 |
(1803) |
Marbury v. Madison - Marbury v. Madison, arguably the most important case in Supreme Court history, was the first U.S. Supreme Court case to apply the principle of "judicial review" -- the power of federal courts to void acts of Congress in conflict with the Constitution. |
 |
(1819) |
McCulloch v. Maryland - In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to create the Second Bank of the United States and that the state of Maryland lacked the power to tax the Bank. |
 |
(1824) |
Gibbons v. Ogden - Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) vastly expanded the powers of Congress through a single clause in the Constitution: the Commerce Clause of Article I, Section 8. The Court ruled that under that clause Congress had powers to regulate any aspect of commerce that crossed state lines, including modes of transportation, and that such regulation preempted conflicting regulation by the states. |
 |
(1857) |
Dred Scott v. Sanford - In Dred Scott v. Sandford (argued 1856 -- decided 1857), the Supreme Court ruled that Americans of African descent, whether free or slave, were not American citizens and could not sue in federal court. The Court also ruled that Congress lacked power to ban slavery in the U.S. territories. Finally, the Court declared that the rights of slaveowners were constitutionally protected by the Fifth Amendment because slaves were categorized as property. |
 |
(1896) |
Plessy v. Ferguson - In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Louisiana law passed in 1890 "providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races." The law, which required that all passenger railways provide separate cars for blacks and whites, stipulated that the cars be equal in facilities, banned whites from sitting in black cars and blacks in white cars (with exception to "nurses attending children of the other race"), and penalized passengers or railway employees for violating its terms. |
 |
(1919) |
Schenck v. United States - In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court invented the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when a state could constitutionally limit an individual's free speech rights under the First Amendment. |
 |
(1925) |
Gitlow v. New York - Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), was a historically important case argued before the United States Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment—specifically the provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press—to the governments of the individual states. |
 |
(1932) |
Powell v. Alabama - Powell v. Alabama 287 U.S. 45 (1932) was a United States Supreme Court decision which determined that in a capital trial, the defendant must be given access to counsel upon his or her own request as part of due process. |
 |
(1944) |
Korematsu v. United States - In Korematsu v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the wartime internment of American citizens of Japanese descent was constitutional.
"As long as my record stands in federal court, any American citizen can be held in prison or concentration camps without trial or hearing.I would like to see the government admit they were wrong and do something about it, so this will never happen again to any American citizen of any race, creed, or color."
— Fred Korematsu (1983) |
 |
(1954) |
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka - Brown v. Board of Education (1954), now acknowledged as one of the greatest Supreme Court decisions of the 20th century, unanimously held that the racial segregation of children in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. |
 |
(1958) |
NAACP v. Alabama - National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), was an important civil rights case brought before the United States Supreme Court. Alabama sought to prevent the NAACP from conducting further business in the state. After the circuit court issued a restraining order, the state issued a subpoena for various records, including the NAACP's membership lists. The Supreme Court ruled that Alabama's demand for the lists had violated the right of due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. |
 |
(1961) |
Mapp v. Ohio - Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures", may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts. |
 |
(1963) |
Abington School District v. Schempp - Abington Township School District v. Schempp (consolidated with Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963),[1] was a United States Supreme Court case argued on February 27–28, 1963 and decided on June 17, 1963. In the case, the Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared school sponsored Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. |
 |
(1963) |
Gideon v. Wainwright - In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution requires the states to provide defense attorneys to criminal defendants charged with serious offenses who cannot afford lawyers themselves. The case began with the 1961 arrest of Clarence Earl Gideon. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering into a Panama City, Florida, pool hall and stealing money from the hall's vending machines. |
 |
(1964) |
Wesberry v. Sanders - Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964) was a case involving congressional districts in the state of Georgia, brought before the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court issued a ruling on February 17, 1964 that districts have to be approximately equal in population. |
 |
(1965) |
Griswold v. Connecticut - Marital privacy (specifically, the use of contraceptives) was protected by this case.
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965),[1] was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7-2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy". |
 |
(1966) |
Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections - Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966), was a case in which the U.S. Supreme Court found that Virginia's poll tax was unconstitutional under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The Twenty-fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibited poll taxes in federal elections; the Supreme Court extended this prohibition to state elections. |
 |
(1966) |
Miranda v. Arizona - In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. The case began with the 1963 arrest of Phoenix resident Ernesto Miranda, who was charged with rape, kidnapping, and robbery. Miranda was not informed of his rights prior to the police interrogation. |
 |
(1967) |
In Re Gault - In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967), was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision which established that under the Fourteenth Amendment, juveniles accused of crimes in a delinquency proceeding must be accorded many of the same due process rights as adults such as the right to timely notification of charges, the right to confront witnesses, the right against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel. |
 |
(1969) |
Tinker v. Des Moines - Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school's disciplinary actions violate students' First Amendment rights. |
 |
(1973) |
Roe v. Wade - Roe v. Wade (1973) ruled unconstitutional a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother. The Court ruled that the states were forbidden from outlawing or regulating any aspect of abortion performed during the first trimester of pregnancy, could only enact abortion regulations reasonably related to maternal health in the second and third trimesters, and could enact abortion laws protecting the life of the fetus only in the third trimester. |
 |
(1974) |
United States v. Nixon - United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. It was a unanimous 8-0 ruling involving President Richard Nixon and was important to the late stages of the Watergate scandal. It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president. |
 |
(1983) |
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier - ". . . educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control
over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical
concerns." — Justice White, speaking for the majority |
 |
(1978) |
Regents of the University of California at Davis v. Bakke - In Regents of University of California v. Bakke (1978), the Supreme Court ruled that a university's use of racial "quotas" in its admissions process was unconstitutional, but a school's use of "affirmative action" to accept more minority applicants was constitutional in some circumstances. |
 |
(1985) |
New Jersey v. T.L.O. - ". . . The warrant requirement, in particular, is unsuited to the school environment
. . . . [T]he legality of a search of a student should depend simply on the reasonableness, under all the circumstances, of the search . . . Such a search
will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the
age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction. " — Justice Byron White, speaking for the majority |
 |
(1989) |
Texas v. Johnson - ". . . If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that
the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society
finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable. . . ." — Justice William Brennan, speaking for the majority |
