act was enacted into law by the Congress of the United States as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. The CSA is the federal U.S. drug policy under which the manufacture, importation, possession, use and distribution of certain...
does not prevent physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill under state (OregonOregonOregon is a state in the Pacific Northwest region of the United States. It is located on the Pacific coast, with Washington to the north, California to the south, Nevada on the southeast and Idaho to the east. The Columbia and Snake rivers delineate much of Oregon's northern and eastern...
) law.
Restrictions on involuntary commitment
- O'Connor v. DonaldsonO'Connor v. DonaldsonO'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 , was a landmark decision in mental health law. The United States Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot constitutionally confine, without more, a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing...
, States could not involuntarily commitInvoluntary commitmentInvoluntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital or in the community ....
citizens to a psychiatric institution if they were not a danger to themselves or others and were capable of living by themselves, or with the aid of responsible family or friends.
Power of Congress to enforce civil rights
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, Interstate commerce, and hence the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964Civil Rights Act of 1964The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against African Americans and women, including racial segregation...
(prohibiting discrimination against blacksAfrican AmericanAfrican Americans are citizens or residents of the United States who have at least partial ancestry from any of the native populations of Sub-Saharan Africa and are the direct descendants of enslaved Africans within the boundaries of the present United States...
) applies to places of public accommodation patronized by interstate travelers. - Katzenbach v. McClungKatzenbach v. McClungKatzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce...
, , The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, section 8) extends to a restaurant not patronized by interstate travellers, but which serves food that has moved in interstate commerce. This ruling makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to virtually all businesses. - City of Boerne v. FloresCity of Boerne v. FloresCity of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 , was a Supreme Court case concerning the scope of Congress's enforcement power under the fifth section of the Fourteenth Amendment...
, . The enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment does not permit Congress to substantially increase the scope of the rights determined by the Judiciary. (here, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), but can only enact legislation that remedies or prevents actual violations of existing Court-determined rights.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
- Mapp v. OhioMapp v. OhioMapp v. Ohio, , was a 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...
, Evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the United States ConstitutionUnited States ConstitutionThe Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court. - Katz v. United StatesKatz v. United StatesKatz v. United States, , is a United States Supreme Court case discussing the nature of the "right to privacy" and the legal definition of a "search." The Court’s ruling adjusted previous interpretations of the unreasonable search and seizure clause of the Fourth Amendment to count immaterial...
, Evidence obtained by wiretapping a public phonebooth without a warrant is not admissible in court, just as if a private phone line had been eavesdropped. - Vernonia School District 47J v. ActonVernonia School District 47J v. ActonVernonia School District 47J v. Acton, was a U.S. Supreme Court decision which upheld the constitutionality of random drug testing regimen implemented by the local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon. Under that regimen, student athletes were required to submit to random drug testing before being...
, Schools may implement random drug testing upon students participating in school-sponsored athletics. - Georgia v. RandolphGeorgia v. RandolphGeorgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 , is a case wherein the U.S. Supreme Court held that without a search warrant, police had no constitutional right to search a house where one resident consents to the search while another resident objects. The Court distinguished this case from the "co-occupant...
, Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects.
Right to an attorney
- Gideon v. WainwrightGideon v. WainwrightGideon v. Wainwright, , is a landmark case in United States Supreme Court history. In the case, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that state courts are required under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution to provide counsel in criminal cases for defendants who are unable to afford their own...
, Anyone charged with a serious criminal offense has the right to an attorney and the state must provide one if they are unable to afford legal counsel. - Escobedo v. IllinoisEscobedo v. IllinoisEscobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 , was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in Gideon v...
, A person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney. - Miranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. ArizonaMiranda v. Arizona, , was a landmark 5–4 decision of the United States Supreme Court. 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...
(and Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer and to have one appointed if he is an indigent. The interrogation must stop if the suspect states he or she wishes to remain silent. - In re GaultIn Re GaultIn re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 , was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that held that juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be afforded many of the same due process rights as adults, such as the right to timely notification of the charges, the right to confront witnesses, the...
Juveniles accused with a crime are protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
. - Montejo v. LouisianaMontejo v. LouisianaMontejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. ___ , is a 5–4 decision by the United States Supreme Court that overruled the Court's decision in Michigan v. Jackson, . Justice Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion...
, A defendant may waive his right to counselRight to counselRight to counsel is currently generally regarded as a constituent of the right to a fair trial, allowing for the defendant to be assisted by counsel , and if he cannot afford his own lawyer, requiring that the government should appoint one for him/her, or pay his/her legal expenses...
for police interrogation, even if police initiate the interrogation after the defendant's assertion of his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding. This decision overruled Michigan v. JacksonMichigan v. JacksonMichigan v. Jackson, , was a case decided by the United States Supreme Court regarding the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in a police interrogation...
.
Other rights regarding counsel
- Strickland v. WashingtonStrickland v. WashingtonIn Strickland v. Washington, , the United States Supreme Court established a two-part test for establishing a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel...
, To obtain relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
- Padilla v. Commonwealth of Kentucky Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction. Second, where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear or uncertain, attorneys must advise that deportation "may" result. Finally, attorneys must give their clients some advice about deportation—counsel cannot remain silent about immigration consequences.
Right to remain silent
- Berghuis v. ThompkinsBerghuis v. ThompkinsBerghuis v. Thompkins, , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court considered the position of a suspect who understands his or her right to remain silent under Miranda v. Arizona and is aware he or she has the right to remain silent, but does not explicitly invoke or...
The right to remain silent does not exist unless the suspect invokes it.
Right to competency evaluation
- Dusky v. United StatesDusky v. United StatesDusky v. United States, , is a landmark decision affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceding to trial. In this case, the court outlined the basic standards for determining competency....
, Affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluationCompetency evaluation (law)In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process....
before proceeding to trial. - Ford v. WainwrightFord v. WainwrightFord v. Wainwright, ', was the case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be...
, , Affirmed a defendant's right to have a competency evaluationCompetency evaluation (law)In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process....
before being executed.
Other competency rights
- Godinez v. MoranGodinez v. MoranGodinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 , was a landmark decision in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that if a defendant was competent to stand trial, they were automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.-Circumstances:...
, A defendant competent to stand trial is automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.
Right to refuse treatment
- Rogers v. OkinRogers v. OkinRogers v. Okin was a landmark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether a mental patient, committed to a state psychiatric facility and assumed to be competent, has the right to make treatment decisions in non-emergency...
, 478 F.Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979) The competencyCompetence (law)In American law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify...
of committed patients is presumed until a patient is adjudicated incompetent.
Capital punishmentCapital punishmentCapital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally...
- Furman v. GeorgiaFurman v. GeorgiaFurman v. Georgia, was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States, which came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia was...
, The method then in effect for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional. - Jurek v. Texas A "three-pronged" test for determining if the death penalty should be imposed is constitutional.
- Woodson v. North Carolina, North Carolina's mandatory death sentence statute violates the EighthEighth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines or cruel and unusual punishments. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that this amendment's Cruel and Unusual...
and FourteenthFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
Amendments. - Gregg v. GeorgiaGregg v. GeorgiaGregg v. Georgia, Proffitt v. Florida, Jurek v. Texas, Woodson v. North Carolina, and Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 153 , reaffirmed the United States Supreme Court's acceptance of the use of the death penalty in the United States, upholding, in particular, the death sentence imposed on Troy Leon...
, Carefully drafted death penalty statutes may be constitutional. This ruling made executions possible again after Furman v. Georgia (see above) had stopped them. - Proffitt v. Florida, Requirement of comparison of mitigatingMitigating factorA mitigating factor, in law, is any information or evidence presented to the court regarding the defendant or the circumstances of the crime that might result in reduced charges or a lesser sentence.-Death penalty in the United States:...
to aggravating factors to be used to impose death sentence is constitutional. - Roberts v. Louisiana, , Mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional.
- Ford v. WainwrightFord v. WainwrightFord v. Wainwright, ', was the case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed; therefore the petitioner is entitled to a competency evaluation and to an evidentiary hearing in court on the question of his competency to be...
, Upheld the common lawCommon lawCommon law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action...
rule that the insane cannot be executedCapital punishment in the United StatesCapital punishment in the United States, in practice, applies only for aggravated murder and more rarely for felony murder. Capital punishment was a penalty at common law, for many felonies, and was enforced in all of the American colonies prior to the Declaration of Independence...
. - Roper v. SimmonsRoper v. SimmonsRoper v. Simmons, was a decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that it is unconstitutional to impose capital punishment for crimes committed while under the age of 18. The 5-4 decision overruled the Court's prior ruling upholding such sentences on offenders above or at the...
, A sentence of death may not be imposed on juveniles. - Kennedy v. LouisianaKennedy v. LouisianaKennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause did not permit a state to punish the crime of rape of a child with the death penalty; more broadly, the power of the state...
, A sentence of death may not be imposed for the crime of rape, when the victim did not die and death was not intended.
Other criminal sentences
- Graham v. FloridaGraham v. FloridaGraham v. Florida was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, in 2010, in which it was held that juvenile offenders cannot be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for non-homicide offenses. The court decided whether Roper v...
, A sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
Landmark decisions in U.S. federalism
- Marbury v. MadisonMarbury v. MadisonMarbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and in the history of law worldwide. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution. It was also the first time in Western history a court invalidated a law by declaring...
Established the Supreme Court's power to strike down acts of United States CongressUnited States CongressThe United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
that were in conflict with the Constitution (see judicial reviewJudicial review in the United StatesJudicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself....
). - Martin v. Hunter's LesseeMartin v. Hunter's LesseeMartin v. Hunter's Lessee, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case decided on March 20, 1816. It was the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law.-Background:...
, Federal courts may review State court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the various states. - McCulloch v. MarylandMcCulloch v. MarylandMcCulloch v. Maryland, , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland...
, . The court stated the doctrine of implied powers, from the Necessary and Proper Clause at Article I, section 8. To fulfill its goal, the federal government may use any means the constitution does not forbid (as opposed to only what the constitution explicitly allow or only what can be proved to be necessary). State government may in no way hinder the legitimate action of the federal government (here, Maryland cannot levy a tax on the Bank of the United States). The court has varied in time on the extents of the implied powers with a markedly narrower reading approximately from the 1840s to the 1930s). - Gibbons v. OgdenGibbons v. OgdenGibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 , was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and...
, The power to regulate interstate navigation is granted to CongressUnited States CongressThe United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
by the Commerce ClauseCommerce ClauseThe Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
of the ConstitutionUnited States ConstitutionThe Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
. - Ableman v. BoothAbleman v. BoothAbleman v. Booth, , is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts, overturning a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin....
, State courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts. - Missouri v. HollandMissouri v. HollandMissouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 , the United States Supreme Court held that protection of its quasi-sovereign right to regulate the taking of game is a sufficient jurisdictional basis, apart from any pecuniary interest, for a bill by a State to enjoin enforcement of federal regulations over the...
, TreatiesTreatyA treaty is an express agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations. A treaty may also be known as an agreement, protocol, covenant, convention or exchange of letters, among other terms...
made by the federal governmentFederal government of the United StatesThe federal government of the United States is the national government of the constitutional republic of fifty states that is the United States of America. The federal government comprises three distinct branches of government: a legislative, an executive and a judiciary. These branches and...
are supreme over any stateU.S. stateA U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rightsStates' rightsStates' rights in U.S. politics refers to political powers reserved for the U.S. state governments rather than the federal government. It is often considered a loaded term because of its use in opposition to federally mandated racial desegregation...
arising under the Tenth AmendmentTenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791...
. - National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel CorporationNational Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel CorporationNational Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 , was a United States Supreme Court case that declared that the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 was constitutional...
, Confirmed the constitutionality of The National Labor Relations Act of 1935National Labor Relations ActThe National Labor Relations Act or Wagner Act , is a 1935 United States federal law that limits the means with which employers may react to workers in the private sector who create labor unions , engage in collective bargaining, and take part in strikes and other forms of concerted activity in...
, which created the National Labor Relations BoardNational Labor Relations BoardThe National Labor Relations Board is an independent agency of the United States government charged with conducting elections for labor union representation and with investigating and remedying unfair labor practices. Unfair labor practices may involve union-related situations or instances of...
. Ruled that the Commerce ClauseCommerce ClauseThe Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
applies to labor relations, and therefore the NLRB has the right to sanction companies that fire or discriminate against workers for belonging to a union. - Steward Machine Company v. DavisSteward Machine Company v. DavisSteward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the unemployment compensation provisions of the Social Security Act of 1935. The Act established a national taxing structure designed to induce states to adopt laws for funding and...
, The federal government is permitted to impose a tax, even if the goal of the tax is not simply the collection of revenue (in this case, it was argued that a tax upon employers was designed to coerce states into adopting laws providing unemployment compensation). - United States v. Darby Lumber Co.United States v. Darby Lumber Co.United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, holding that the U.S. Congress had the power under the Commerce Clause to regulate employment conditions. The unanimous decision of the Court in this...
, Affirmed the constitutionality of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 under The Commerce ClauseCommerce ClauseThe Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
, since the act prevented states from lowering labor standards to gain commercial advantage. Affirmed that control over interstate commerce belongs entirely to congress. - Wickard v. FilburnWickard v. FilburnWickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 , was a U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to regulate economic activity. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S...
, The Commerce ClauseCommerce ClauseThe Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
of the constitution allows congress to regulate anything that has a substantial economic effect on commerce, even if that effect is indirect. - Cooper v. AaronCooper v. AaronCooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions, and could not choose to ignore them.-Background of the case:...
, States are bound by the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and cannot choose to ignore them. - United States v. NixonUnited States v. NixonUnited States v. Nixon, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president.Chief Justice...
, Ruled that the doctrine of executive privilege is legitimate, however the President cannot invoke it in criminal cases to withhold evidence. - South Dakota v. DoleSouth Dakota v. DoleSouth Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court considered federalism and the power of the United States Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause.-Background:...
, It is permissible to withhold Federal highway funds to encourage states to meet a federal standard setting the minimum legal age for purchasing and possessing alcoholic beverages. - U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. ThorntonU.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. ThorntonU.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 ,was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that states cannot impose qualifications for prospective members of the U.S. Congress stricter than those specified in the Constitution. The decision invalidated the Congressional...
, State law cannot set term limits on members of Congress. - United States v. LopezUnited States v. LopezUnited States v. Alfonso Lopez, Jr., was the first United States Supreme Court case since the New Deal to set limits to Congress's power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution.-Background:...
, The Commerce ClauseCommerce ClauseThe Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution . The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." Courts and commentators have tended to...
of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to prohibit mere possession of a gun near a school, because gun possession by itself is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce even indirectly. - Clinton v. JonesClinton v. JonesClinton v. Jones, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation against him, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office....
, The President of the United StatesPresident of the United StatesThe President of the United States of America is the head of state and head of government of the United States. The president leads the executive branch of the federal government and is the commander-in-chief of the United States Armed Forces....
has no particular immunity, which could require civil law litigation against the President for a dispute unrelated to the office of President (e.g. having occurred before (s) he took office), to be stayed until the end of the President's term. Such delay would deprive plaintiffs, (and arguably the defendant), of the Sixth AmendmentSixth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
right to a speedy trial. - Clinton v. City of New YorkClinton v. City of New YorkClinton v. City of New York, , is a legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the line-item veto as granted in the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 violated the Presentment Clause of the United States Constitution because it impermissibly gave the President of the United...
, The line-item vetoLine-item vetoIn United States government, the line-item veto, or partial veto, is the power of an executive authority to nullify or cancel specific provisions of a bill, usually a budget appropriations bill, without vetoing the entire legislative package...
is unconstitutional on a federal level, as it amounts to a presidential amendment to the law without the pre-authorization of Congress. According to the Constitution, Congress must initiate all amendments to existing laws. - Printz v. United StatesPrintz v. United StatesPrintz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 , was a United States Supreme Court ruling that established the unconstitutionality of certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.-The Gun Control Act of 1968:...
, Certain interim provisions of the Brady Act requiring state officials to execute a federal law (in doing background checks for gun ownership) are unconstitutional. - United States v. MorrisonUnited States v. MorrisonUnited States v. Morrison, is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.-...
, Parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
. - Gonzales v. RaichGonzales v. RaichGonzales v. Raich , 545 U.S. 1 , was a decision by the United States Supreme Court ruling that under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, the United States Congress may criminalize the production and use of home-grown cannabis even where states approve its use for medicinal...
, Congress may ban the use of marijuana even where states approve its use for medicinal purposes.
Landmark decisions in First AmendmentFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
Rights
Freedom of Speech and of the Press
- Schenck v. United StatesSchenck v. United StatesSchenck v. United States, , was a United States Supreme Court decision that upheld the Espionage Act of 1917 and concluded that a defendant did not have a First Amendment right to express freedom of speech against the draft during World War I. Ultimately, the case established the "clear and present...
, Established the idea that "clear and present dangerClear and present dangerClear and present danger was a term used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in the unanimous opinion for the case Schenck v. United States, concerning the ability of the government to regulate speech against the draft during World War I:...
" in certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Schenck's attempts to obstruct recruitment processes were perceived as a "clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent". - Near v. MinnesotaNear v. MinnesotaNear v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 , was a United States Supreme Court decision that recognized the freedom of the press by roundly rejecting prior restraints on publication, a principle that was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence...
, Recognized the freedom of the pressFreedom of the pressFreedom of the press or freedom of the media is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including various electronic media and published materials...
by rejecting prior restraints on publication. Except in rare cases, censorshipCensorshipthumb|[[Book burning]] following the [[1973 Chilean coup d'état|1973 coup]] that installed the [[Military government of Chile |Pinochet regime]] in Chile...
is unconstitutional. - Chaplinsky v. New HampshireChaplinsky v. New HampshireChaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire, was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, in which the Court articulated the fighting words doctrine, a limitation of the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.-Facts of the case:...
, Established the “fighting words doctrineFighting wordsFighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction...
” that some words are not protected under the First AmendmentFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
because they are tantamount to violent actions. - Roth v. United StatesRoth v. United StatesRoth v. United States, , along with its companion case, Alberts v. California, was a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court which redefined the Constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material unprotected by the First Amendment.- Prior history :Under the common...
(and Alberts v. California), Obscene material is not protected by the First AmendmentFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
. - New York Times v. Sullivan (and Abernathy v. Sullivan), Public officials, to prove they were libelled, must show not only that a statement is false, but also that it has been published with malicious intent.
- Brandenburg v. OhioBrandenburg v. OhioBrandenburg v. Ohio, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It held that government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action...
, Mere advocacy of the use of force, or of violation of law (in this case, by a Ku Klux KlanKu Klux KlanKu Klux Klan, often abbreviated KKK and informally known as the Klan, is the name of three distinct past and present far-right organizations in the United States, which have advocated extremist reactionary currents such as white supremacy, white nationalism, and anti-immigration, historically...
leader) is protected by the 1st Amendment free speech clause. Only inciting others to take direct and immediate unlawful action would be without constitutional protection. - Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School DistrictTinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools...
, Wearing armbands is a legitimate form of protest under the First AmendmentFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
, even on public school grounds. - Cohen v. CaliforniaCohen v. CaliforniaCohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with freedom of speech. The Court overturned a disturbing the peace conviction of a man wearing a jacket decorated with profanity.-Background of the case:...
, One should not be convicted for wearing a jacket in a courtroom emblazoned with the phrase "Fuck the Draft" (in the Vietnam WarVietnam WarThe Vietnam War was a Cold War-era military conflict that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955 to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. This war followed the First Indochina War and was fought between North Vietnam, supported by its communist allies, and the government of...
context), as this is communication, protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. The word "fuckFuck"Fuck" is an English word that is generally considered obscene which, in its most literal meaning, refers to the act of sexual intercourse. By extension it may be used to negatively characterize anything that can be dismissed, disdained, defiled, or destroyed."Fuck" can be used as a verb, adverb,...
" itself, clearly not directed at the hearer, is not in this particular instance a fighting wordFighting wordsFighting words are written or spoken words, generally expressed to incite hatred or violence from their target. Specific definitions, freedoms, and limitations of fighting words vary by jurisdiction...
, and so not without constitutional protection. - New York Times v. United States, Government's desire to keep so-called "Pentagon Papers" classified is insufficient to overcome 1st Amendment hurdle.
- Miller v. CaliforniaMiller v. CaliforniaMiller v. California, was an important United States Supreme Court case involving what constitutes unprotected obscenity for First Amendment purposes...
, To be obscene, a work must fail several tests to determine its value to society, essentially having "no redeeming social value" to be so declared. - Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica FoundationFederal Communications Commission v. Pacifica FoundationFederal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision that defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission over indecent material as applied to broadcasting...
, Defined the power of the FCC to regulate indecent broadcasts, including the so-called "seven dirty wordsSeven dirty wordsThe seven dirty words are seven English language words that American comedian George Carlin first listed in 1972 in his monologue "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television". The words include: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits...
" that could then not be said on TV or radio. - Hazelwood v. KuhlmeierHazelwood v. KuhlmeierHazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection...
, Public school curricular student newspaperNewspaperA newspaper is a scheduled publication containing news of current events, informative articles, diverse features and advertising. It usually is printed on relatively inexpensive, low-grade paper such as newsprint. By 2007, there were 6580 daily newspapers in the world selling 395 million copies a...
s that have not been established as forumsForum (legal)A public forum is a United States constitutional law term that describes a government-owned property that is open to public expression and assembly.-Types:Forums are classified as public or nonpublic....
for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression. - Hustler Magazine v. FalwellHustler Magazine v. FalwellIn Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 , the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision , that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.Thus,...
, A public figure shown in a parody must show actual malice to claim he is libelled. - Texas v. JohnsonTexas v. JohnsonTexas v. Johnson, , was an important decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that invalidated prohibitions on desecrating the American flag enforced in 48 of the 50 states. Justice William Brennan wrote for a five-justice majority in holding that the defendant's act of flag burning was...
, Law prohibiting burning of the American flag is unconstitutional as violating the First AmendmentFirst Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
. - Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc.Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on freedom of speech and the ability of the government to outlaw certain forms of expressive conduct...
, Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment. - Reno v. ACLU, The Communications Decency ActCommunications Decency ActThe Communications Decency Act of 1996 was the first notable attempt by the United States Congress to regulate pornographic material on the Internet. In 1997, in the landmark cyberlaw case of Reno v. ACLU, the United States Supreme Court struck the anti-indecency provisions of the Act.The Act was...
, regulating certain content on the Internet, is so overbroad as to be an unconstitutional restraint on the 1st Amendment. - Erie v. Pap's A. M.Erie v. Pap's A. M.Erie v. Pap's A. M., 529 U.S. 277 , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding nude dancing as free speech...
, Upholding the 1991 ruling that nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment. - Citizens United v. Federal Election CommissionCitizens United v. Federal Election CommissionCitizens United v. Federal Election Commission, , was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment prohibits government from censoring political broadcasts in candidate elections when those broadcasts are funded by corporations or unions...
, U.S.Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2010), limits on corporate and union political expenditures during an election cycle violate the First Amendment. - Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, U.S. Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2011), video games are protected forms of media speech and states may not ban the sale of them to minors.
Freedom of ReligionFreedom of religionFreedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any...
- Everson v. Board of EducationEverson v. Board of EducationEverson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the religion clauses in the country's Bill of Rights to state as well as federal law...
, Government reimbursing transportation costs to and from Catholic schools does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First AmendmentEstablishment Clause of the First AmendmentThe Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Together with the Free Exercise Clause The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,...
; however, a wall of separation must be erected between church and state. - Engel v. VitaleEngel v. VitaleEngel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that determined that it is unconstitutional for state officials to compose an official school prayer and require its recitation in public schools....
, Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause of the First AmendmentEstablishment Clause of the First AmendmentThe Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating, Together with the Free Exercise Clause The Establishment Clause is the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution,...
. - Abington School District v. SchemppAbington School District v. SchemppAbington Township School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 , was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963...
(and Murray v. Curlett), The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids state mandated reading of the BibleBibleThe Bible refers to any one of the collections of the primary religious texts of Judaism and Christianity. There is no common version of the Bible, as the individual books , their contents and their order vary among denominations...
, or recitation of the Lord's PrayerLord's PrayerThe Lord's Prayer is a central prayer in Christianity. In the New Testament of the Christian Bible, it appears in two forms: in the Gospel of Matthew as part of the discourse on ostentation in the Sermon on the Mount, and in the Gospel of Luke, which records Jesus being approached by "one of his...
in public schools. - Lemon v. KurtzmanLemon v. KurtzmanLemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that Pennsylvania's 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which allowed the state Superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools for the salaries of teachers who...
, For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. - Wisconsin v. YoderWisconsin v. YoderWisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 , is the case in which the United States Supreme Court found that Amish children could not be placed under compulsory education past 8th grade, as it violated their parents' fundamental right to freedom of religion....
, Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons. - Edwards v. AguillardEdwards v. AguillardEdwards v. Aguillard, was a legal case about the teaching of creationism that was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1987. The Court ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law...
, Teaching creationism in public schools is unconstitutional. - Lee v. WeismanLee v. WeismanLee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 , was a United States Supreme Court decision regarding school prayer. It was the first major school prayer case decided by the Rehnquist Court. It involved prayers led by religious authority figures at public school graduation ceremonies...
, Public schools inviting clergy to read prayer at an official ceremony (here a graduation ceremony) violates First Amendment non-establishment clause. - Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of HialeahChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of HialeahChurch of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held an ordinance passed in Hialeah, Florida that forbade the "unnecessar[y]" killing of "an animal in a public or private ritual or ceremony not for the primary purpose of food...
, Government must show a compelling interest to draw a statute targeting a religion's ritual (as opposed to a statute that happens to burden the ritual, but is not directed at it). Failing to show such an interest, the prohibition of animal sacrifice is a violation of First Amendment free exercise clause. - Rosenberger v. University of VirginiaRosenberger v. University of VirginiaRosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, , was an opinion by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding whether a state university might, consistently with the First Amendment, withhold from student religious publications funding provided to similar secular student...
, University can not fund secular groups from student dues, then exclude religious ones that also qualify under the same funding scheme. - Agostini v. FeltonAgostini v. FeltonAgostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 , is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, the Court overruled its decision in Aguilar v...
, A government program sending government employees to parochial schools (and also, to other private schools) specifically to provide remedial educationEducationEducation in its broadest, general sense is the means through which the aims and habits of a group of people lives on from one generation to the next. Generally, it occurs through any experience that has a formative effect on the way one thinks, feels, or acts...
to disadvantaged children (and not to all children) does not violate the First Amendment non establishment clause. - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School DistrictKitzmiller v. Dover Area School DistrictTammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. was the first direct challenge brought in the United States federal courts testing a public school district policy that required the teaching of intelligent design...
, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Right to Assemble and Petition the Government
- Hurley v. Irish American Gay Group of Boston, Private parade organizers have a right to exclude groups with whose message they disagree from participating.
- Boy Scouts of America v. DaleBoy Scouts of America v. DaleBoy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, , was a case of the Supreme Court of the United States overturning the New Jersey Supreme Court's application of the New Jersey public accommodations law, which had forced the Boy Scouts of America to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale...
, Private organizations' First Amendment right of expressive association allows them to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations.
Landmark decisions in Second AmendmentSecond Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second...
Rights
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms
- District of Columbia v. HellerDistrict of Columbia v. HellerDistrict of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 , was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes in federal enclaves, such as...
(2008) Ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
- McDonald v. ChicagoMcDonald v. ChicagoMcDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025, 130 S.Ct. 3020 , was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states...
(2010) Ruled that The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Legality of targeted firearms prohibition
- United States v. MillerUnited States v. MillerUnited States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 , was the first Supreme Court of the United States decision to involve the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. Miller is a controversial decision in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their...
(1933) Held that a sawed-off shotgunSawed-off shotgunA sawed-off shotgun also called a sawn-off shotgun and a short-barreled shotgun , is a type of shotgun with a shorter gun barrel and often a shorter or absent stock....
did not constitute a weapon suitable for militia use, and therefore verified the constitutional integrity of the National Firearms ActNational Firearms ActThe National Firearms Act , 73rd Congress, Sess. 2, ch. 757, , enacted on June 26, 1934, currently codified as amended as , is an Act of Congress that, in general, imposes a statutory excise tax on the manufacture and transfer of certain firearms and mandates the registration of those firearms. The...
. Prior to Heller, Miller was the primary legislation covering the individual right to bear arms, and its more conservative interpretation of individual rights (in the context of the militia) was the primary jurisprudential basis for subsequent legislation outlawing specific weapon types. The National Assault Weapons Act of 1993, especially, was dependent on Miller, and the future of such legislation in the context of Heller is yet to be determined.
Landmark Decisions in Other Areas of U.S. Law
- Fletcher v. PeckFletcher v. PeckFletcher v. Peck, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. The first case in which the Supreme Court ruled a state law unconstitutional, the decision also helped create a growing precedent for the sanctity of legal contracts, and hinted that Native Americans did not hold title to...
, For the first time the Court struck down a State law as unconstitutional. A State legislature (in this case, GeorgiaGeorgia (U.S. state)Georgia is a state located in the southeastern United States. It was established in 1732, the last of the original Thirteen Colonies. The state is named after King George II of Great Britain. Georgia was the fourth state to ratify the United States Constitution, on January 2, 1788...
) can repeal a previous, corruptly made law (in this case, a land grant), but not void valid contracts made under this law. - Dartmouth College v. WoodwardDartmouth College v. WoodwardTrustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case dealing with the application of the Contract Clause of the United States Constitution to private corporations...
, extended contract rights to corporations and established the differences between public and private corporations . - The Paquete HabanaThe Paquete HabanaPaquete Habana.; The Lola, 175 U.S. 677 , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that reversed an earlier court decision allowing the capture of fishing vessels under Prize...
, Ruled that federal courts could look to customary international lawCustomary international lawCustomary international law are those aspects of international law that derive from custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of...
because it is an integrated part of American law. - Lochner v. New YorkLochner v. New YorkLochner vs. New York, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that held a "liberty of contract" was implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case involved a New York law that limited the number of hours that a baker could work each day to ten, and limited the...
, , asserted that the "right to free contract" or "liberty of contract" is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment to the United States ConstitutionThe Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments.Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v...
. - Brown v. MississippiBrown v. MississippiBrown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278, , was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that a defendant's involuntary confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause....
, A defendant's confession that is extracted by police violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause. - Baker v. CarrBaker v. CarrBaker v. Carr, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases...
, The reapportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question, and is justiciable by the federal courts. - Reynolds v. SimsReynolds v. SimsReynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 was a United States Supreme Court case that ruled that state legislature districts had to be roughly equal in population.-Facts:...
, A complimentary case on Baker v. CarrBaker v. CarrBaker v. Carr, , was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that retreated from the Court's political question doctrine, deciding that redistricting issues present justiciable questions, thus enabling federal courts to intervene in and to decide reapportionment cases...
, which stated that districts must be of as equal population as mathematically possible, so as to ensure equal protection. This case also applied to districts in the federal House of RepresentativesUnited States House of RepresentativesThe United States House of Representatives is one of the two Houses of the United States Congress, the bicameral legislature which also includes the Senate.The composition and powers of the House are established in Article One of the Constitution...
. - Menominee Tribe v. United StatesMenominee Tribe v. United StatesMenominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 , was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the tribal hunting and fishing rights which were retained by treaty were not abrogated by the Menominee Termination Act without a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect by Congress...
, Native American treaty rights are not abrogated without a clear and unequivocal statement by CongressUnited States CongressThe United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
and that statutes and treaties are to be construed liberally in favor of the tribe. - Goldberg v. KellyGoldberg v. KellyGoldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires an evidentiary hearing before a recipient of certain government benefits can be deprived of such benefits...
, Entitlement programs such as welfare conferred propertyPropertyProperty is any physical or intangible entity that is owned by a person or jointly by a group of people or a legal entity like a corporation...
rights on recipients, and their termination required procedural due processDue processDue process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
. - Mathews v. EldridgeMathews v. EldridgeMathews v. Eldridge, , is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held that individuals have a statutorily granted property right in social security benefits, that the termination of those benefits implicates due process, but that the termination of Social Security benefits does not require...
, Established test for deciding what process is due when procedural due processDue processDue process is the legal code that the state must venerate all of the legal rights that are owed to a person under the principle. Due process balances the power of the state law of the land and thus protects individual persons from it...
applies that balances (1) the government's interests, (2) the individual's interest, and (3) the likelihood of making an inaccurate decision using the existing procedures and probable value of additional procedural safeguards. - San Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSan Antonio Independent School District v. RodriguezSan Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that a school-financing system based on local property taxes was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause...
, use of property tax as means to finance public education does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. - Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court set forth the legal test for determining whether to grant deference to a government agency's interpretation of a statute which it administers...
, , a government agency's interpretation of its own mandate from CongressUnited States CongressThe United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable. - Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc.Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 , also known as the "Betamax case", is a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright...
, , making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringementCopyright infringementCopyright infringement is the unauthorized or prohibited use of works under copyright, infringing the copyright holder's exclusive rights, such as the right to reproduce or perform the copyrighted work, or to make derivative works.- "Piracy" :...
, but is fair useFair useFair use is a limitation and exception to the exclusive right granted by copyright law to the author of a creative work. In United States copyright law, fair use is a doctrine that permits limited use of copyrighted material without acquiring permission from the rights holders...
. - Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone ServiceFeist Publications v. Rural Telephone ServiceFeist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 , commonly called Feist v. Rural, is an important United States Supreme Court case establishing that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright...
, , originality, not sweat of the brow, is the touchstone of copyrightCopyrightCopyright is a legal concept, enacted by most governments, giving the creator of an original work exclusive rights to it, usually for a limited time...
protection. - Daubert v. Merrell Dow PharmaceuticalsDaubert v. Merrell Dow PharmaceuticalsDaubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, is a United States Supreme Court case determining the standard for admitting expert testimony in federal courts...
, expert evidence must be generally accepted in the scientific community (Daubert standardDaubert StandardThe Daubert standard is a rule of evidence regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses' testimony during United States federal legal proceedings. Pursuant to this standard, a party may raise a Daubert motion, which is a special case of motion in limine raised before or during trial to exclude...
). - Nobleman v. American Savings BankNobleman v. American Savings BankNobleman v. American Savings Bank isan important 1993 U.S. Supreme Court Case which disallowed cram-downs for primary residences.-Further reading:*For expansion based on research in:**Cited in books and journals: ****...
, disallowed the use of cram downs for primary residences. - Breard v. GreeneBreard v. GreeneBreard v. Greene, , is a United States Supreme Court decision decided on April 14, 1998 which placed the United States directly in conflict with the International Court of Justice and has since been used as precedent.-Background:...
, , rejected jurisdiction of International Court of JusticeInternational Court of JusticeThe International Court of Justice is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. It is based in the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands...
in a capital punishmentCapital punishmentCapital punishment, the death penalty, or execution is the sentence of death upon a person by the state as a punishment for an offence. Crimes that can result in a death penalty are known as capital crimes or capital offences. The term capital originates from the Latin capitalis, literally...
case dealing with a citizen of ParaguayParaguayParaguay , officially the Republic of Paraguay , is a landlocked country in South America. It is bordered by Argentina to the south and southwest, Brazil to the east and northeast, and Bolivia to the northwest. Paraguay lies on both banks of the Paraguay River, which runs through the center of the...
. - Bush v. GoreBush v. GoreBush v. Gore, , is the landmark United States Supreme Court decision on December 12, 2000, that effectively resolved the 2000 presidential election in favor of George W. Bush. Only eight days earlier, the United States Supreme Court had unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v...
, , ended the recount of ballots in FloridaFloridaFlorida is a state in the southeastern United States, located on the nation's Atlantic and Gulf coasts. It is bordered to the west by the Gulf of Mexico, to the north by Alabama and Georgia and to the east by the Atlantic Ocean. With a population of 18,801,310 as measured by the 2010 census, it...
in the 2000 presidential electionUnited States presidential election, 2000The United States presidential election of 2000 was a contest between Republican candidate George W. Bush, then-governor of Texas and son of former president George H. W. Bush , and Democratic candidate Al Gore, then-Vice President....
as violative of the Equal Protection ClauseEqual Protection ClauseThe Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"...
, effectively resolving the election in favor of George W. BushGeorge W. BushGeorge Walker Bush is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, having served from 1995 to 2000....
. - Kelo v. City of New LondonKelo v. City of New LondonKelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development...
, , upheld power of a local government to seize property for economic development purposes. - Boumediene v. BushBoumediene v. BushBoumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 , was a writ of habeas corpus submission made in a civilian court of the United States on behalf of Lakhdar Boumediene, a naturalized citizen of Bosnia and Herzegovina, held in military detention by the United States at the Guantanamo Bay detention camps in Cuba...
, 553 U.S.Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2008), foreign terrorism suspects have constitutional rights to challenge their detention at the Guantánamo Bay naval baseGuantanamo Bay Naval BaseGuantanamo Bay Naval Base is located on of land and water at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba which the United States leased for use as a coaling station following the Cuban-American Treaty of 1903. The base is located on the shore of Guantánamo Bay at the southeastern end of Cuba. It is the oldest overseas...
in United States courts. - Cuomo v. Clearing House Association, U.S. Case citationCase citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(2009), states can enforce their own laws and regulations against national banks and financial institutions.