From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Important decisions of US courts
The following
landmark court decisions in the United States
contains landmark court decisions which changed the interpretation of existing
law
in the United States. Such a
decision
may settle the law in more than one way:
- establishing a significant new
legal principle
or concept;
- overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning;
- distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of
stare decisis
;
- establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
In the
United States
, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the
Supreme Court
.
United States courts of appeals
may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case. Although many cases from
state supreme courts
are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.
Individual Rights
[
edit
]
Discrimination based on race and ethnicity
[
edit
]
- 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
.
Slavery
cannot be prohibited in
U.S. territories
before they are
admitted to the Union
as doing so would violate the
Due Process Clause
of the
Fifth Amendment
. After the
Civil War
, this decision was
voided
by the
Thirteenth
and
Fourteenth
Amendments
to the
Constitution
.
- Strauder v. West Virginia
,
100
U.S.
303
(1880)
The exclusion of individuals from
juries
solely because of their race is a violation of the
Equal Protection Clause
. This was the first time that the Supreme Court reversed a state criminal conviction due to a violation of a
constitutional provision concerning criminal procedure
.
- Yick Wo v. Hopkins
,
118
U.S.
356
(1886)
Racially discriminatory application of a racially neutral statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Plessy v. Ferguson
,
163
U.S.
537
(1896)
Segregated
facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional under the doctrine of
separate but equal
. As long as the separate facilities are equal in quality, then such separation is not unconstitutional. (
de facto
overruled
by
Brown v. Board of Education
(1954))
- Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada
,
305
U.S.
337
(1938)
States with racially segregated educational systems cannot satisfy the "separate but equal" provision of
Plessy
merely by offering to pay for black students to be educated at an out-of-state institution; they must offer those opportunities in-state.
- Smith v. Allwright
,
321
U.S.
649
(1944)
Primary elections must be open to voters of all races.
- Steele v. Louisville & Nashville Railway Co.
,
323
U.S.
192
(1944)
Imposed
duty of fair representation
on labor unions, requiring that they represent all members of their bargaining unit equally, without regard to race or union membership (later understood to include other protected categories, and eventually all misfeasance or malfeasance in the act of representing a member).
- 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. (
Potentially overruled
by
Trump v. Hawaii
(2018))
- 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.
- Hernandez v. Texas
,
347
U.S.
475
(1954)
The equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment covers any racial, national, and ethnic groups of the United States against whom discrimination can be proved.
- 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
"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
Equal Protection Clause
as incorporated against the federal government by 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 language of the
Interstate Commerce Act of 1887
bans
racial segregation
on buses traveling across state lines. The
Supreme Court
later 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.
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
,
379
U.S.
241
(1964)
The
Commerce Clause
gives Congress power to force private businesses to abide by
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
, which prohibits discrimination in
public accommodations
.
- Loving v. Virginia
,
388
U.S.
1
(1967)
Laws that prohibit interracial marriage (
anti-miscegenation laws
) are unconstitutional.
- 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.
- Griggs v. Duke Power Co.
,
401
U.S.
424
(1971)
Redefined discrimination from meaning unequal treatment to meaning failure to make special allowances for the historically-imposed circumstances of protected groups.
- 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
.
- Runyon v. McCrary
,
427
U.S.
160
(1976)
Private schools
that discriminate on the basis of race or establish
racial segregation
are in violation of federal law.
- Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
,
438
U.S.
265
(1978)
Racial quotas
in educational institutions violate the
Equal Protection Clause
, but a more narrowly tailored use of race in admission decisions may be permissible.
(Partially overruled by
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
(2023))
- 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. Pena
,
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).
(Overruled by
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
(2023))
- Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action
,
572
U.S.
291
(2014)
A Michigan state constitutional amendment that bans affirmative action does not violate the
Equal Protection Clause
.
- Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard
,
600
U.S.
___ (2023)
and
Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina
,
600
U.S.
___ (2023)
Race-based
affirmative action
programs in civilian
college admissions
processes at colleges and universities receiving federal funds violate the Equal Protection Clause.
Discrimination based on sex
[
edit
]
- 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.
- Glasser v. United States
,
315
U.S.
60
(1942)
The exclusion of women from the jury pool, other than members of the League of Women Voters who have attended a jury training class, violates the fair cross-section requirement of the Impartial Jury Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Noteworthy for being the first majority opinion of the Court to use the phrase "cross-section of the community" and the first jury discrimination case to invoke the
Sixth Amendment
rather than
Equal Protection Clause
of the
Fourteenth Amendment
.
- 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; the first time the Equal Protection Clause had been read by the Supreme Court as applying to sex.
- Stanley v. Illinois
,
405
U.S.
645
(1972)
Laws that automatically make the children of unmarried fathers wards of the state after their mother dies, but not the other way around, are unconstitutional. The first case in which the Supreme Court found men faced sex discrimination.
- Frontiero v. Richardson
,
411
U.S.
677
(1973)
Sex-based discriminations
are inherently suspect. A statute that automatically extends military benefits to the spouses of male members of the uniformed services, but requires the spouses of female members to prove they are dependent on the servicemember's income, is unconstitutional.
- Taylor v. Louisiana
,
419
U.S.
522
(1975)
Systematic exclusion of women from jury service on the basis of having to register for jury duty violates a criminal defendant's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
- 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
.
- Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan
,
458
U.S.
718
(1982)
The single-sex admissions policy of the
Mississippi University for Women
's School of Nursing violated the
Equal Protection Clause
of the
Fourteenth Amendment
.
- Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins
,
490
U.S.
228
(1989)
Discrimination against an employee on the basis of sex stereotyping - that is, a person's nonconformity to social or other expectations of that person's gender - constitutes impermissible sex discrimination, in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
. The employer bears the burden of proving that the adverse employment action would have been the same if sex discrimination had not occurred.
- 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
.
- Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services
,
523
U.S.
75
(1998)
The protection of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
against
workplace discrimination
"because of... sex" applied to
harassment
in the
workplace
between members of the same sex.
- Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. White
,
548
U.S.
53
(2006)
The anti-retaliation provision under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace.
Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity
[
edit
]
- One, Inc. v. Olesen
,
355
U.S.
371
(1958)
(per curiam) Pro-homosexual writing is not
per se
obscene. This was the first Supreme Court ruling to deal with homosexuality and the first to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
- 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.
744
(2013)
Section 3 of the
Defense of Marriage Act
(
1 U.S.C.
§ 7
), 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. The legal provision of the Defense of Marriage Act which was the issue in this case was eventually repealed by section 3 of the
Respect for Marriage Act
and replaced by section 5 of the Respect for Marriage Act (
1 U.S.C.
§ 7
).
- SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories
,
740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014)
The
Equal Protection Clause
prohibits
peremptory strikes
to dismiss jurors based on their sexual orientation. This was the first holding by a
federal appeals court
that classifications based on sexual orientation must be subjected to
heightened scrutiny
.
- Obergefell v. Hodges
,
576
U.S.
644
(2015)
The
Fourteenth Amendment
requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex with all the accompanying rights and responsibilities and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
- Bostock v. Clayton County
,
590
U.S.
___
(2020)
,
R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
,
590
U.S.
___
(2020)
, and
Altitude Express, Inc. v. Zarda
,
590
U.S.
___
(2020)
, Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964
protects employees against discrimination due to their sexual orientation or gender identity. The Supreme Court ruled under
Bostock
but the ruling covered all three cases.
Power of Congress to enforce civil rights
[
edit
]
- 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.
(Partially overruled by
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
)
- 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.
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co.
,
392
U.S.
409
(1968)
Section 1982, part of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866
, is constitutional under the
Thirteenth Amendment
and prohibits all
racial discrimination
in the sale or rental of property.
- 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.
529
(2013)
Section 4 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965
(
15 U.S.C.
§ 10303
) is unconstitutional; its coverage formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. 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
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.
Immunity from civil rights violations
[
edit
]
- Monroe v. Pape
,
365
U.S.
167
(1961)
While municipalities can not be liable under the
Civil Rights Act of 1871
, individuals acting "under color of law" can be sued for damages for denying the constitutional rights of individuals. (
overruled
in
Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York
, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (in part))
- Pierson v. Ray
,
386
U.S.
547
(1967)
Police officers are protected from being sued for civil rights violations under
Section 1983
by the doctrine of
qualified immunity
.
- Stump v. Sparkman
,
435
U.S.
349
(1978)
A judge will not be deprived of
judicial immunity
because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority. He will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
- Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York
,
436
U.S.
658
(1978)
Municipalities can be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights through
42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 actions. §1983 claims against municipal entities must be based on implementation of a policy or custom.
- Harris v. Harvey
,
605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979)
The
Seventh Circuit
established that a judge engaging in acts of public
defamation
inspired by
racial prejudice
is not protected by
judicial immunity
and therefore a civil lawsuit against a judge can be brought under the
Civil Rights Act
(42 U.S.C. § 1983).
- Will v. Michigan Department of State Police
,
491
U.S.
58
(1989)
Neither States nor state officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when being sued for monetary damages.
Birth control and abortion
[
edit
]
- 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.
(Partially overruled by
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(1992) and fully overruled by
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
(2022))
- 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 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 flexible "
undue burden test
".
(Overruled by
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
(2022))
- 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)
The
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
is constitutional because it is less ambiguous than the law that was struck down in
Stenberg
. It is not vague or overbroad, and it does not impose an
undue burden
on a woman's right to choose to have an abortion.
- Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt
,
579
U.S.
582
(2016)
Clarified
the
undue burden
standard which was developed in
a case from 1983
and applied in the 1992 case
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
(
overruled
by
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
(2022)).
- Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
,
597
U.S.
___ (2022)
The constitution does not confer a right to abortion, overruling both
Roe v. Wade
and
Planned Parenthood v. Casey
.
End of life
[
edit
]
Citizenship
[
edit
]
Freedom of movement
[
edit
]
- Crandall v. Nevada
,
73
U.S.
35
(1868)
Freedom of movement
between states is a fundamental right; a state cannot inhibit people from leaving it by imposing a tax on doing so.
- 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.
- Edwards v. California
,
314
U.S.
160
(1941)
A state cannot prohibit indigent people from moving into it.
- Kent v. Dulles
,
357
U.S.
116
(1958)
The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the
Fifth Amendment
.
- Aptheker v. Secretary of State
,
378
U.S.
500
(1964)
Section 6 of the
Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950
, which makes it a crime for any member of a communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport, is an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to travel.
- 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 deprivations of their rights at the hands of a private conspiracy where there is state participation in the conspiracy, no matter how minimal.
- Shapiro v. Thompson
,
394
U.S.
618
(1969)
The fundamental right to travel and the
Equal Protection Clause
forbid a state from reserving welfare benefits only for persons that have resided in the state for at least one year.
- Saenz v. Roe
,
526
U.S.
489
(1999)
A California law that limits new residents' benefits for the first year they live in the state is an unconstitutional violation of their right to travel.
Restrictions on involuntary commitment
[
edit
]
- Jackson v. Indiana
,
406
U.S.
715
(1972)
A state violates due process by
involuntarily committing
a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his or her permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him or her.
- O'Connor v. Donaldson
,
422
U.S.
563
(1975)
A state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
- Addington v. Texas
,
441
U.S.
418
(1979)
Clear and convincing evidence
is required by the
Fourteenth Amendment
in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital.
- Youngberg v. Romeo
,
457
U.S.
307
(1982)
Involuntarily committed residents have protected liberty interests under the
Due Process Clause
to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these interests.
Public health and safety
[
edit
]
- Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health
,
186
U.S.
380
(1902)
A state's
police power
to enforce quarantine laws extends to restricting the movements of uninfected individuals.
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts
,
197
U.S.
11
(1905)
Individual liberty is not absolute, and a state's police power must be held to embrace at least such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment to protect public health and safety, which extends to
compulsory vaccination
laws.
- Zucht v. King
,
260
U.S.
174
(1922)
School districts can constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students.
- Prince v. Massachusetts
,
321
U.S.
158
(1944)
States have broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities. Compulsory vaccination is an example of a fundamental police power.
- Buck v. Bell
,
274
U.S.
200
(1927)
State statutes
permitting
compulsory sterilization
of the unfit, including the
intellectually disabled
, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment.
(
partially overruled
by
Skinner v. Oklahoma
(1942)
and
fully
by the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
)
Other areas
[
edit
]
- 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
. This case was decided by Supreme Court Justice
Bushrod Washington
while riding circuit in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is notable for Washington asserting the existence of cognizable rights within the ambit of the
Privileges and Immunities Clause
that are nowhere within the Constitution's text.
- 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.
- 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.
- Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison
,
432
U.S.
63
(1977)
An employer may discharge an employee who observes a seventh-day sabbath, and that such employee is not entitled to equal employment opportunity protection under
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion.
- Plyler v. Doe
,
457
U.S.
202
(1982)
The government lacks a substantial interest in excluding from K-12 public schools children who were not legally admitted into the country.
Criminal law
[
edit
]
Fourth Amendment rights
[
edit
]
- Weeks v. United States
,
232
U.S.
383
(1914)
Exclusionary rule
, under which evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be admitted at trial, formulated for federal prosecutions.
- Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States
,
251
U.S.
385
(1920)
All evidence developed and obtained based on evidence obtained unconstitutionally is "
fruit of the poisonous tree
" and cannot be used at trial.
- Mapp v. Ohio
,
367
U.S.
643
(1961)
Exclusionary rule applied to state prosecutions.
- Schmerber v. California
,
384
U.S.
757
(1966)
The application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination to searches that intrude into the human body means that police may not conduct warrantless blood testing on suspects absent an emergency that justifies acting without a warrant.
- 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.
- Mancusi v. DeForte
,
392
U.S.
364
(1968)
The privacy rights defined in
Katz
extend to the workplace.
- 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 spies on its own citizens.
- Illinois v. Gates
,
462
U.S.
213
(1983)
The totality of the circumstances, rather than a rigid test, must be used in finding
probable cause
under the Fourth Amendment.
- Nix v. Williams
,
467
U.S.
431
(1984)
Creates the
inevitable discovery
exception to the Fourth Amendment, under which evidence that might otherwise be suppressed as unconstitutionally obtained can be included if the state can demonstrate that it would reasonably have been found in any event.
- 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.
- O'Connor v. Ortega
,
480
U.S.
709
(1987)
In the absence of reasonable workplace policy to the contrary, the Fourth Amendment applies to searches of public employees, their belongings or workplaces by their superiors if done with reasonable suspicion for administrative reasons.
- Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton
,
515
U.S.
646
(1995)
Schools may implement random drug testing upon students participating in school-sponsored athletics.
- Ohio v. Robinette
,
519
U.S.
33
(1996)
The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.
- 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.
400
(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.
373
(2014)
Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
- Carpenter v. United States
,
585
U.S.
___
(2018)
Government acquisition of cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search, and, thus, generally requires a warrant.
Right to counsel
[
edit
]
- Powell v. Alabama
,
287
U.S.
45
(1932)
Under the Due Process Clause of the
14th Amendment
, a state must inform illiterate defendants charged with a capital crime that they have a right to be represented by counsel and must appoint counsel for defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer and give counsel adequate time to prepare for trial.
- 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
[
edit
]
- 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
[
edit
]
Competence
[
edit
]
- 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.
- Sell v. United States
,
539
U.S.
166
(2003)
The Supreme Court laid down four criteria for cases involving the involuntary administration of medication to an incompetent pretrial defendant.
- Kahler v. Kansas
,
589 U.S. ___ (2020)
The Constitution's Due Process Clause does not necessarily compel the acquittal of any defendant who, because of mental illness, could not tell right from wrong when committing their crime.
Detention of terrorism suspects
[
edit
]
Capital punishment
[
edit
]
- Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber
,
329
U.S.
459
(1947)
A condemned person does not suffer double jeopardy when he is executed again after the failure of the first attempt.
- 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 calls for 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 defendants who are deemed to be legally
insane
.
- Tison v. Arizona
,
481
U.S.
137
(1987)
The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for a
felony murderer
who did not intend to cause the death, but was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life.
- McCleskey v. Kemp
,
481
U.S.
279
(1987)
Evidence of a "racially-disproportionate impact" in the application of the death penalty indicated by a comprehensive scientific study is not enough to invalidate an individual's death sentence without showing a "racially discriminatory purpose.
- Stanford v. Kentucky
,
492
U.S.
361
(1989)
The imposition of capital punishment on an individual for a crime committed at 16 or 17 years of age does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (
overruled
by
Roper v. Simmons
(2005)
)
- 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 homicide or crimes against the state such as
treason
and "
drug kingpin activity
".
- Glossip v. Gross
,
576
U.S.
863
(2015)
The Eighth Amendment requires prisoners to show 1.) there is a known and available alternative method of execution and 2.) the challenged method of execution poses a demonstrated risk of severe pain, with the burden of proof resting on the prisoners, not the state.
- Bucklew v. Precythe
,
587 U.S. ___ (2019)
,
Baze v. Rees
and
Glossip v. Gross
govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain. When a convict sentenced to death challenges the State's method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one.
Other criminal sentences
[
edit
]
- Morrissey v. Brewer
,
408
U.S.
471
(1972)
The Supreme Court extended
Fourteenth Amendment
due process
protection to the
parole
revocation process, hold that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a
parole board
to give an evidentiary hearing prior to revoking the parole of a defendant and spelled out the minimum due process requirements for the revocation hearing.
- Gagnon v. Scarpelli
,
411
U.S.
778
(1973)
The Supreme Court issued a substantive ruling regarding the rights of individuals in violation of a
probation
or
parole
sentence. It held that a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked. More specifically the Supreme Court held that a preliminary and final revocation of probation hearings are required by Due Process; the judicial body overseeing the revocation hearings shall determine if the probationer or parolee requires counsel; denying representation of counsel must be documented in the record of the Court.
- Wolff v. McDonnell
,
418
U.S.
539
(1974)
In administrative proceedings regarding discipline, prisoners retain some of their due process rights. When a prison disciplinary hearing might result in the loss of
good-time credits
, due process requires that the prison notify the prisoner in advance of the hearing, afford him an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and furnish him with a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reason for the disciplinary action.
- Bearden v. Georgia
,
461
U.S.
660
(1983)
A sentencing court cannot properly revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and make restitution, absent evidence and findings that he was somehow responsible for the failure or that alternative forms of punishment were inadequate to meet the State's interest in punishment and deterrence.
- 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.
- Blakely v. Washington
,
542
U.S.
296
(2004)
Mandatory state sentencing guidelines are the statutory maximum for purposes of applying the
Apprendi
rule.
- Graham v. Florida
,
560
U.S.
48
(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.
460
(2012)
A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.
- Ramos v. Louisiana
,
590
U.S.
___
(2020)
The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial is read as requiring a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense and is an incorporated right to the states.
Other areas
[
edit
]
- Hurtado v. California
,
110
U.S.
516
(1884)
State governments
, as distinguished from the
federal government
, need not use
grand juries
in criminal prosecutions.
- Moore v. Dempsey
,
261
U.S.
86
(1923)
Mob violence
at criminal trials, such as those that followed the
Elaine Race Riot
, is a violation of due process. First 20th-century case where the Court protected the rights of Blacks in the South, and one of its first to review a criminal conviction for constitutionality.
- Sorrells v. United States
,
287
U.S.
435
(1932)
Entrapment
is a valid defense to a criminal charge.
- Brown v. Mississippi
,
297
U.S.
278
(1936)
Confessions obtained through physical force and torture are inadmissible at trial.
- Chambers v. Florida
,
309
U.S.
227
(1940)
Confessions compelled by police through duress are inadmissible at trial.
- United States v. Morgan
,
346
U.S.
502
(1954)
The
writ
of
coram nobis
is the proper application to request
federal
post-conviction
judicial review
for those who have completed the conviction's
incarceration
in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.
- Thompson v. City of Louisville
,
362
U.S.
199
(1960)
Criminal convictions are unconstitutional when no element of the offense has been proven.
- Robinson v. California
,
370
U.S.
660
(1962)
Besides ruling that the Cruel and
Unusual Punishment Clause
applies to the states
the Supreme Court held that punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
- Brady v. Maryland
,
373
U.S.
83
(1963)
The
prosecution
must turn over all
evidence
that might exonerate the defendant (
exculpatory evidence
) to the defense.
- Barker v. Wingo
,
407
U.S.
514
(1972)
The Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case
balancing test
for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment has been violated.
- Aleman v. Circuit Court of Cook County
, 138 F.3d 302 (
7th Cir.
, 1998) A defendant who is found after acquittal to have benefited from corrupt or undue influence on the trier(s) of fact can be retried for the offense after such corruption has been discovered; the state has a right to an honest trial. A retrial in these circumstances does not constitute
double jeopardy
since the defendant was never truly in jeopardy during the first trial; this is one of only two circumstances where the same jurisdiction may retry a defendant who has been acquitted.
- Crawford v. Washington
,
541
U.S.
36
(2004)
The Supreme Court held that the admission of "testimonial" hearsay in a criminal trial violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him unless the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
Federalism
[
edit
]
- 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.
- 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
.
- Cohens v. Virginia
,
19
U.S.
264
(1821)
State laws in opposition to national laws are
void
. The
U.S. Supreme Court
has appellate
jurisdiction
for any U.S. case and final say.
- 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
.
- Hans v. Louisiana
,
134
U.S.
1
(1890)
The Eleventh Amendment bars suits by citizens against their own state in federal court.
- 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 taxes on unearned income 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, form a "stream of commerce" between the states (
superseded
by
National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation
(1937)
).
- Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh
,
207
U.S.
161
(1907)
States
have sovereignty over their
local governments
.
- Ex parte Young
,
209
U.S.
123
(1908)
When state officers are charged with violating federal law, they cannot set up the state's federal constitutional
sovereign immunity
to defeat suits for prospective relief.
- 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
.
- Hawke v. Smith
,
253
U.S.
221
(1920)
States cannot ratify or rescind their ratification of federal constitutional amendments through referenda, only by votes of their legislatures.
- 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
.
- United States v. Butler
,
297
U.S.
1
(1936)
The
U.S. Congress
'
s power to lay taxes is not limited only to the level necessary to carry out its other powers enumerated in Article I of the
U.S. Constitution
, but is a broad authority to tax and spend for the "general welfare" of the United States.
- 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.
- New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
,
303
U.S.
552
(1938)
The
Norris?La Guardia Act of 1932
prohibits employers from proscribing the peaceful dissemination of information concerning the terms and conditions of employment by those involved in an active labor dispute, even when such dissemination occurs on an employer's private property.
- 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 preceded the ratification of the
Twenty-sixth Amendment
in 1971, which lowered the minimum voting age to 18 for all elections.
- Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis v. First of Omaha Service Corp.
439
U.S.
299
(1978)
States may not cap the interest rates offered to their citizens by federally chartered banks based in other states; a holding that contributed greatly to the growth of the credit card industry in the ensuing decades.
- Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority
,
469
U.S.
528
(1985)
Congress
has the power under the
Commerce Clause
of the
Constitution
to extend the
Fair Labor Standards Act
, which requires that employers provide
minimum wage
and overtime pay to their employees, to state and local governments.
- Heath v. Alabama
,
474
U.S.
82
(1985)
The
Double Jeopardy Clause
of the
Fifth Amendment
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. Notable because it was the first time since the New Deal that the Supreme Court invalidated a law which was passed by Congress ostensibly permissible under the Commerce Clause.
- 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
.
- 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.
- Bond v. United States
,
564
U.S.
211
(2011)
An individual litigant has standing to challenge a federal statute on grounds of federalism.
- Arizona v. United States
,
567
U.S.
387
(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.
519
(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
).
- Bond v. United States
,
514
U.S.
927
(2014)
Both individuals and states can bring a
Tenth Amendment
challenge to federal law.
- Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
,
584
U.S.
___
(2018)
The
Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act of 1992
violates the
Tenth Amendment
because it prohibits the states from passing laws that authorize and regulate
sports betting
.
Native American law
[
edit
]
- Johnson v. McIntosh
,
21
U.S.
543
(1823)
Private citizens cannot purchase lands from
Native Americans
.
- Worcester v. Georgia
,
31
U.S.
515
(1832)
The Supreme Court laid out the relationship between
tribes
and the
state
and
federal governments
. It is considered to have built the foundations of the doctrine of
tribal sovereignty in the United States
, because the relationship between the Indian Nations and the United States is that of nations.
- Ex parte Crow Dog
,
109
U.S.
556
(1883)
U.S. courts do not have criminal jurisdiction in cases where one Native American murders another on reservation lands. The Supreme Court also ruled that tribes held exclusive jurisdiction over their own internal affairs, including murder cases. The U.S. Congress responded with the
Major Crimes Act
, by which Congress has exercised since absolute (plenary) power over tribal jurisdiction by excluding certain crimes from that jurisdiction. This case was the beginning of the plenary power legal doctrine that has been used in Indian case law to limit
tribal sovereignty
.
- Elk v. Wilkins
,
112
U.S.
94
(1884)
An Indian cannot make himself a citizen of the United States without the consent and the co-operation of the United States Federal government.
- United States v. Kagama
,
118
U.S.
375
(1886)
Congress has
plenary power
over all Native American tribes within its borders.
- Talton v. Mayes
,
163
U.S.
376
(1896)
Constitutional protections including
the provisions of the Bill of Rights
do not apply to the actions of American Indian tribal governments.
- 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.
- Williams v. Lee
,
358
U.S.
217
(1959)
State courts
do not have jurisdiction on
Indian reservations
without the authorization of
Congress
.
- 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
.
- Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. County of Oneida
,
414
U.S.
661
(1974)
There is federal
subject-matter jurisdiction
for possessory land claims brought by
Indian tribes
based upon
aboriginal title
, the
Nonintercourse Act
, and
Indian treaties
.
- Bryan v. Itasca County
,
426
U.S.
373
(1976)
A state does not have the right to assess a tax on the property of a
Native American (Indian)
living on tribal land absent a specific Congressional grant of authority to do so.
- Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe
,
435
U.S.
191
(1978)
Indian tribal courts do not have inherent criminal jurisdiction to try and to punish non-Indians, and hence may not assume such jurisdiction unless specifically authorized to do so by Congress.
- United States v. Wheeler
,
435
U.S.
313
(1978)
The Fifth Amendment's
Double Jeopardy Clause
does not prevent prosecution by both an Indian tribe and the
federal government of the United States
.
- Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez
,
436
U.S.
49
(1978)
Title I of the
Indian Civil Rights Act
does not expressly or implicitly create a
cause of action
for
declaratory
and
injunctive relief
in the
federal courts
.
- Solem v. Bartlett
,
465
U.S.
463
(1984)
The Supreme Court established three principles to measure Congress's intent to
diminish
a reservation. It decided that opening up
reservation
lands for settlement by non-Indians does not constitute the intent to diminish reservation boundaries and therefore reservation boundaries would not be diminished unless specifically determined through legislation.
- County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State
,
470
U.S.
226
(1985)
Indian tribes have a
federal common law
cause of action
, not preempted by the
Nonintercourse Act
, for possessory claims based upon
aboriginal title
; such action is not barred by
limitations
,
abatement
, ratification or
nonjusticiability
, and due to the
Eleventh Amendment
, there is no
ancillary jurisdiction
for counties' cross-claims against a state.
- Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association
,
485
U.S.
439
(1988)
The
American Indian Religious Freedom Act
of 1978 (AIRFA) does not create a cause of action under which to sue, nor does it contain any judicially enforceable rights.
- United States v. Lara
,
541
U.S.
193
(2004)
As an Indian tribe and the United States are separate sovereigns, both the United States and a
Native American (Indian)
tribe can prosecute an Indian for the same acts that constituted crimes in both jurisdictions without invoking
double jeopardy
if the actions of the accused violated Federal law.
- Herrera v. Wyoming
,
587
U.S.
___
(2019)
Wyoming
's statehood did not void the
Crow Tribe
's right to hunt on "unoccupied lands of the United States" under an 1868 treaty, and that the
Bighorn National Forest
did not automatically become "occupied" when the forest was created.
- McGirt v. Oklahoma
591
U.S.
___
(2020)
Oklahoma
's land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country". Native Americans residing in the reservation cannot be criminally prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma.
- Sharp v. Murphy
591
U.S.
___
(2020)
Oklahoma
's land reserved for the Creek Nation since the 19th century remains "Indian country". Native Americans residing in the reservation cannot be criminally prosecuted by the state of Oklahoma. Reaffirms
McGirt v. Oklahoma
- United States v. Cooley
593
U.S.
___
(2021)
Native American tribal governments and police have the power to search and detain non-Native individuals suspected of violating state or federal laws on tribal lands.
First Amendment rights
[
edit
]
General aspects
[
edit
]
Freedom of speech and of the press
[
edit
]
- Mutual Film Corp. 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
(
overruled
by
Brandenburg v. Ohio
(1969)
).
- 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
.
- United States v. One Book Called Ulysses
,
5 F.Supp. 182,
S.D.N.Y.
, 1933
Obscene content in a literary work is protected if the purpose of the work as a whole is not to titillate or excite the reader sexually. Upheld by the Second Circuit on appeal.
- New Negro Alliance v. Sanitary Grocery Co.
,
303
U.S.
552
(1938)
Peaceful and orderly dissemination of information by those defined as persons interested in a labor dispute concerning 'terms and conditions of employment' in an industry or a plant or a place of business is lawful.
- 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)
(per curiam) Pro-homosexual writing is not
per se
obscene. It was the first U.S. Supreme Court ruling to address free speech rights with respect to homosexuality.
- Manual Enterprises, Inc. v. Day
,
370
U.S.
348
(1962)
Images of naked men are not,
per se
, obscene, extending
Olesen
in a way that spurred an increase in same-sex erotica that helped spur the rise of the LGBTQ rights movement later in the decade.
- 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
(knowing the statement was false, or recklessly disregarding possible falseness).
- Dombrowski v. Pfister
,
380
U.S.
479
(1965)
A court may enjoin enforcement of a statute that is
so overbroad
in its prohibition of unprotected speech that it substantially prohibits protected speech ? especially if the statute is being enforced in
bad faith
.
- 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
.
- Pickering v. Board of Education
,
391
U.S.
563
(1968)
Public employees do not surrender their First Amendment rights to speak on matters of public concern, even critically of their employers, when they take their jobs.
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District
,
393
U.S.
503
(1969)
Public school students have free speech rights under the First Amendment. Therefore, wearing armbands as a form of protest on public school grounds qualifies as protected
symbolic speech
.
- 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.
- Branzburg v. Hayes
,
408
U.S.
665
(1972)
The First Amendment's protection of press freedom does not give the
reporters' privilege
in court.
- 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.
- Virginia State Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council
,
425
U.S.
748
(1976)
Commercial speech enjoys limited First Amendment protection.
- 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.
- Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission
,
447
U.S.
557
(1980)
The United States Supreme Court laid out a four-part test for determining when restrictions on
commercial speech
violated the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.
- NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co.
,
458
U.S.
886
(1982)
Nonviolent boycotts and related activities to bring about political, social, and economic change are political speech which are entitled to the protection of the First Amendment.
- 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.
- Connick v. Myers
,
461
U.S.
138
(1983)
Public employers may take adverse action against employees for otherwise protected speech on matters of public concern, including speech critical of them, if they have a reasonable belief that the speech is disruptive to their operations.
- Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico
,
478
U.S.
328
(1986)
Illustrated the elasticity of the
Central Hudson
standards for regulating commercial speech.
- 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 had no such laws.
- 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
.
- Virginia v. Black
,
538
U.S.
343
(2003)
Any state statute which bans
cross burning
on the basis that it constitutes
prima facie
evidence of intent to intimidate is a violation of the
First Amendment to the Constitution
.
- Kaelin v. Globe Communications
,
Case no. 97-55232 (3rd Cir. 1998)
A headline on the cover of a magazine which "falsely insinuated" a criminal act may be grounds for a libel action even if the related article inside the magazine is not defamatory.
- Garcetti v. Ceballos
,
547
U.S.
410
(2006)
When public employees speak in their capacity as citizens on matters of public concern, even to criticize their employers, their speech is protected.
- Davis v. Federal Election Commission
,
554
U.S.
724
(2008)
Limitations on financial contributions to political campaigns of candidates whose opponents are self-funding their own campaigns may not be raised beyond whatever their opponents can legally contribute. Section 319 of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
is unconstitutional because it violates the Free Speech Clause of 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 Free Speech Clause of 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.
443
(2011)
The
Westboro Baptist Church
's picketing of funerals cannot be liable for a
tort
of emotional distress.
- Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association
,
564
U.S.
786
(2011)
Laws restricting the sale of violent
video games
to children without parental supervision violate the
First Amendment
.
- McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission
,
572
U.S.
185
(2014)
Limits on the total amounts of money that individuals can donate to political campaigns during two-year election cycles violate the
First Amendment
.
- Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky
,
585
U.S.
___
(2018)
A law banning politically motivated apparel and accessories inside polling places is overbroad and violates the First Amendment.
- Janus v. AFSCME
,
585
U.S.
___
(2018)
No public sector employee, having refused membership in a trade union, may be compelled to pay union dues to said union
because of the benefits he may receive from their collective bargaining
. "Fair share" agreements, when applied to public sector workers, violate the First Amendment protections of
free association
and
freedom of speech
.
- Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate
,
596
U.S.
289
(2022)
Limits on the amount a campaign for public office can pay back in loans to the candidate more than 20 days after an election violates the
First Amendment
as it places a limit on the candidate's free speech. Overturns Section 304 of the
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002
.
Freedom of religion
[
edit
]
- 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
.
- Marsh v. Alabama
,
326
U.S.
501
(1946)
Governments cannot require permits to proselytize, or bar it outright, in public spaces even where those are privately owned.
- 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
.
- Braunfeld v. Brown
,
366
U.S.
599
(1961)
A Pennsylvania
blue law
forbidding the sale of various retail products on Sunday was not an unconstitutional interference with religion as described in the
First Amendment
to the
United States Constitution
.
- 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.
- Epperson v. Arkansas
,
393
U.S.
97
(1968)
States may not require curricula to align with the views of any particular 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.
- Corporation of Presiding Bishop v. Amos
,
483
U.S.
327
(1987)
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, exempting religious organizations from the prohibition on religious discrimination, even in secular activities, did not violate the First Amendment.
- 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
. The Supreme Court developed the private choice test which states that a voucher program in order to be constitutional must meet all five criteria of the test.
- Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
,
565
U.S.
171
(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.
565
(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.
682
(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.
- American Legion v. American Humanist Association
,
588
U.S.
___
(2019)
A war memorial
Latin cross
displayed on public land does not violate the
Establishment Clause
, because longstanding monuments should be afforded a presumption of constitutionality.
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue
,
591
U.S.
___
(2020)
A state's "no aid" constitutional provision prohibiting state aid to religious schools violates the Free Exercise clause by explicitly discriminating against institutions on the basis of religion.
- Carson v. Makin
,
596
U.S.
___
(2022)
Excluding "sectarian" schools from a tuition assistance program violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
- Kennedy v. Bremerton School District
,
597
U.S.
___
(2022)
The firing of a public high school football coach for saying a prayer on the field violated his First Amendment rights. The Court announced that the
Lemon
test from the landmark case of
Lemon v. Kurtzman
(1971) had been abandoned by the Court in later cases. Instead, the Court announced,
original meaning
and history govern analysis of the Establishment Clause.
Freedom of association
[
edit
]
Freedom of petition
[
edit
]
Second Amendment rights
[
edit
]
- 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
. The
right to keep and bear arms
for a lawful purpose is not a right granted by the
Constitution
or dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. (
overruled
by
District of Columbia v. Heller
(2008) and
McDonald v. City of Chicago
(2010)).
- 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. City of Chicago
,
561
U.S.
742
(2010)
The individual
right to keep and bear arms
for self-defense is
incorporated
against the states through the
Fourteenth Amendment
's
Due Process Clause
or
Privileges or Immunities Clause
.
- Caetano v. Massachusetts
,
577
U.S.
411
(2016)
The Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms, including those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
,
597
U.S.
___
(2022)
The Second Amendment protects an individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense in public, outside the home; firearms regulations challenged on constitutional grounds must be evaluated against the "history and tradition" of such laws in the U.S.
Third Amendment rights
[
edit
]
- Engblom v. Carey
,
677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982)
Members of the
National Guard
qualify as "soldiers" under the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment is incorporated against the states through the
Due Process Clause
of the
Fourteenth Amendment
. And the protection of the Third Amendment applies to anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises. This case is notable for being the only case based on Third Amendment claims that has been decided by a
federal appeals court
.
Fourteenth Amendment rights
[
edit
]
- 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.
- Meyer v. Nebraska
,
262
U.S.
390
(1923)
A 1919 Nebraska law prohibiting the teaching of modern foreign languages to grade-school children violated the
Due Process Clause
.
- Pierce v. Society of Sisters
,
268
U.S.
510
(1925)
Parents have the right to choose the school of their choice for their children's education under the
Due Process Clause
.
- Skinner v. Oklahoma
,
316
U.S.
535
(1942)
State eugenics laws
mandating sterilization
of criminals convicted of some crimes but not others are unconstitutional as it violates a person's rights given under the
Equal Protection Clause
and
Due Process Clause
of the
14th Amendment
.
- 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
.
- 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
.
- 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.
- Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill
,
470
U.S.
532
(1985)
Public employees are entitled to some form of hearing prior to termination for cause, overruling
Arnett v. Kennedy
.
Separation of powers
[
edit
]
- 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 and it was the point at which the Supreme Court adopted a
monitoring role over government actions.
- Little v. Barreme
,
6
U.S.
170
(1804)
The President does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the
US Congress
. Presidential orders which contradict acts of Congress are illegal, and military officers are responsible for the execution of illegal commands, despite the nature of military
chain of command.
- United States v. Klein
,
80
U.S.
128
(1871)
The principle of separation of powers prohibits Congress from prescribing a rule of decision for the federal courts to follow in particular pending cases, because the legislative branch cannot impair the exclusive powers of another branch.
- Myers v. United States
,
272
U.S.
52
(1926)
The President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.
- J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States
,
276
U.S.
394
(1928)
Congressional
delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.
- Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands
,
277
U.S.
189
(1928)
American Constitutions, both state and federal, divides the government into three separate departments?the legislative, executive, and judicial. This separation and the consequent exclusive character of the powers conferred upon each of the three departments is basic and vital?not merely a matter of governmental mechanism. It may be stated then, as a general rule inherent in the American constitutional system, that, unless otherwise expressly provided or incidental to the powers conferred, the legislature cannot exercise either executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise either legislative or judicial power; the judiciary cannot exercise either executive or legislative power.
- Humphrey's Executor v. United States
,
295
U.S.
602
(1935)
The President may not remove an appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons that Congress has provided by law.
- 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.
- Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha
,
462
U.S.
919
(1983)
Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a
legislative veto
over actions of the executive branch because such a veto is inconsistent with the
bicameralism
principle and
Presentment Clause
of the Constitution.
- Bowsher v. Synar
,
478
U.S.
714
(1986)
Congress cannot reserve removal power over executive officers to itself, except for
impeachment
.
- Morrison v. Olson
,
487
U.S.
654
(1988)
The
Ethics in Government Act of 1978
is constitutional because it does not increase the power of the judiciary or legislative branches at the expense of the executive branch. Its restriction on the power of the
United States Attorney General
to remove an
inferior officer
only for good cause does not violate the
Appointments Clause
.
- Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc.
,
514
U.S.
211
(1995)
Congress is unable to make any law or provision therein to reopen cases which have been previously adjudicated by or within federal courts. Congress violates the separation of powers principle when it orders federal courts to reopen their final judgments.
- Clinton v. City of New York
,
524
U.S.
417
(1998)
The
Line Item Veto Act
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.
- National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
,
573
U.S.
513
(2014)
For purposes of the
Recess Appointment
Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is if, under
its own rules
, it retains the capacity to transact business.
D.C. Circuit
affirmed.
- Bank Markazi v. Peterson
,
578
U.S.
___
(2016)
A law which only applied to a specific case, identified by
docket
number, and eliminated all of the defenses that one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the
United States Constitution
between the legislative (
Congress
) and judicial branches of government.
Administrative law
[
edit
]
- United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy
,
347
U.S.
260
(1954)
Administrative agencies are
obliged
to follow their own
regulations
, policies and procedures. Under the
Accardi Doctrine
, federal agencies which do not follow their own regulations or procedures run the risk of having their actions invalidated if challenged in
court
.
- Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe
,
401
U.S.
402
(1972)
The case established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies.
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
,
467
U.S.
837
(1984)
An interpretation by a
government agency
of its own mandate from
Congress
is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is permissible under the statute, regardless as to whether it is the best possible interpretation or an interpretation the Court would have made.
- Auer v. Robbins
,
519
U.S.
452
(1997)
Agencies have the highest level of deference in interpreting their own regulations. However, deference is warranted only if the language of the regulation is ambiguous unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. The case expands
Chevron
deference by giving the agency the highest deference.
- 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
.
- Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency
,
576
U.S.
743
(2015)
The Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when it regulates power plants under the Clean Air Act.
- West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency
,
596
U.S.
___
(2022)
The Environmental Protection Agency only has limited authority to set caps on carbon emissions. Under the
major questions doctrine
, Congress is presumed not to delegate questions of vast economic and political significance to an agency except with clear statutory authorization.
Executive power
[
edit
]
Domestic
[
edit
]
- 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
.
Commander-in-chief
powers do not extend to labor disputes.
- 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.
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald
,
457
U.S.
800
(1982)
Presidential aides were not entitled to absolute immunity, but instead deserved qualified immunity.
- Halkin v. Helms
,
598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1978)
The
NSA
is not required to disclose evidence which may threaten the diplomatic or military interests of the nation in court.
- Nixon v. Fitzgerald
,
457
U.S.
731
(1982)
The President is entitled to absolute immunity from
legal liability
for civil damages based on his official acts. The President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.
- 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 him 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
.
- Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP
,
591
U.S.
___
(2020)
The court laid out a four-factor balancing test that lower courts must weigh before determining if congressional subpoenas involving the President and his papers are valid.
- Trump v. Vance
,
591
U.S.
___
(2020)
Article II
and
the supremacy clause
of the U.S. Constitution do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a
state
criminal subpoena to a sitting president.
Foreign
[
edit
]
Other areas
[
edit
]
Voting and Redistricting
[
edit
]
- 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
.
- Gray v. Sanders
,
372
U.S.
368
(1963)
Formulated the "
one person, one vote
" standard. State elections must adhere to the "one person, one vote" principle.
- 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
.
- Avery v. Midland County
,
390
U.S.
474
(1969)
Local government
districts have to be roughly equal in population.
- Shaw v. Reno
,
509
U.S.
630
(1993)
Redistricting based on race must be held to a standard of
strict scrutiny
under the
equal protection clause
while bodies doing redistricting must be conscious of race to the extent that they must ensure compliance with the
Voting Rights Act of 1965
.
- 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
.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
,
588
U.S.
___
(2019)
Partisan gerrymandering
claims present
political questions
beyond the reach of the
federal courts
.
- Chiafalo v. Washington
,
591
U.S.
___
(2020)
States have the ability to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidate who wins the state's popular vote and to remove and/or punish electors who violate pledges to that effect.
- Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee
,
594
U.S.
___
(2021)
Arizona's voting restrictions regarding provisional ballot counting do not violate Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965
.
Takings Clause
[
edit
]
- Berman v. Parker
,
348
U.S.
26
(1954)
Under the
Takings Clause
of the Fifth Amendment, private property can be taken for a public purpose as long as
just compensation
is paid.
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City
,
438
U.S.
104
(1978)
Whether a regulatory action that diminishes the value of a claimant's property constitutes a "taking" of that property within the meaning of the
Fifth Amendment
depends on several factors, including the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, particularly the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, as well as the character of the governmental action.
- Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council
.
503
U.S.
1003
(1992)
Established the "total takings" test, i.e. has the owner been deprived of all possible beneficial use of the property, in determining whether a regulation limiting use of the property constitutes a
regulatory taking
- 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.
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
,
544
U.S.
528
(2005)
Contrary to the holding of
Agins v. City of Tiburon
, which held that a government regulation of private property effects a
taking
if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- Kelo v. City of New London
,
545
U.S.
469
(2005)
Local governments
may seize property for economic development purposes. Noted for converting the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause to "public purpose."
Businesses/Corporations/Contracts
[
edit
]
- Laidlaw v. Organ
,
15
U.S.
178
(1817)
Established the
contract law
principle
caveat emptor
in the United States.
- Dartmouth College v. Woodward
,
17
U.S.
518
(1819)
The
Contract Clause
of the
Constitution
applies to both public and private corporations.
- Lochner v. New York
,
198
U.S.
45
(1905)
The
freedom of contract
is implicit in the
Due Process Clause
of the
Fourteenth Amendment
.
- Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs
,
259
U.S.
200
(1922)
Professional baseball does not constitute interstate commerce since road games are not very profitable, and therefore it is exempt from the
Sherman Act
's antitrust provisions. This was one of the last antitrust exemptions granted by the Court under the less expansive reading of the
Interstate Commerce Clause
that saw it as chiefly concerned with the manufacture and shipping of goods across state lines, and the only one that remains in force today; Congress has limited some aspects of it but has not repealed it. No other professional sport has been held exempt from antitrust law.
- West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish
,
300
U.S.
379
(1937)
Minimum wage legislation is a valid regulation of freedom of contract; seen as ending the
Lochner
era.
- Gregory v. Helvering
,
293
U.S.
465
(1935)
Taxpayers have the right to decrease the amount of their taxes or to avoid them altogether by means which the law permits. However, a business reorganization must have economic substance in order to affect tax liability.
- United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association
,
322
U.S.
533
(1944)
Businesses whose interstate aspect consists of negotiating and executing contracts with clients, such as insurers, are interstate commerce subject to antitrust law.
- Escola v. Coca-Cola Bottling Co.
,
24 Cal.2d 453, 150
P.2d
436 (1944)
Important case in the development of the
common law
of
product liability
in the
United States
based on the
concurring opinion
of California Supreme Court justice
Roger Traynor
who stated "that a manufacturer incurs an absolute liability when an article that he has placed on the market, knowing that it is to be used without inspection, proves to have a defect that causes injury to human beings."
- United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.
,
334
U.S.
131
(1948)
Practice of
block booking
and ownership of theater chains by film studios (
vertical integration
) constituted anti-competitive and monopolistic trade practices. As a result of the decision, the studios were forced to sell the chains they owned, an action which combined with the advent of television put them in a difficult financial position for almost a quarter-century, gave stars more bargaining power which ended the contract player system and along with it the
Golden Age of Hollywood
.
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Manufacturing Co.
,
388
U.S.
395
(1967)
Where contracts have
arbitration
clauses, courts must treat the clause as a separate contract.
- Southland Corp. v. Keating
,
465
U.S.
1
(1984)
The
Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA) governs contracts executed under state law as well as federal law.
- Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc.
,
473
U.S.
614
(1985)
Statutory claims as well as contractual ones are arbitrable under the FAA.
- Unocal Corp. v. Mesa Petroleum Co.
,
493 A.2d 946 (Delaware Supreme Court 1985)
A board of directors may only try to prevent a take-over where it can be shown that there was a threat to corporate policy and the defensive measure adopted was proportional and reasonable given the nature of the threat.
- Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc.
,
506 A.2d 173 (Delaware Supreme Court 1986)
in certain limited circumstances indicating that the "sale" or "break-up" of the company is inevitable, the
fiduciary
obligation of the
directors
of a target corporation are narrowed significantly, the singular responsibility of the board being to maximize immediate stockholder value by securing the highest price available.
- United States v. Microsoft Corp.
,
253 F.3d 34 (D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 2001)
An attempt by the U.S. government to break up
Microsoft
as an illegal
monopoly
.
- AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion
,
563
U.S.
333
(2011)
The FAA pre-empts state laws prohibiting contracts from barring class-action arbitration.
Copyright/Patents
[
edit
]
- Wheaton v. Peters
, 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591 (
1834
) There is no common law copyright after a work's publication, and court reporters cannot hold copyrights on the cases compiled in the course of their work. Being notable for the first United States Supreme Court ruling on copyright.
- Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony
111
U.S.
53
(1884)
Congress's extension of copyright to cover photography was within constitutional limits.
- Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co.
,
188
U.S.
239
(1903)
Advertisements are copyrightable despite their fundamentally commercial nature.
- Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.
, 196 Misc.
67
(N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1948): First case to recognize
moral rights
of authorship in the United States.
[2]
- Diamond v. Chakrabarty
,
447
U.S.
303
(1980)
[3]
[4]
Genetically modified organisms
can be
patented
.
[5]
According to the court a living, man-made micro-organism is patentable subject matter as a "manufacture" or "composition of matter" within the meaning of the
Patent Act of 1952
.
- 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
.
- 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.
De rigueur
, not a Supreme Court case but only of the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit, and therefore binding precedent only within its jurisdiction (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin).
- Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises
,
471
U.S.
539
(1985)
The first copyright case to reach the Court involving fair use after the
Copyright Act of 1976
codified it into law. The Court thus provided guidance in how to apply the four-factor test for fair use.
- 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
.
- Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc.
,
510
U.S.
569
(1994)
Parody
qualifies as
fair use
under copyright law. With this case the Court accepted
transformative use
as part of a fair-use defense against infringement.
- A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.
,
239 F.3d 1004 (2001)
Peer-to-peer
(P2P)
file-sharing
service
Napster
could be held liable for
contributory infringement
and
vicarious infringement
of
copyrights
.
- Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.
,
569
U.S.
576
(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.
- Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International
,
573
U.S.
208
(2014)
Software that merely uses generic computing hardware to perform a pre-existing abstract idea is not patent eligible.
Other
[
edit
]
- Swift v. Tyson
,
41
U.S.
1
(1842)
Federal courts hearing cases were bound to follow the statutory laws of states that they were asked to enforce, but not the state's common law. The goal was to encourage the development of a
federal common law
; since that did not occur, the decision was overruled almost a century later by
Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
.
- Luther v. Borden
,
48
U.S.
1
(1849)
Established the
political question
doctrine in controversies arising under the
Guarantee Clause
of
Article Four of the United States Constitution
.
- 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.
- Connally v. General Construction Co.
,
269
U.S.
385
(1926)
The U.S. Supreme Court established the
vagueness doctrine
whereby a statute is void for vagueness and unenforceable if it is too vague for the average citizen to understand or if a term cannot be strictly defined and is not defined anywhere in such law.
- 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.
- 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.
- Burford v. Sun Oil Co.
,
319
U.S.
315
(1943)
Abstention doctrine
, under which federal courts in
diversity
jurisdiction can let state courts hear cases under certain circumstances, created
- Reid v. Covert
,
354
U.S.
1
(1957)
The
Constitution
supersedes all
treaties
ratified by the
Senate
.
- Gravel v. United States
,
408
U.S.
606
(1972)
The privileges of the Constitution's
Speech or Debate Clause
enjoyed by members of Congress also extend to Congressional aides, but not to activity outside the legislative process.
- Canterbury v. Spence
(464 F.2d. 772, 782 D.C. Cir.
1972
). In medical malpractices cases, informed consent is required of the patient and no expert is required for the case to be heard by a jury.
- Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States
424
U.S.
800
(1976)
Greatly revised and extended the circumstances under which the
abstention doctrine
, whereby federal courts can decline jurisdiction they would otherwise assert, applies.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477
U.S.
242
(1986)
Set the standard for what parties must establish in evidence to be granted
summary judgement
in federal civil cases and how courts should evaluate those motions. Since such motions are extremely common,
Anderson
has become the most-cited Supreme Court case.
- 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.
See also
[
edit
]
References
[
edit
]
- ^
Selya, Bruce M.
(August 22, 2008).
"United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act"
(PDF)
.
United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review
(via the
Federation of American Scientists
).
Archived
(PDF)
from the original on August 3, 2019
. Retrieved
July 15,
2013
.
- ^
Sundara Rajan, Mira T. (2011).
Moral Rights: Principles, Practice and New Technology
.
Oxford University Press
. p. 142.
ISBN
978-0-19-539031-5
.
- ^
Brossard, Dominique; Shanahan, James; Clint Nesbitt, T. (2007).
The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology
.
ISBN
9781845932039
.
- ^
"Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A Retrospective on 25 Years of Biotech Patents"
(PDF)
.
Archived
(PDF)
from the original on January 22, 2016
. Retrieved
December 3,
2016
.
- ^
"Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)"
.
Justia Law
.
Archived
from the original on January 7, 2012
. Retrieved
July 30,
2023
.
|
---|
List of cases by Court
| | |
---|
Complete list
| |
---|
By recent term
| |
---|
By subject matter
| |
---|
Other lists
| |
---|