Lingua Inglese Giuridica AA 2015/6 Canale M-Z
Suggested resources for Oral Exam Topics
FAMOUS TRIALS WEBSITE FOR TRIAL OVERVIEWS IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE
FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-KANSAS CITY LAW SCHOOL
DATING FROM SOCRATE’s TRIAL in 399BC to OSCAR PISTORIUS’s TRIAL in 2014
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/ftrials.htm
==================================================================
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW ONLINE BEGAN PUBLISHING CASE
NOTES IN MAY, 2012. CASE NOTES ARE WRITTEN BY CURRENT EDITORS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW.
https://www.pennlawreview.com/notes/
=======================================================================
IMPORTANT COURT DECISIONS IN EUROPE AND THE USA
EUROPEAN BUSINESS LAW REVIEW – Abstracts*
Title
25 Thoughts on European company law in the EU of 25.
Subject
Law
Authors
Radwan, Arkadiusz
A comparative analysis of the liability of non-executive directors in the
Law
UK and of members of the supervisory board in Germany.
Lederer, Philipp
Adapting the European community legal structure to the international
trade.
Chaisse, Julien
Law
Advertising restrictions and the free movement of goods - the case law
of the ECJ.(European Union. Court of Justice of the European
Law
Communities)
Kraft, David
A modified open method of coordination in corporate governance.
Law
Mavrommati, Sandy,
Papathanassiou, Chryssa
An exercise in effectiveness?(Law overview)
Law
Herlin-Karnell, Ester
Arbitrability of antitrust claims in the United States of America.
Law
Greene, Peter E., Julian, Peter
S., Bedard, Julie
Arbitration and the modernisation of EC competition law.
Law
De Groot, Diederik
Arbitration in EC merger control: old wine in a new bottle.
Law
Di Brozolo, Luca G Radicati
Are all sports special? Legal issues in the regulation of Formula One
motor racing.(Law overview)
Law
Cygan, Adam
A single European Union mortgage credit market: manifestly an
illusion or a reality just around the corner?(Law overview)
Law
Omole, Adetunji
Authority or reason? The economic consequences of liability for
Law
breach of statutory duty in a comparative perspective.(Law overview)
Markesinis, Sir Basil, Fedtke,
Jorg
A victim's culture.(economic and social condistions in Europe)
Law
Hausfeld, Michael D.,
Hertzfeld, Andrea L.
Awarding damages for breach of competition law in English courtsCrehan in the court appeal.
Law
Nazzini, Renato, Andenas,
Mads
Broadening access to financial services- Competing imperatives.(Law
Law
overview)
Itzikowitz, Angela
China's banking reform in the context of globalization and transition.
Law
Jing Leng
Claims against professionals: negligence, dishonesty and fraud.
Law
Clarke, Anthony
Clarifying and settling access to clearing and settlement in the EU.
Law
Henry, David
Compensation for adverse possession: From acquisition of title by
extinction of the title of another to transfer of property against
reasonable compensation.
Law
Werlauff, Erik
Competition issues in commercial agreements.
Law
Gaffney, John, O'Connell,
Fiona, Gibson, Emily
Consumer contracts and jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of
judgments in civil and commercial matters.(Law overview)
Law
Gambaro, Edoardo, Landi,
Niccolo
Consumer protection on the market for consumer credit in Poland-Do
near-banks enter the "second market"-similar to the British model?
Law
Szpringer, Wlodzimierz
Copyright and freedom of expression: An ambiguous relationship.
Law
Zeno-Zencovich, Vincenzo
Corporate (mis)governance? .
Law
Staikouras, Panagiotis K.
Creation of database or creation of data: Crucial choices in the matter
of database protection.
Law
Masson, Antoine
Critical analysis of the prospectus directive.
Law
Pellegrini, Mirella
Disharmonization: a Swedish critique of principles of European tort
law.(Law overview)
Law
Schultz, Marten
Dissenting opinion on a dangerous project.(Viewpoint essay)
Law
Mourre, Alexis
Encouraging enterprise and rebalancing risk: implications of economic
Law
policy for regulation, enforcement and compensation.(Law overview)
Hodges, Christopher
Establishment of the SE company: an overview over the provisions
governing the formation of the European Company.(Societas
Europaea)
Dickens, Christine Hodt
Law
European private company and the regulatory landscape in the EU - an
Law
introductory note.
Radwan, Arkadiusz
Financial holding company: Organizational choice for China's
financial sector reform.
Law
Jiawei Li
Financial institutions playing different roles: The Parmalat case.
Law
Carozzi, Angela Maria
Financial markets and human capital - New evaluation norms and
auditing practices needed.
Law
Urban, Sabine
Financial services, products, risks and regulation in Europe after the
EU 1998 Action Plan and Basle II.(Law overview)
Law
Dalhuisen, Jan H.
How to apply the issue of good governance to central bank:
Theoretical clarifications on the modalities of the exercise of monetary Law
power.
Chirico, Alessandra
Independence and accountability of the People's Bank of China: A
legal perspective.(Law overview)
Law
Zhongfei Zhou, Jingwei Li
Initial public offerings and interest income in Hong Kong.
Law
Low, Chee Keong
Instruments issued by Italian public companies.
Law
Woolridge, Frank
Is Europe aiming to civilize the common law?(Law overview)
Law
Mance, Lord Jonathan
Judgment of the Swiss Supreme Court of 8 March 2006 - a
commentary.
Law
Landolt, Phillip
"Law and culture in the future of Asia".
Law
Mitchell, Arthur M.
Law, culture and economic development: The provision of banking
and financial services in the FTAA area; rationalizing the divergent
'cultures of negotiation'.(Free Trade Area of the Americas)
Law
Norton, Joseph J., BaqueroHerrera, Maurico
Management and control of Italian public companies.
Law
Wooldridge, Frank
Managing intellectual property rights: Government tactics to curtail
counterfeit trade.
Law
Chaudhry, Peggy E.
Marks & Spencer: Community law extends a helping hand.
Law
Ronfeldt, Thomas
Merger, moving and division across national borders - When case law
Law
breaks through barriers and overtakes directives.(Law overview)
Hansen, Lone L.
Methodology of uniform contract law-the UNIDROIT principles as a
source of law.
Law
Heidemann, Maren
Modernizing English property law: The influence of internal market
principles.
Law
Bogusz, Barbara
No flying start but a bright future of EU directive 2003/41/EC on
occupational pension institutions.(European Union)(Law overview)
Law
Dejmek, Paulina
Notes on transparency in banking and financial services and
transactions.(Law overview)
Law
Alpa, Guido
Overviewing the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive:
concentric circles.
Law
Shears, Peter
Payments and financial security - An overview.
Law
Gorton, Lars
Pharmaceutical products: the relationship between regulatory approval
Law
and the existence of a defect.(Law overview)
Mildred, Mark
Property rights, collateral, creditor rights and financial
development.(Law overview)
Law
Arner, Douglas W., Booth,
Charles D., Hsu, Berry F.C.,
Lejot, Paul
Property rights in securities and the doctrine of specificity under
Swedish law.
Law
Johansson, Erica
Public and private transnational enforcement of EU consumer law.
Law
Betlem, Gerrit
Public procurement system of Turkey towards full membership of the
Law
European Union.(Law overview)
Alyanak, Servet
Regulatory competition and the European harmonization process.
Birkmose, Hanne Sondergaard
Law
Re-regulation of infrastructure investment: issues for the international
Law
lawyer.
Chan, Phil C. W.
Restricting state liability in tort on grounds of policy: a comparative
study of English and French Law.(Law overview)
Law
Khan, Changez
Shareholder rights in France and the U.K. in a European
perspective.(Law overview)
Law
Leroy, Virginie
Strict liability in Italian law.(Law overview)
Law
Alpa, Guido
Survey of state aid in the lending sector: a comprehensive review of
main State aid cases.(Law overview)
Law
Rossi, Pierpaolo, Sansonetti,
Valentina
Syndicated loans: Some thoughts on the reception of Anglo-American
Law
contract practice into Swedish law.
Gorton, Lars
The administration of justice and the role of lawyers.
Law
Alpa, Guido
The concept of title transfer in a civil law system.
Law
Posiunas, Gintautas
The development of collective legal actions in Europe, especially in
German civil procedure.(Law overview)
Law
Micklitz, Hans-W., Stadler,
Astrid
The differing approach to commercial litigation in the European Court
Law
of Justice and the courts of England and Wales.
Clarke, Anthony
The duty to examine goods under the uniform international sales law Law
an analysis of article 38 CISG.
Andersen, Camilla Baasch
The European Company (SE) as a vehicle for corporate mobility
within the EU: a breakthrough in European corporate law?
Law
Bouloukos, Marios
The European Court of Justice and Anastasiou saga: principles of
Europeanization through economic governance.
Law
Shaelou, Stephanie Laulhe
The firm and the fulfillment of a new humanism: Critical reflections.
Law
Urban, Sabine
The freedom of establishment and the market access of hospital
operators.
Law
Stoger, Karl
The future of the Euro-What happens if a member state leaves?
Law
Proctor, Charles
The German private company limited partnership.
Law
Wooldridge, Frank
The hypothesis of the European legal person.(Law overview)
Law
Peter, Nagy
The Italian interpretation of the code civil and French proposals for
recodification.
Law
Alpa, Guido
The management of Belgian Public Limited liability companies.
Law
Woolridge, Frank
The new cross-border merger directive: harmonisation of European
company law and free movement.
Law
Ugliano, Arianna
The new EC merger regulation-The more things change the more they
Law
stay the same?
Hinds, Anna-Louise
The new version company law of PRC: introduction, comparison,
analysis and criticism.(People's Republic of China)(Law overview)
Law
Chen Luyang, Li Zhongshu
The participation of employees' representatives in the governance
structure of the Societas Europeae.
Law
Leca, Claire
The regulation of consumer credit information systems: A lesson from
Law
Italy?(Law overview)
Ferretti, Federico
The right of access to public bodies' records in Italy and UK: "Actio
Ad Exhibendum" and freedom of information, risks and opportunities Law
for private sector companies.
Mezzacapo, Simone
The role of the IMF and World Bank in financial sector reform and
Law
compliance: an outline.(International Monetary Fund)(Law overview)
Singh, Dalvinder
USA v China in the revaluation of the Renminbi: Exchange rate pegs
and international law.(Law overview)
Law
Proctor, Charles
When the wrongdoer profits from its wrongdoing.
Law
Werlauff, Erik
Works councils, acquisitions and corporate governance in the
Netherlands - creating an organization within an organization.
Law
Kirkbride, James, Letza,
Steve, Vehof, Xander
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational
purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Read more: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/publication/european-business-law-review/#ixzz3SZLlnpFh
* Source: http://www.faqs.org/abstracts/publication/european-business-law-review/#ixzz2Lwmbk9uw
==============================================================================
Top 10 Controversial Supreme Court Cases*
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
Brown v. Board of Education
Roe v. Wade
Miranda v. Arizona
Marbury v. Madison
District of Columbia v. Heller
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
Plessy v. Ferguson
Bush v. Gore
Lawrence v. Texas
Dred Scott v. Sanford
* Source: http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/completelist/0,29569,2036448,00.html
===============================================
Twenty-Five Landmark Cases in US Supreme Court History*
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
With these words, Chief Justice John Marshall established the Supreme Court’s role in the new
government. Hereafter, the Court was recognized as having the power to review all acts of Congress
where constitutionality was at issue, and judge whether they abide by the Constitution.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 1819
“Let the end be legitimate … and all means which are … consistent with the letter and spirit of the
Constitution, are constitutional .”
Chief Justice Marshall invoked this phrase to establish the right of Congress to pass laws that are
“necessary and proper” to conduct the business of the U.S. government. Here, the court upheld
Congress’ power to create a national bank.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824
When a federal and state law are in conflict, the federal law is supreme.
Congress and New York had both passed laws regulating the steamboat industry. Gibbons had a federal
permit for a steamboat business; Ogden had a state permit for the same waters. Siding with Gibbons, the
Court said that, in matters of interstate commerce, the “Supremacy Clause” tilts the balance of power in
favor of federal legislation.
Charles River Bridge, 1837
The responsibility of government is to “sacredly guard” the rights of property for the prosperity of the
community.
The Charles River Bridge was erected in 1785 by Harvard College and some prominent Bostonians
under a legal charter granted by the state of Massachusetts. The legislature granted a charter to the
Warren Bridge Company in 1828 because a new bridge was badly needed. It was to be free of tolls once
construction costs were covered. The proprietors of the Charles River Bridge were afraid that the new
bridge would destroy the value of their stock and tried to block the construction of the Warren Bridge.
The case involved a conflict between established rights on one side and the rights of the community on
the other. The Court ruled that it had not entered into a binding contract with the Charles River Bridge
Company that would prohibit the building of a competitive bridge. Justice Roger B. Taney stated that
the rights of property must be “sacredly guarded”, the community also has rights, and the responsibility
of all government is to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.
Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857
“The Constitution does not consider slaves to be U.S. citizens. Rather, they are constitutionally
protected property of their masters.”
Chief Justice Roger Taney authored this opinion— one of the most important and scorned in the
nation’s history. Dred Scott, a slave, had moved with his master to Illinois, a free state. He moved again
to a slave state, Missouri, and filed suit to gain freedom, under that state’s law of “Once free, always
free.” Taney held that Scott had never been free at all, and cited Constitutional grounds for placing the
slavery decision in the hands of the states. In trying to put an end to the slavery controversy, Taney
instead sped the nation toward civil war. The decision was later overturned by the Thirteenth
Amendment.
Munn v. Illinois, 1877
Businesses that serve the public interest are subject to regulation by state government.
The Illinois state legislature passed a law that established the maximum rates that private companies
could charge in storing or transporting agricultural products. In Chicago the company of Munn and
Scott was found guilty of breaking the law and the verdict was upheld on appeal before the Supreme
Court. The appeal was heard along with seven other railroad cases that dealt with the violation of the
regulatory legislation passed by the state of Illinois. The Court ruled that any business that served the
public interest was subject to regulation by the state government. If the rates were not satisfactory
according to the owners of the companies, the complaints should be taken to the legislature and not to
the courts.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
Jim Crow laws are constitutional under the doctrine of ‘Separate but Equal.’
Police arrested Homer Plessy for refusing to leave a railroad car that prohibited “colored” people. Under
Louisiana law, Plessy was “colored” because he was one-eighth black. The Court ruled that the racebased “Jim Crow” laws did not violate the Constitution as long as the states proffered separate but equal
treatment.
“The Constitution is color blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
—Justice John Marshall Harlan,
from the lone dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson
Lochner v. New York, 1905
The Constitution bars a state from interfering with an employee’s right to contract with an employer.
The above reasoning led to the “Lochner Era”—thirty-two years of wrangling between the court and
legislatures. Lochner’s bakery violated a New York labor law. The court struck down the law, saying
that the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause barred states from regulating commerce in this manner.
This clause, the Court said, implied that individuals have a fundamental right to contract with
employers, and states cannot interfere with that right.
Schenck v. United States, 1919
Speech that presents a “clear and present danger” to the security of the United States is in violation of
the principle of free speech as protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
During World War I (1918), Charles Schenck was the general secretary of the Socialist Party, and was
arrested for distributing literature discouraging young men from enlisting in the armed forces. The basis
for his opposition to the draft or enlistment was the first clause of the Thirteenth Amendment which
prohibited slavery or involuntary servitude. Schenck appealed his conviction and the case went to the
Supreme Court. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated that “the character of every act depends upon the
circumstances in which it is done. The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man
in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic. [The] question in every case is whether the
words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present
danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” Distributing
the literature during peace time would have been an entirely different matter, but in time of war
Schenck’s actions, according to the Court, presented a “clear and present danger” to the security of the
United States.
Near v. Minnesota, 1931
“The liberty of the press … is safeguarded from invasion by state action.”
Although the First Amendment ensures a free press, until this case, it only protected the press from
federal laws, not state laws. Minnesota shut down J. M. Near’s Saturday Press for publishing vicious
antisemitic and racist remarks. In what is regarded as the landmark free press decision, the Court ruled
that a state cannot engage in “prior restraint”; that is, with rare exceptions, it cannot stop a person from
publishing or expressing a thought.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937
“The switch in time that saved nine.”
F. D. R. rallied against the Court’s holdings in the Lochner era. The Court struck down New Deal laws,
designed to pull the country out of the Depression, on grounds that they interfered with a worker’s
“right to contract.” F. D. R. pledged to expand the Court and pack it with pro “New Deal” members. In
this case, the Court rejected the Lochner era decisions and said the government could regulate
commerce.
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
“In the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place.”
This unanimous decision marked the beginning of the end for the “Separate But Equal” era that started
with Plessy, and the start of a new period of American race relations. With Brown, desegregation of
public schools began—as did resistance to it. Ten contentious years later, the Civil Rights Act of 1964
made racial equality a matter of federal law.
Mapp v. Ohio, 1961
Evidence that is illegally obtained by the state may not be used against a defendant in court.
Until Mapp, only the federal government was barred from using illegally obtained evidence. So when
local police entered Dolly Mapp’s home without a search warrant and arrested her for possessing
obscene books, her conviction initially stood. The Court overturned her conviction, however, and
extended the Constitutional rule to apply to the states and their subdivisions.
“I know it when I see it.”
—Justice Potter Stewart’s definition of obscenity
in Jacobellis v. Ohio, 1964
Baker v. Carr, 1962
“One person, one vote.”
The above phrase was not authored until a year after Baker, but it has its philosophical roots here. In
this case, a group of Tennessee voters sued the state, claiming its voting districts diluted their political
power. Until this point, the Court refused to decide this kind of case, leaving such “political questions”
to the states. Baker, however, held that the states must meet a Constitutional standard for appointment:
districts cannot be drawn in such a way that they violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th
Amendment.
Engel v. Vitale, 1962
Public institutions (i.e., a school system) cannot require prayer.
Lawrence Roth, an avowed atheist, objected that the Long Island, New York School System was
forcing his two children to recite a 22 word prayer at the beginning of the day. There were actually four
other parents involved in the suit against school board president William Vitale, Jr. The Supreme Court
ruled that although the prayer was nonsectarian and noncompulsory, “it is no part the business of
government to compose official prayers.” Because New York provided the prayer, it indirectly
approved religion and that was unconstitutional.
Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963
Defendants in criminal cases have an absolute right to counsel.
Too poor to afford a lawyer, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted for breaking into a poolroom—a
felony crime in Florida. He appealed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the government must
provide free counsel to accused criminals who cannot pay for it themselves. At first, the ruling applied
to felonies only. It was later extended to cover any cases where the penalty was six months
imprisonment or longer.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964
To win a libel case, public figures must prove “actual malice” on the part of the writer.
In 1964, the Times published an ad critical of an elected commissioner of an Alabama city. The
commissioner sued for libel and won. The Supreme Court overturned that ruling, and said that, to
ensure “uninhibited, robust and wide-open” debate about public figures, the law must protect writers
from libel suits. Thus, unless the words are penned with “knowing falsity” or “reckless disregard for the
truth,” a writer cannot be successfully sued by a public figure for libel.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965
The Constitution implies a right to privacy in matters of contraception between married people.
Estelle Griswold, the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic, broke an 1879 Connecticut law banning
contraception. The Court struck down the law, making it a landmark case in which the Court read the
Constitution to protect individual privacy. This was to be the foundation of further privacy rulings,
including the right to privacy in matters of abortion.
_______________________________________
Miranda v. Arizona, 1966
“You have the right to remain silent …”
After police questioning, Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and raping a woman. The Court
struck down his conviction, on grounds that he was not informed of his 5th Amendment right against
self-incrimination. Hereafter, the Miranda warnings have been a standard feature of arrest procedures.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 1973
The Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental right to education.
In 1968, a group of low-income parents sued San Antonio, claiming the city’s wealthy precincts had
better schools. The Court upheld the districting plan, saying that the Constitution did not guarantee an
education, and upholding this tenet: The Constitution does not compel government to provide services
like education or welfare to the people. Rather, it places boundaries on government action.
_____________________________________
Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969
School dress codes are not in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of
expression.
The Des Moines public school system made a rule stating that any student wearing an armband would
be asked to remove it on the grounds that the wearing of such would cause a disturbance. If the student
refused to comply, the consequence was suspension from school. Three public school students wore
black armbands to express their opposition to the United States’ involvement in the Vietnam War. They
refused to remove the armbands and were suspended. The parents of the students argued that the
students’ actions were not interfering with the rights of the other students. The case was argued in 1968
and the ruling was “handed down” in 1969. The Court ruled that the wearing of armbands was “closely
akin to ‘pure speech’”, and this was protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. The rule
banning armbands lacked the proper justification for enforcement. This ruling eventually had an effect
on school dress codes in that the style of clothing one wears indicates an expression of that individual.
Roe v. Wade, 1973
The Constitutionally implied right to privacy protects a woman’s choice in matters of abortion.
Norma McCorvey sought an abortion in Texas, but was denied under state law. The Court struck down
that law, on grounds that it unconstitutionally restricted the woman’s right to choose. The opinion set
forth guidelines for state abortion regulations; states could restrict a woman’s right to choose only in the
later stages of the pregnancy. Later modified but not overruled, the decision stands as one of the Court’s
most controversial.
United States v. Nixon, 1974
“Neither separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality can sustain unqualified Presidential
immunity from the judicial process.”
President Nixon sought precisely this type of immunity, rather than relinquishing the famous White
House tapes during the Watergate scandal. The Court unanimously rejected his plea as an
unconstitutional power play. The House began impeachment proceedings shortly thereafter, and two
weeks after the ruling, Nixon resigned.
Texas v. Johnson, 1989
The Constitution protects desecration of the flag as a form of symbolic speech.
Johnson burned a flag in front of a Dallas building in 1984. He was convicted of violating a Texas law
that made it a crime to intentionally desecrate a state or national flag. Justice Brennan wrote for a 5-to-4
majority that “Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea because society finds the idea
itself offensive or disagreeable.”
Cruzan v. Missouri Dept. of Health, 1990
While the Constitution protects a person’s right to reject life-preserving medical treatment (their “right
to die”), states can regulate that interest if the regulation is reasonable.
Nancy Cruzan lay in a permanent vegetative state as a result of injuries suffered in an auto accident. Her
parents sought to withdraw life-sustaining treatment and allow her to die, claiming she’d said this would
be her wish under such circumstances. The state refused, and the Supreme Court upheld the state’s
guidelines for the continuation of medical treatment, which allowed withdrawal of treatment only with
clear and convincing evidence that this is what the patient would have wanted. The Court said that,
given the need to protect against abuses of such situations, the state can continue life support as long as
its standards for doing so are reasonable.
* Source: www.constitutionfacts.com/.../SupremeCourt_LandmarkCases.pdf
List of landmark court decisions in the United States*
Individual rights
Discrimination based on race and ethnicity


















Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) People of African descent that are slaves or were slaves
and subsequently freed, along with their descendants, cannot be United States citizens.
Consequently, they cannot sue in federal court. Also, slavery cannot be outlawed in the western
territories before they access statehood. After the Civil War, this decision was voided by the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.
Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) Neither the Thirteenth nor the Fourteenth Amendment
empower Congress to safeguard blacks against the actions of private individuals.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) Segregated facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional
under the doctrine of separate but equal, which holds for close to 60 years. (Overruled by Brown v.
Board of Education (1954))
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944) Primary elections must be open to voters of all races.
Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944) President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order
9066 is constitutional; therefore, American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and
deprived of their basic constitutional rights. This case featured the first application of strict scrutiny
to racial discrimination by the government.
Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946) A Virginia law that enforces segregation on interstate buses
is unconstitutional.
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948) Courts may not enforce racial covenants on real estate.
Henderson v. United States, 339 U.S. 816 (1950) The Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 makes it
unlawful for a railroad that engages in interstate commerce to subject any particular person to any
undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect whatsoever.
Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Segregated schools in the states are
unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Court found that the separate but equal doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) "has no
place in the field of public education."
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) Segregated schools in the District of Columbia violate the
Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Sarah Keys v. Carolina Coach Company, 64 MCC 769 (1955) According to the Interstate Commerce
Commission, the non-discrimination portion of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 bans the
segregation of black passengers on buses traveling across state lines. The Supreme Court adopted
and expanded this decision in Boynton v. Virginia (1960).
Browder v. Gayle, 142 F. Supp. 707 (M.D. Ala. 1956) Bus segregation is unconstitutional under the
Equal Protection Clause.
Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960) Electoral district boundaries drawn only to
disenfranchise blacks violate the Fifteenth Amendment.
Boynton v. Virginia, 364 U.S. 454 (1960) Racial segregation in all forms of public transportation is
illegal under the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.
Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U.S. 157 (1961) Peaceful sit-in demonstrators protesting segregationist
policies cannot be arrested under a state's "disturbing the peace" laws.
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) Laws that prohibit interracial marriage (anti-miscegenation
laws) are unconstitutional.
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968) The federal government may prohibit
discrimination in housing by private parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971) The busing of students to
promote racial integration in public schools is constitutional.






Gates v. Collier, 501 F. 2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1974) This decision brought an end to the trusty system
and flagrant inmate abuse at the Mississippi State Penitentiary in Parchman, Mississippi. It was the
first body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit that abolished racial segregation in prisons and held
that a variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners is considered cruel and unusual
punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) Race-based set-asides in
educational opportunities violate the Equal Protection Clause. This decision leaves the door open
for the possibility of some use of race in admission decisions.
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) Prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to dismiss
jurors based on their race.
Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Peña, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) Race-based discrimination, including
discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), must pass strict scrutiny.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) A narrowly-tailored use of race in student admission
decisions may be permissible under the Equal Protection Clause because a diverse student body is
beneficial to all students. This was hinted at in Regents v. Bakke (1978).
Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) A Michigan state
constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action does not violate the Equal Protection
Clause.
Discrimination based on sex







Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908) Oregon's restrictions on the working hours of women are
constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment because they are justified by the strong state
interest in protecting women's health.
Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp., 400 U.S. 542 (1971) An employer may not, in the absence of
business necessity, refuse to hire women with preschool-age children while hiring men with such
children.
Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71 (1971) Administrators of estates cannot be named in a way that
discriminates on the basis of sex.
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A
statute that gives benefits to the spouses of male members of the uniformed services, but not to
the spouses of female members, (on the assumption that only the former are dependent) is
unconstitutional.
Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) Setting different minimum ages for females (18) and males (21)
to be allowed to buy beer is unconstitutional sex-based discrimination contrary to the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., 511 U.S. 127 (1994) Prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges
to dismiss jurors based on their sex.
United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996) Sex-based "separate but equal" military training
facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation



Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) A Georgia law that criminalizes certain acts of private
sexual conduct between homosexual persons does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
(Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas (2003))
Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) A Colorado state constitutional amendment that prevents
homosexuals and bisexuals from being able to obtain protections under the law is a violation of the
Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) A Texas law that criminalizes consensual same-sex sexual
conduct furthers no legitimate state interest and violates homosexuals' right to privacy under the


Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidates all of the remaining
sodomy laws in the United States.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003) The denial of marriage licenses to
same-sex couples violates provisions of the state constitution guaranteeing individual liberty and
equality and is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This was the first state court
decision in which same-sex couples won the right to marry.
United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, which
defines—for federal law purposes—the terms "marriage" and "spouse" to apply only to marriages
between one man and one woman, is a deprivation of the equal liberty of the person protected by
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The federal government must recognize same-sex
marriages that have been approved by the states.
Birth control and abortion








Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) A Connecticut law that criminalizes the use of
contraception by married couples is unconstitutional because all Americans have a constitutionally
protected right to privacy.
Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) A Massachusetts law that criminalizes the use of
contraception by unmarried couples violates the right to privacy established in Griswold as well as
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Laws that restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion prior to
viability are unconstitutional. Most restrictions during the first trimester are prohibited, and only
health-related restrictions are permitted during the second trimester.
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S. 678 (1977) Laws that restrict the sale,
distribution, and advertisement of contraceptives to both adults and minors are unconstitutional.
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) A woman is still
able to have an abortion before viability, but several restrictions are now permitted during the first
trimester. The strict trimester framework of Roe is discarded and replaced with the more vague
"undue burden" test.
Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914 (2000) Laws that ban partial-birth abortion are unconstitutional if
they do not make an exception for the woman's health or if they cannot be reasonably construed
to apply only to the partial-birth abortion procedure and not to other abortion methods.
Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124 (2007) Congress can prohibit a specific abortion procedure, in this
case intact dilation and extraction, which is also known as partial-birth abortion, on the grounds
that it "implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Closely held, for-profit corporations have
free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. As applied to such
corporations, the requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that employers
provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violates the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.
End of life


Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) When a family has
requested the termination of life-sustaining treatments for their vegetative relative, the state may
constitutionally oppose this request if there is a lack of evidence of a clear earlier wish by said
relative.
Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) Washington's prohibition on assisted suicide is
constitutional.


Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997) New York's prohibition on assisted suicide does not violate the
Equal Protection Clause.
Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006) The Controlled Substances Act does not prevent physicians
from being able to prescribe the drugs needed to perform assisted suicides under state law.
Power of Congress to enforce civil rights






Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) The Civil Rights Act of 1964
applies to places of public accommodation patronized by interstate travelers by reason of the
Commerce Clause.
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964) The power of Congress to regulate interstate
commerce extends to a restaurant that is not patronized by interstate travelers but which serves
food that has moved in interstate commerce. This ruling makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to
virtually all businesses.
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966) The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is a valid exercise
of Congress's power under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.
Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 U.S. 641 (1966) Congress may enact laws stemming from Section 5 of
the Fourteenth Amendment that increase the rights of citizens beyond what the judiciary has
recognized.
City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997) Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not
permit Congress to substantially increase the scope of the rights determined by the judiciary.
Congress may only enact remedial or preventative measures that are consistent with the
Fourteenth Amendment interpretations of the Supreme Court.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which
contains the coverage formula that determines which state and local jurisdictions are subjected to
federal preclearance from the United States Department of Justice before implementing any
changes to their voting laws or practices based on their histories of racial discrimination in voting, is
unconstitutional because it no longer reflects current societal conditions.
Other areas







Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) Some of the rights protected by the Privileges
and Immunities Clause include the freedom of movement through the states, the right of access to
the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, an exemption from higher taxes than those
paid by state residents, and the right to vote.
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian
courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left
but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary.
Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) The freedom of movement is a fundamental right; a state
cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them.
United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) The Constitution grants to the states the power to
prosecute individuals for wrongful interference with the right to travel.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) United States citizens abroad, even when associated with the
military, cannot be deprived of the protections of the Constitution and cannot be made subject to
military jurisdiction.
United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) There is a constitutional right to travel from state to
state, and the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to citizens who suffer rights
deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies where there is minimal state participation in the
conspiracy.
Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) The right of citizenship is protected by the Citizenship Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has no power under the Constitution to revoke a person's
United States citizenship unless he or she voluntarily relinquishes it.

O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) The states cannot involuntarily commit individuals if
they are not a danger to themselves or others and are capable of living by themselves or with the
aid of responsible family members or friends.
Criminal law
Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures













Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence that is obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment
is inadmissible in state court.
Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches
and seizures applies to all places where an individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that
the person has committed or is about to commit a crime and frisk the suspect for weapons if they
have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth
Amendment.
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Individuals may sue federal government
officials who have violated their Fourth Amendment rights even though such a suit is not
authorized by law. The existence of a remedy for the violation is implied from the importance of
the right that is violated.
United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297 (1972)
Government officials must obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if
domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept"
and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent make the Fourth Amendment's protections
especially important when the government engages in spying on its own citizens.
Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) Established the "totality of circumstances" test in finding
probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches
applies to those conducted by public school officials as well as those conducted by law
enforcement personnel, but public school officials can use the less strict standard of reasonable
suspicion instead of probable cause.
Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) Schools may implement random drug
testing upon students participating in school-sponsored athletics.
Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) Coercive drug testing imposed by school districts
upon students who participate in extracurricular activities does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home
where one occupant consents and the other objects.
In re Directives, (2008) According to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of
Review, an exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement exists when surveillance is
conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against
foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United
States.[1]
United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. ___ (2012) Attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the
device to monitor the vehicle’s movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
Riley v. California, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital
information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
Right to an attorney

Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) A defense lawyer's conflict of interest arising from a
simultaneous representation of codefendants violates the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth
Amendment.







Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) Indigent defendants may be denied counsel when prosecuted
by a state. (Overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963))
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) All defendants have the right to an attorney and must
be provided one by the state if they are unable to afford legal counsel.
Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) A person in police custody has the right to speak to an
attorney.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under
the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer, and to have one appointed to them if
they are indigent. A police interrogation must stop if the suspect states that he or she wishes to
remain silent.
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) Juvenile defendants are protected under the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment.
Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) If a police interrogation begins after a defendant asserts
his or her right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, then any waiver of that right for
that police-initiated interrogation is invalid. (Overruled by Montejo v. Louisiana (2009))
Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) A defendant may waive his or her right to counsel during
a police interrogation even if the interrogation begins after the defendant's assertion of his or her
right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding.
Other rights regarding counsel


Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) 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. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) 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. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) The right to remain silent does not exist unless a
suspect invokes it unambiguously.
Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination
does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he or
she has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness cannot invoke the privilege by
simply standing mute; he or she must expressly invoke it.
Competence




Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) A defendant has the right to a competency evaluation
before proceeding to trial.
Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979) The competence of a committed patient is
presumed until he or she is adjudicated incompetent.
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) A defendant has the right to a competency evaluation
before being executed.
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) A defendant who is competent to stand trial is automatically
competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.
Detainment of terrorism suspects




Rasul v. Bush, 542 U.S. 466 (2004) The federal court system has the authority to decide if foreign
nationals held at Guantanamo Bay were wrongfully imprisoned.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004) The federal government has the power to detain those it
designates as enemy combatants, including United States citizens, but detainees that are United
States citizens must have the rights of due process and the ability to challenge their enemy
combatant status before an impartial authority.
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006) The military commissions set up by the Bush
administration to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay are illegal because they lack the protections
that are required by the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. 723 (2008) Foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have
the constitutional right to challenge their detention in United States courts.
Capital punishment
Main article: Capital punishment in the United States














Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) The arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death
penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes cruel and unusual
punishment. This decision initiates a nationwide de facto moratorium on executions that lasts until
the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976).
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Georgia's new death penalty statute is constitutional
because it adequately narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. This case and
the next four cases were consolidated and decided simultaneously. By evaluating the new death
penalty statutes that had been passed by the states, the Supreme Court ended the moratorium on
executions that began with its decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972).
Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) Florida's new death penalty statute is constitutional because
it requires the comparison of aggravating factors to mitigating factors in order to impose a death
sentence.
Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976) Texas's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it
uses a three-part test to determine if a death sentence should be imposed.
Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) North Carolina's new death penalty statute is
unconstitutional because it allows a mandatory death sentence to be imposed.
Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) Louisiana's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional
because it calls for a mandatory death sentence for a large range of crimes.
Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) A death sentence may not be imposed for the crime of rape.
Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) A death sentence may not be imposed on offenders who
are involved in a felony during which a murder is committed but who do not actually kill, attempt
to kill, or intend that a killing take place.
Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) A death sentence may not be imposed on the insane.
Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction
in capital punishment cases that involve foreign nationals.
Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) A death sentence may not be imposed on mentally retarded
offenders, but the states can define what it means to be mentally retarded.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) A death sentence may not be imposed on juvenile
offenders.
Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) The three-drug cocktail used for performing executions by lethal
injection in Kentucky (as well as virtually all of the states using lethal injection at the time) is
constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) The death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do
not involve murder or crimes against the state such as treason.
Other criminal sentences



Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that
increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to
a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of
parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.
Federalism













Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. 419 (1793) The Constitution prevents the states from exercising
sovereign immunity. Therefore, the states can be sued in federal court by citizens of other states.
This decision was voided by the Eleventh Amendment in 1795, just two years after it was handed
down.
Hylton v. United States, 3 U.S. 171 (1796) A tax on the possession of goods is not a direct tax that
must be apportioned among the states according to their populations. This case featured the first
example of judicial review by the Supreme Court.
Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. 199 (1796) A section of the Treaty of Paris supersedes an otherwise valid
Virginia statute under the Supremacy Clause. This case featured the first example of judicial
nullification of a state law.
Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional
because it attempts to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted
by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution. This case featured
the first example of judicial nullification of a federal law.
Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) A state legislature can repeal a corruptly made law, but the
Contract Clause of the Constitution prohibits the voiding of valid contracts made under such a law.
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional.
Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) 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 states.
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819) The Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution
grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, and state
actions may not impede valid exercises of power by the federal government.
Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824) The power to regulate interstate navigation is granted to
Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) The Bill of Rights cannot be applied to the state
governments. This decision has essentially been rendered moot by the Supreme Court's adoption
of the incorporation doctrine, which uses the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
apply portions of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Cooley v. Board of Wardens, 53 U.S. 299 (1852) When local circumstances make it necessary the
states can regulate interstate commerce as long as such regulations do not conflict with federal
law. State laws related to commerce powers can be valid if Congress is silent on the matter.
Ableman v. Booth, 62 U.S. 506 (1859) State courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions
of federal courts.
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) The states that formed the Confederate States of America during
the Civil War never actually left the Union because a state cannot unilaterally secede from the
United States.
Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429 (1895) Income taxes on interest, dividends, and
rents are, in effect, direct taxes that must be apportioned among the states according to their
















populations. This decision was voided by the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913, allowing income taxes
to be implemented without apportionment.
Swift and Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 (1905) Congress can prohibit local business
practices in order to regulate interstate commerce because those practices, when combined
together, form a "stream of commerce" between the states. (Superseded by National Labor
Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937))
Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) Sovereign immunity cannot be used to bar suits against state
officials for injunctive relief under the Constitution when said officials were not acting on behalf of
the state when they sought to enforce an unconstitutional law.
Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920) Treaties made by the federal government are supreme
over any concerns brought by the states about such treaties interfering with any states' rights
derived from the Tenth Amendment.
United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) The Constitution grants to the states the power to
prosecute individuals for wrongful interference with the right to travel.
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation, 301 U.S. 1 (1937) The
National Labor Relations Act and, by extension, the National Labor Relations Board are
constitutional because the Commerce Clause applies to labor relations. Therefore, the NLRB has
the right to sanction companies that fire or discriminate against workers for belonging to a union.
Also, a local commercial activity that is considered in isolation may still constitute interstate
commerce if that activity has a "close and substantial relationship" to interstate commerce.
Steward Machine Company v. Davis, 301 U.S. 548 (1937) The federal government is permitted to
impose a tax even if the goal of the tax is not just the collection of revenue.
United States v. Darby Lumber Co., 312 U.S. 100 (1941) Control over interstate commerce belongs
entirely to Congress. The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 is constitutional under the Commerce
Clause because it prevents the states from lowering labor standards to gain commercial
advantages.
Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) The Commerce Clause of the Constitution allows Congress
to regulate anything that has a substantial economic effect on commerce even if that effect is
indirect.
Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958) The states are bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court and
cannot choose to ignore them.
Oregon v. Mitchell, 400 U.S. 112 (1970) Congress has the power to regulate requirements for voting
in federal elections, but it is prohibited from regulating requirements for voting in state and local
elections. This decision led to the ratification of the Twenty-sixth Amendment in 1971, which
lowered the minimum voting age to 18 for all elections.
Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985) Beceause the United States and each state possess
sovereignty the Fifth Amendment rule against double jeopardy does not prohibit two different
states from separately prosecuting and convicting the same individual for the same illegal act.
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds
disbursed to the states without violating the Tenth Amendment.
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 is
unconstitutional. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to
prohibit the mere possession of a gun near a school because gun possession by itself is not an
economic activity that affects interstate commerce even indirectly.
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) The states cannot create qualifications for
prospective members of Congress that are stricter than those specified in the Constitution. This
decision invalidates provisions that had imposed term limits on members of Congress in 23 states.
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) The interim provision of the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act that requires state and local officials to conduct background checks on firearm
purchasers violates the Tenth Amendment.
Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 is unconstitutional
because it allows the President to amend or repeal parts of statutes without the pre-approval of




Congress. According to the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, Congress must initiate all
changes to existing laws.
United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) The section of the Violence Against Women Act of
1994 that gives victims of gender-motivated violence the right to sue their attackers in federal
court is an unconstitutional intrusion on states' rights, and it cannot be saved by the Commerce
Clause or Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005) Congress may ban the use of marijuana even in states that
have approved its use for medicinal purposes.
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) An Arizona law that authorizes local law enforcement
to enforce immigration laws is preempted by federal law. Arizona law enforcement may inquire
about a resident's legal status during lawful encounters, but the state may not implement its own
immigration laws.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012) The Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicaid is unconstitutional as-written—it is unduly
coercive to force the states to choose between participating in the expansion or forgoing all
Medicaid funds. In addition, the individual health insurance mandate is constitutional by virtue of
the Taxing and Spending Clause (though not by the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper
Clause).
First Amendment rights
Main article: First Amendment to the United States Constitution
Freedom of speech and of the press
Main articles: Freedom of speech in the United States and Freedom of the press in the United States










Mutual Film Corporation v. Industrial Commission of Ohio, 236 U.S. 230 (1915) Motion pictures are
not entitled to free speech protection because they are a business, not a form of art. (Overruled by
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson (1952))
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Expressions in which the circumstances are intended
to result in crime that poses a clear and present danger of succeeding can be punished without
violating the First Amendment.
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925) The provisions of the First Amendment that protect the
freedom of speech and the freedom of the press apply to the governments of the states through
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 (1931) A California law that bans red flags is unconstitutional
because it violates the First Amendment's protection of symbolic speech as applied to the states
through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931) A Minnesota law that imposes prior restraints on the
publication of "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory" content violates the First Amendment as
applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Fighting words—words that by their very
utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace—are not protected by
the First Amendment.
Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952) Motion pictures, as a form of artistic expression,
are protected by the First Amendment.
Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957) Obscene material is not protected by the First
Amendment. (Superseded by Miller v. California (1973))
One, Inc. v. Olesen, 355 U.S. 371 (1958) Pro-homosexual writing is not per se obscene.
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) Public officials, to prove they were libelled,
must show not only that a statement is false, but also that it was published with malicious intent.

















Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967) News organizations may be liable when printing
allegations about public figures if the information they disseminate is recklessly gathered and
unchecked.
United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) A criminal prohibition against draft-card burning does
not violate the First Amendment because its effect on speech is only incidental, and it is justified by
the significant governmental interest in maintaining an efficient and effective military draft system.
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Wearing
armbands as a form of protest on public school grounds is protected by the First Amendment.
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) The mere advocacy of the use of force or of violation of
the law is protected by the First Amendment. Only inciting others to take direct and immediate
unlawful action is without constitutional protection.
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) The First Amendment prohibits the states from making the
public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense without a more specific and
compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace.
New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) The federal government's desire to keep
the Pentagon Papers classified is not strong enough to justify violating the First Amendment by
imposing prior restraints on the material.
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) To be obscene, a work must fail the Miller test, which
determines if it has any "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value."
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974) The First Amendment permits the states to
formulate their own standards of liability for defamation against private individuals as long as
liability is not imposed without fault. If the state standard is lower than actual malice, then only
actual damages may be awarded.
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) Spending money to influence elections is a form of
constitutionally protected free speech; therefore, federal limits on campaign contributions are
constitutional in only a limited number of circumstances.
Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) Broadcasting has
less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication because of its pervasive
nature. The Federal Communications Commission has broad authority to determine what
constitutes indecency in different contexts.
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982) Laws that prohibit the sale, distribution, and advertisement
of child pornography are constitutional even if the content does not meet the conditions necessary
for it to be labeled obscene.
Bethel School District v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986) The First Amendment permits a public school to
punish a student for giving a lewd and indecent speech at a school assembly even if the speech is
not obscene.
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988) 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 than independent student expression or newspapers established by policy
or practice as forums for student expression.
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) Parodies of public figures, including those intended
to cause emotional distress, are protected by the First Amendment.
Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) A Texas law that criminalizes the desecration of the American
flag is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment's protection of symbolic speech.
This decision invalidates laws prohibiting flag desecration in 48 of the 50 states—Alaska and
Wyoming are the two exceptions.
Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) While nude dancing is a form of expressive
conduct, public indecency laws regulating or prohibiting nude dancing are constitutional because
they further substantial governmental interests in maintaining order and protecting morality.
Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U.S. 844 (1997) The Communications Decency Act,
which regulates certain content on the Internet, is so overbroad that it is an unconstitutional
restraint on the First Amendment.




Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010) Limits on corporate and union
political expenditures during election cycles violate the First Amendment. Corporations and labor
unions can spend unlimited sums in support of or in opposition to candidates as long as the
spending is independent of the candidates.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. ___ (2011) The infamous Westboro Baptist Church's picketing of funerals
cannot be liable for a tort of emotional distress.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) Video games are a distinct
communications medium protected by the First Amendment.
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) Limits on the total amounts of
money that individuals can donate to political campaigns during two-year election cycles violate
the First Amendment.
Freedom of religion














Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879) Religious belief or duty cannot be used as a defense
against a criminal indictment.
Davis v. Beason, 133 U.S. 333 (1890) The Edmunds Anti-Polygamy Act of 1882 does not violate the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment even though polygamy is part of several religious
beliefs.
Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) The states cannot interfere with the free exercise of
religion.
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) The First Amendment does not require
public schools to excuse students from saluting the American flag and reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance on religious grounds. (Overruled by West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette
(1943))
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) A Pennsylvania ordinance that imposes a license tax
on those selling religious merchandise violates the Free Exercise Clause.
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) Public schools cannot
override the religious beliefs of their students by forcing them to salute the American flag and
recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947) A state law that reimburses the costs of
transportation to and from parochial schools does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First
Amendment. The Establishment Clause is incorporated against the states, and the Constitution
requires a sharp separation between government and religion.
McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) The use of public school facilities by religious
organizations to give religious instruction to school children violates the Establishment Clause.
Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421 (1962) Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is
denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause.
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) School-sponsored reading of the Bible and
recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools is unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause.
Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968) Taxpayers have standing to sue to prevent the disbursement of
federal funds in contravention of the specific constitutional prohibition against government
support of religion.
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) For a law to be considered constitutional under the
Establishment Clause, 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. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) Parents may remove their children from public schools for
religious reasons.
Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983) A state legislature's practice of opening its sessions with a
prayer offered by a state-supported chaplain does not violate the Establishment Clause.












Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) Teaching creationism in public schools is
unconstitutional.
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) Neutral laws of general applicability do not
violate the Free Exercise Clause.
Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) Including a clergy-led prayer within the events of a public
school graduation ceremony violates the Establishment Clause.
Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) The government must show a
compelling interest to pass a law that targets a religion's ritual (as opposed to a law 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 the Free Exercise Clause.
Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) A university cannot use student dues to
fund secular groups while excluding religious groups.
Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) Allowing public school teachers to teach at parochial schools
does not violate the Establishment Clause as long as the material that is taught is secular and
neutral in nature and no "excessive entanglement" between government and religion is apparent.
Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, 530 U.S. 290 (2000) Prayer in public schools that is
initiated and led by students violates the Establishment Clause.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002) A government program that provides tuition
vouchers for students to attend a private or religious school of their parents' choosing is
constitutional because the vouchers are neutral toward religion and, therefore, do not violate the
Establishment Clause.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) Teaching intelligent
design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause because intelligent design
is not science, and it "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, 565 U.S. ___ (2012) Ministers cannot sue their churches by claiming termination in
violation of employment non-discrimination laws. The Establishment Clause forbids the appointing
of ministers by the government; therefore, it cannot interfere with the freedom of religious groups
to select their own ministers under the Free Exercise Clause.
Town of Greece v. Galloway, 572 U.S. ___ (2014) A town council's practice of opening its sessions
with a sectarian prayer does not violate the Establishment Clause.
Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) Closely held, for-profit corporations have
free exercise rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. As applied to such
corporations, the requirement of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that employers
provide their female employees with no-cost access to contraception violates the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act.
Freedom of association



National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) The
freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the "advancement of beliefs and ideas" is an
inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) Private
citizens organizing a public demonstration have the right to exclude groups whose message they
disagree with from participating.
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) Private organizations are allowed 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.
Freedom of petition


Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) The Free Petition Clause extends to the states
through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) The Free Petition Clause
encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the
executive including administrative agencies and the judiciary.
Second Amendment rights





United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) The Second Amendment has no purpose other than
to restrict the powers of the federal government. It does not specifically grant private citizens the
right to keep and bear arms because that right exists independent of the Constitution.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) An Illinois law that prohibits common citizens from forming
personal military organizations, performing drills, and parading is constitutional because such a law
does not limit the personal right to keep and bear arms.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The federal government and the states can limit access
to all weapons that do not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) The Second Amendment protects an individual
right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful
purposes such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010) The individual right to keep and bear arms for selfdefense is fully applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Other areas










Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) The Contract Clause of the Constitution
applies to both public and private corporations.
Johnson v. M'Intosh, 21 U.S. 543 (1823) Private citizens cannot purchase lands from Native
Americans.
Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment applies to the benefits of federal United States citizenship but not to the benefits of
state citizenship.
Allgeyer v. Louisiana, 165 U.S. 578 (1897) The liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment includes economic liberty.
The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900) Federal courts may look to customary international law
because it is an integrated part of American law.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) Congress may use its plenary power to unilaterally
break treaty obligations between the United States and Native American tribes.
Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) The freedom of contract is implicit in the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) The Selective Service Act of 1917 and, more
generally, conscription do not violate the Thirteenth Amendment's prohibition of involuntary
servitude or the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of thought.
Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) Congress may set a deadline for the ratification of a new
constitutional amendment if it wishes to do so.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) Zoning laws are not an unreasonable
extension of local police power and do not have the character of arbitrary fiat.




















Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936) A defendant's confession that is extracted by police
violence cannot be entered as evidence and violates the Due Process Clause.
United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936) The Constitution implies that the
ability to conduct foreign policy is vested entirely in the President. The President has plenary power
in the foreign affairs field that does not depend on congressional delegation.
West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379 (1937) Minimum wage legislation is a valid regulation
of the freedom of contract.
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938) Federal courts in diversity jurisdiction cases must
apply the law of the states in which they sit, including the judicial doctrine of the state's highest
court, where it does not conflict with federal law. There is no general federal common law.
Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) A proposed amendment to the Constitution is considered
pending before the states indefinitely unless Congress establishes a deadline by which the states
must act. Furthermore, Congress—not the courts—is responsible for deciding whether an
amendment has been validly ratified.
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) Minimum contacts with the forum state
can enable a court in that state to exert personal jurisdiction over a party consistent with the Due
Process Clause.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) The President cannot seize private
property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under the Constitution or
statutory authority given to him or her by Congress.
Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) The Constitution supersedes all treaties ratified by the Senate.
Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) State courts do not have jurisdiction on Indian reservations
without the authorization of Congress.
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (1962) The redistricting of state legislative districts is not a political
question, so it is justiciable by the federal courts.
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) The Constitution requires that the members of the House of
Representatives be selected from districts composed, as nearly as is practicable, of equal
population.
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) The populations of state legislative districts must be as equal
as mathematically possible so as to ensure equal protection.
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966) A state's conditioning of the right to
vote on the payment of a fee or tax violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment.
Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968) Native American treaty rights are not
repealed without a clear and unequivocal statement to that effect from Congress.
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) The termination of welfare benefits must be preceded by a
full evidentiary hearing under the Due Process Clause.
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) The use of property taxes
to finance public education does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974) There is federal subjectmatter jurisdiction for possessory land claims brought by Indian tribes based upon aboriginal title,
the Nonintercourse Act, and Indian treaties.
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) The doctrine of executive privilege is legitimate;
however, the President cannot invoke it in criminal cases to withhold evidence.
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) When procedural due process applies, courts must
consider the government's interests, the individual's interests, and the likelihood of making an
inaccurate decision using the existing procedures as well as the probable value of additional
procedural safeguards.
Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) Congress has the power to pass a law
that directs the seizure and disposition of the papers and tapes of a former president that are
within the control of the executive branch.












Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) Manufacturers of home
video recording machines cannot be liable for contributory copyright infringement for the potential
uses by their purchasers because the devices are sold for legitimate purposes and have substantial
non-infringing uses. Personal use of the machines to record broadcast television programs for later
viewing constitutes fair use.
Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) A government
agency's interpretation of its own mandate from Congress is entitled to judicial deference if the
authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
Selle v. Gibb, 741 F. 2d 896 (7th Cir. 1984) Substantial similarity is not enough in the absence of
proof of access. Evidence of access must extend beyond mere speculation.
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Company, Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991) Originality, not
sweat of the brow, is required for a work to obtain copyright protection.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) Scientific evidence that is admitted in
federal court must be valid and relevant to the case at hand.
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) A government agency may not take property in
exchange for benefits that are unrelated to the agency's interest in the property.
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) The President has no immunity that could require civil law
litigation against him or her involving a dispute unrelated to the office of President to be stayed
until the end of his or her term. Such a delay would deprive the parties to the suit of the right to a
speedy trial that is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000) The recount of ballots in Florida during the 2000 presidential
election violated the Equal Protection Clause because different standards of counting were used in
the counties that were subjected to the recount. This decision effectively resolved the election in
favor of the Republican nominee, George W. Bush.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Local governments may seize property for
economic development purposes.
Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) Greenhouse gases are air
pollutants, and the Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission under the Clean
Air Act.
Medellín v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008) International treaties are not binding domestic law unless
Congress enacts statutes implementing them or unless the treaties are self-executing. Also,
decisions of the International Court of Justice are not binding domestic law, and without authority
from Congress or the Constitution, the President lacks the power to enforce international treaties
or decisions of the International Court of Justice.
Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. ___ (2013) Naturally
occurring DNA sequences, even when isolated from the body, cannot be patented, but artificially
created DNA is patent eligible because it is not naturally occurring.