S UPREME C OURT C ASES
1876-1908
U.S. V. R EESE 1876

African American in Kentucky was
barred from registering to vote


Court ruled that the 15th Am. did not
grant the right to suffrage, rather, it
prohibited racial exclusion of it


Elected official was charged with
violating Enforcement Act 1870
Court could not use Enforcement Act to
enforce the 15th Am.
Supreme Court upheld poll tax, literacy
test, grandfather clause
M UNN V. I LLINOIS 1877




Munn convicted of violating Illinois
state laws regulating max rates for
services
Munn argued the 14th Am. (property,
due process), private enterprise was
separate from state gov.
Ruling: private companies that
benefit the public marketplace can be
subject to legislation
State regulation, even with railroads
R EYNOLDS V. U NITED S TATES
1878

George Reynolds (secretary to
Brigham Young) was convicted of
practicing bigamy


He argued that the 1st Am. protected
plural marriage as a religious
practice, and that the federal antibigamy law was unconstitutional
Decision: 1st Am. protects religious
belief, not religious practices that are
seen as criminal
P LESSY V. F ERGUSON 1896

Homer Plessy challenged state law
prohibiting blacks from riding in white
only rail cars; he was arrested for
refusing to move



Equal protection of the laws under the
14th Am.
Court ruled separate but equal facilities
do not violate the 14th Am. as long as
both facilities are equal
Legacy: segregation soared in the South,
now that it was backed by the Court (Jim
Crow laws)
L OCHNER V. N EW Y ORK 1905

NY enacted a statute forbidding
bakers to work more than 60 hr
weeks (10 hr day)


Argued the 14th Am. of due process:
personal right to work
Ruling: statute interfered with
freedom of contract, employer and
employee can enter into an individual
contract without state intervention
M ULLER V. O REGON 1908

Oregon enacted a law limiting
women’s working hours to 10 hr days




Muller was owner of laundry service
that hired females
Freedom of contract: 14th Am. and
Lochner v. NY decision
Ruling: no violation was made by the
state, physical and social differences
between genders called for different
laws
Legacy: sex discrimination