LANDMARK DECISIONS OF THE U.S. SUPREME
COURT
A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a
precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a
particular issue.
Most of the hyperlinks, below, lead to the Oyez Web site and a very brief discussion of each case, as well as a very
brief description of the subsequent ruling by the Court. For more information on a case, including the written
majority opinion, concurring opinion(s), and dissenting opinion(s), try one or more of the following sites: Findlaw
Supreme Court Center or Cornell Law School's Supreme Court Collection.
FEDERALISM 5 Cases!

Marbury v. Madison - 1803
Was Marbury entitled to his appointment to the federal bench? Was his lawsuit the correct way to get it?
And, was the Supreme Court the place for Marbury to get the relief he requested?

Conclusion--- Established Judicial Review

McCulloch v. Maryland – 1819
The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the Bank of the United States?
Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

Conclusion--- Supremacy of the National Government/Congress has both
implied/enumerated powers

Gibbons v. Ogden - 1824
Did the State of New York exercise authority in a realm reserved exclusively to Congress, namely, the
regulation of interstate commerce?

Conclusion--- Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, encompassing
virtually every form of commercial activity

United States v. Nixon – 1974
A grand jury returned indictments against seven of President Richard Nixon's closest aides in the Watergate affair. The special
prosecutor appointed by Nixon and the defendants sought
audio tapes of conversations recorded by Nixon in
the Oval Office. Nixon asserted that he was immune from the subpoena claiming "executive privilege," which is the right to
withhold information from other government branches to preserve confidential communications within the executive branch or to
secure the national interest. Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive privilege" confidentiality
power, entirely immune from judicial review? No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the
generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential
privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference
to "the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice." Therefore, the president must obey the
subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
Constitutional Question: Is the President's right to safeguard certain information, using his "executive
privilege" confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?

Conclusion--- The President is not above the law

Baker v. Carr – 1962
Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's
General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant
economic growth and population shifts within the state.
Constitutional Question: Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative
apportionment to federally elected positions?

Conclusion--- The federal courts do have the jurisdiction and authority to review the
constitutionally of a state’s electoral apportionment.
FIRST AMENDMENT COURT CASES 15 Cases
Religious Freedom: Establishment Clause

Engel v. Vitale (1962)
The Court ruled all school-sanctioned prayer in public schools unconstitutional.


Conclusion--- Upheld the Establishment Clause
Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)
The Court struck down a Pennsylvania law requiring that each public school day open with Bible reading.
 Conclusion--- Upheld the Establishment Clause
Religious Freedom: Free Exercise Clause

Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah (1993)
The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced the Afro-Caribbean-based religion of Santeria. Santeria used
animal sacrifice as a form of worship in which an animal's carotid arteries would be cut and, except during
healing and death rights, the animal would be eaten. Shortly after the announcement of the
establishment of a Santeria church in Hialeah, Florida, the city council adopted several ordinances
addressing religious sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter,
with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities. Did the city of Hialeah's ordinance, prohibiting ritual
animal sacrifices, violate the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause? Yes. The Court held that the
ordinances were neither neutral nor generally applicable. The ordinances had to be justified by a
compelling governmental interest and they had to be narrowly tailored to that interest. The core failure of
the ordinances were that they applied exclusively to the church. The ordinances singled out the activities
of the Santeria faith and suppressed more religious conduct than was necessary to achieve their stated
ends. Only conduct tied to religious belief was burdened. The ordinances targeted religious behavior,
therefore they failed to survive the rigors of strict scrutiny.
The Church of Lu
Constitutional Question: The Court found laws passed by four Florida cities banning animal sacrifice were
targeted at the Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice in prayer, and as such the laws were
unconstitutional.


Conclusion--- No because of the Free Exercise Clause
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
Jesse Cantwell and his son were Jehovah's Witnesses; they were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic
neighborhood in Connecticut. The Cantwells distributed religious materials by travelling door-to-door and
by approaching people on the street. After voluntarily hearing an anti-Roman Catholic message on the
Cantwells' portable phonograph, two pedestrians reacted angrily. The Cantwells were subsequently
arrested for violating a local ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation and for inciting a breach of the
peace. Did the solicitation statute or the "breach of the peace" ordinance violate the Cantwells' First
Amendment free speech or free exercise rights? Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that while
general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not.
Because the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were
not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court also held that while the maintenance of
public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free
communication of views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of
"bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.

Jesse Cantw ell a
Conclusion--- The Court also held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid
state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of
views." The Cantwells' message, while offensive to many, did not entail any threat of
"bodily harm" and was protected religious speech.
Freedom of Expression – General

Schenck v United States (1919)
During World War I, Mr. Schenck mailed fliers to draftees urging them to peacefully protest the draft.
Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote that the First Amendment did not protect Schenck since, during
wartime, such expression would create a clear and present danger.


Conclusion--- Ability of the Federal Government to limit freedom of speech when it
provides a clear and present danger
Gitlow v New York (1925)
The Supreme Court applied protection of free speech to the states (incorporation).


Conclusion--- Bill of Rights (1st Freedom of Speech) incorporated into the states
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
The Supreme Court ruled that wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War was “pure speech,” or
symbolic speech, thus protected by the First Amendment. The principal’s right to forbid conduct that
substantially interfered with school discipline was outweighed by the students’ right to free expression.

Conclusion--- 1st Amendment Freedom of Expression/Symbolic Speech

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Brandenburg, a leader in the Ku Klux Klan, made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio
criminal syndicalism law (a revolutionary doctrine by which people/groups seize control of the economy and the
government by direct means). The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of
terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or
assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism.
The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment protected Mr. Brandenburg’s speech advocating
violence at a Ku Klux Klan rally.
 Conclusion--- Protected Per Curiam opinion … 1st Amendment Freedom of Expression/Speech
and Expression 2 prong system… The Court's held that the Ohio law violated Brandenburg's right
to free speech.
The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is "directed
at inciting or producing imminent lawless action" and (2) it is "likely to incite or produce such action."

Miller v. California (1973)
This case set forth rules for obscenity prosecutions, but also gave states and localities flexibility in
determining what is obscene. The four dissenters argued even the most general attempt to define obscenity
for the entire nation was outside the scope of the Court’s power.
A gossipy portrayal of the Supreme Court, Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong recount of the tale of
Justice Thurgood Marshall’s lunch with some law clerks. Glancing at his watch at about 1:50PM, the story
goes Marshall exclaimed, “My God, I almost forgot. It’s movie day, we’ve got to get back.” Movie day at
the Court was an annual event when movies brought before the Court on obscenity charges were shown in
a basement storeroom. Several justices boycotted these showings, arguing that obscenity should never be
banned and so how “dirty” a movie is has no relevance. In 1957, however, the majority held that obscenity
is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.


Conclusion--- Obscenity is held by community standards
Texas v. Johnson (1989)
The Supreme Court protected flag-burning as symbolic speech: “Government may not prohibit the
expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”

Conclusion--- Flag burning is protected expression

Reno v. ACLU (1997)
Several litigants challenged the constitutionality of two provisions in the 1996 Communications Decency
Act. Intended to protect minors from unsuitable internet material, the Act criminalized the intentional
transmission of "obscene or indecent" messages as well as the transmission of information which depicts
or describes "sexual or excretory activities or organs" in a manner deemed "offensive" by community
standards. After being enjoined by a District Court from enforcing the above provisions, except for the
one concerning obscenity and its inherent protection against child pornography, Attorney General Janet
Reno appealed directly to the Supreme Court as provided for by the Act's special review provisions. Did
certain provisions of the 1996 Communications Decency Act violate the First and Fifth Amendments by
being overly broad and vague in their definitions of the types of internet communications which they
criminalized? Yes. The Court held that the Act violated the First Amendment because its regulations
amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The Act failed to clearly define "indecent"
communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not
impact on adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet
communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of
any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and
"obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the Act could be saved from facial overbreadth
challenges if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text.
The Supreme Court held that the 1996 Communications Decency Act was unconstitutional, since it was
overly broad and vague in its regulation of speech on the internet, and it attempted to regulate indecent
speech, which is protected.

Conclusion--- The government is not justified regulating the content of “patently
offensive display” of speech
Freedom of Expression – Campaign Finance

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
This campaign finance case disallowed limits on campaign expenditures, but permitted “reasonable
restrictions” on individual, corporate and group contributions to candidates. The Supreme Court recently
upheld the $1,000 limit.
http://www.fec.gov/info/contriblimits0910.pdf


Conclusion--- Partially overturned with Citizen United v. FEC 2010
Corporation political commercials are protected free speech
Freedom of the Press

Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Jay Near published a scandal sheet in Minneapolis, in which he attacked local officials, charging that they
were implicated with gangsters. Minnesota officials obtained an injunction to prevent Near from publishing
his newspaper under a state law that allowed such action against periodicals. The law provided that any
person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating an "obscene, lewd, and lascivious" or
a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be
enjoined (stopped) from further committing or maintaining the nuisance.
This case struck down a statute authorizing the state to seek injunctions against routine publishers of
malicious or defamatory information, extending protection of freedom of the press to the states
(incorporation).


Conclusion--- The Court established as a constitutional principle the doctrine that, with some
narrow exceptions, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance,
even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other
proceeding.
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
The Court stated that the First Amendment protected all statements about public officials, unless the
speaker lies with the intent to defame.

Conclusion--- The Court held that the First Amendment protects the publication of all statements,
even false ones, about the conduct of public officials except when statements are made with actual
malice (with knowledge that they are false or in reckless disregard of their truth or falsity).

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier - 1988
Did a high school principal's deletion of the articles from the school newspaper violate the students' rights
under the First Amendment?
o Conclusion: Schools retained the right to refuse to sponsor speech that was "inconsistent with 'the shared
values of a civilized social order as set by the standards of the school…..”
CRIMINAL RIGHTS COURT CASES
Rights of Adolescents

New Jersey v. T.L.O. - 1985
T.L.O. was a fourteen-year-old girl accused of smoking in the girls' bathroom of her high school. A
principal at the school questioned her and searched her purse, yielding a bag of marijuana and other drug
paraphernalia. Did the search violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments?
o
Conclusion: Schools retain the right to maintain an environment in which learning can take place. The court
created a reasonable suspicious rule for school searches.
Freedom From Unreasonable Search And Seizure

Mapp v. Ohio - 1961
Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment? (May evidence obtained through a
search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?) The Supreme
Court ruled that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures, in violation of the Constitution, is
inadmissible in a state court. This is known as the “exclusionary rule.”
o
Conclusion: Protects individuals from unreasonable searches.
Right To An Attorney

Gideon v. Wainwright - 1963
Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of
law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?
o

Conclusion: Guarantee of counsel upheld by the 6th Amendment
Miranda v. Arizona – 1966
Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and
their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?
o
Conclusion: Due process cannot be upheld that is found within the 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment
Capital Punishment

Gregg v. Georgia - 1976
Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel
and unusual" punishment?
o
Conclusion: Punishment of death does not invariably violate the 8th Amendment of Cruel and Unusual
Punishment.
CIVIL RIGHTS COURT CASES
Discrimination Based on Race




Dred Scott v. Sandford - 1857
After residing in a “free” state for ten years, then returning to Missouri with his owner, was Dred Scott free
or slave?
Plessy v. Ferguson - 1896
Was Louisiana's law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the
privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas - 1954
Did the segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprive the minority children of
the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment?
Korematsu v. United States - 1944
Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the
rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
Discrimination Based on Gender

Craig v. Boren – 1976
Did an Oklahoma statute violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause by establishing
different drinking ages for men and women?
o YES In a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the statute made unconstitutional gender
classifications.
Affirmative Action

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - 1978
Did the University of California violate the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause, and the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, by practicing an affirmative action policy that resulted in the repeated rejection of
Bakke's application for admission to its medical school?
Conclusion: CANNOT BE SOLEY BASED ON RACE! 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment –
Equal Protection Clause


Adarand Constructors v. Pena - 1995
Is the presumption of disadvantage based on race alone, and consequent allocation of favored treatment, a
discriminatory practice that violates the Fifth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? YES!!! Cannot be
solely based on race…
o Conclusion: CANNOT BE SOLEY BASED ON RACE! 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment—
Equal Protection Clause
Discrimination Based On Sexual Orientation

Bowers v. Hardwick - 1986
Does the Constitution confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in consensual sodomy,
thereby invalidating the laws of many states which make such conduct illegal? The Supreme Court upheld
the Texas sodomy laws.
o Conclusion: States could outlaw those practices.

Lawrence v. Texas - 2003
Did the criminal convictions of John Lawrence and Tyron Garner under the Texas "Homosexual Conduct"
law, which criminalizes sexual intimacy by same-sex couples, but not identical behavior by different-sex
couples, violate the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of equal protection of laws? Did their criminal
convictions for adult consensual sexual intimacy in the home violate their vital interests in liberty and
privacy protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Should Bowers v. Hardwick
(1986) be overruled?
o The Court Ruled Yes!
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the Texas statute making it a crime for
two persons of the same sex to engage in certain intimate sexual conduct violates the Due Process Clause. After
explaining what it deemed the doubtful and overstated premises of Bowers, the Court reasoned that the case turned
on whether Lawrence and Garner were free as adults to engage in the private conduct in the exercise of their liberty
under the Due Process Clause. "Their right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to
engage in their conduct without intervention of the government," wrote Justice Kennedy. "The Texas statute furthers
no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," continued
Justice Kennedy. Accordingly, the Court overruled Bowers. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor filed an opinion concurring
in the judgment. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, with whom Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and
Justices Thomas joined, filed dissents.
Birth Control And Abortion



Griswold v. Connecticut - 1965
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be
counseled in the use of contraceptives?
Roe v. Wade - 1973
Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
o YES—Up to the 2nd trimester.
Planned Parenthood v. Casey - 1992
Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and, if minors,
obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade?
o YES!!
Right To Die

Gonzales v. Oregon - 2006
Did the Controlled Substances Act authorize the attorney general to ban the use of controlled
substances for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon?
o In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that Congress intended to
prevent doctors only from engaging in illicit drug dealing, not to define general standards of state
medical practice, therefore if a doctor saw fit to prescribe those drugs he/s was able to dispense
those drugs…
Power Of Congress To Enforce Civil Rights

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States - 1964
Did Congress, in passing Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, exceed its Commerce Clause powers by
depriving motels, such as the Heart of Atlanta, of the right to choose their own customers?
o The Court thus concluded that places of public accommodation had no "right" to select guests as
o
they saw fit, free from governmental regulation because of the Commerce Clause
"carefully limited to enterprises having a direct and substantial relation to the interstate flow of
goods and people. . ."