Landmark decisions in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- Further information: Landmark decision
Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the United States Supreme Court. United States Courts of Appeal may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. 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.
Contents |
[edit] Landmark decisions in U.S. Civil Rights
[edit] Discrimination based on race
- Dred Scott v. Sandford, , Blacks, whether free or slaves, cannot be U.S. citizens. Consequently, they cannot sue in federal courts. Also, the federal government cannot forbid slavery in the western territories before they access statehood. The decision was voided by the subsequent Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Plessy v. Ferguson, , Segregated facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional under the doctrine of separate but equal, which held for close to 60 years.
- Korematsu v. United States, , American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights; first application of the strict scrutiny test.
- Brown v. Board of Education, , , , , segregated schools in the several states are unconstitutional in violation of the 14th Amendment, overturning Plessy.
- Bolling v. Sharpe, , The companion case to Brown, which held that segregated schools in the District of Columbia violated the 5th Amendment.
- Loving v. Virginia, , Laws that prohibit marriage between races (anti-miscegenation statutes) are unconstitutional.
- Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., , The federal government may prohibit discrimination in housing by private parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
- Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1972), Case that brought an end to the trustee system and flagrant inmate abuse at Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi. It was the first case of a body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit holding that a variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners was considered cruel and unusual punishment and abolished racial segregation in prison.
- Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, Race based set-asides in educational opportunities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The decision leaves the door open to some race usage in admission decisions. See Grutter v. Bollinger.
- Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, Race based discrimination, including discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
- Grutter v. Bollinger, A narrowly tailored use of race in student admission decisions may be permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as a diverse student body is beneficial for all students (as hinted in Regents v. Bakke).
[edit] Discrimination based on sex
- Frontiero v. Richardson, Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A statute giving benefits to the spouses of male, but not female members of the uniformed services (on the assumption that only the former were dependent) is unconstitutional.
- Craig v. Boren, Setting different minimum ages according to sex (female 18, male 21) to be allowed to buy beer is unconstitutional sex-based discrimination, contrary to the equal protection clause.
- United States v. Virginia, , found that sex-based "separate but equal" military training facilities violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
[edit] Discrimination based on sexual orientation
- Bowers v. Hardwick, a state may declare the private practice in one's bedroom of certain sex acts to be a crime; this statute was later struck down by the Georgia State Supreme Court as a violation of the Georgia State Constitution in the case of Powell v. Georgia (actually Powell v. State). Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.
- Romer v. Evans, A law cannot prohibit anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals (decision founded on the Equal Protection Clause).
- Lawrence v. Texas, Texas law that prohibits gays from engaging in consensual sodomy in private is prohibited by Fourteenth Amendment due process clause as lacking a rational basis.
[edit] Birth control and abortion
- Griswold v. Connecticut, Married people are entitled to use contraception and making it a crime to sell to them same is unconstitutional. (A later case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, extended this to unmarried adults.)
- Roe v. Wade, Struck down abortion laws restricting abortion prior to viability as unconstitutional, prohibiting most restrictions in the first trimester and permitting only health-related restrictions in the second.
- Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, Placed tighter restrictions on abortion by upholding parts of Pennsylvania's abortion laws. Also reaffirmed the decisions of Roe v. Wade but permitted additional restrictions in the first trimester.
- Gonzales v. Carhart Held that that Congress can prohibit a specific abortion procedure (Intact dilation and extraction--also known as partial-birth abortion) on grounds that it "implicates additional ethical and moral concerns that justify a special prohibition."
[edit] End of life
- Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, Family having requested the termination of life-sustaining treatments of their vegetative relative, the state may constitutionally oppose this request, for lack of evidence of a clear earlier wish by said relative.
- Washington v. Glucksberg, Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide is constitutional.
- Vacco v. Quill, New York's prohibition on assisting suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
- Gonzales v. Oregon, The Controlled Substances Act does not prohibit physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill under state (Oregon) law.
[edit] Restrictions on involuntary commitment
- O'Connor v. Donaldson, States could not involuntarily commit citizens to a psychiatric institution if they were not a danger to themselves or others and were capable of living by themselves, or with the aid of responsible family or friends.
[edit] Power of Congress to enforce civil rights
- Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, , Interstate commerce, and hence the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 ( prohibiting discrimination against blacks.), applies to places of public accommodation patronized by interstate travellers
- Katzenbach v. McClung, , The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, section 8) extends to a restaurant not patronized by interstate travellers, but which serves food that has moved in interstate commerce. This ruling makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to virtually all businesses.
- City of Boerne v. Flores, . The enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment does not permit Congress to substantially increase the scope of the rights determined by the Judiciary. (here, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), but can only enact legislation that remedies or prevents actual violations of existing Court-determined rights.
[edit] Landmark decisions in U.S. criminal law
[edit] Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure
- Mapp v. Ohio, Evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the United States Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court.
- Katz v. United States, Evidence obtained by wiretapping a public phonebooth without a warrant is not admissible in court, just as if a private phone line had been eavesdropped.
- Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, Schools may implement random drug testing.
- Georgia v. Randolph, Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects.
[edit] Right to an attorney
- Gideon v. Wainwright, , anyone charged with a serious criminal offense has the right to an attorney and the state must provide one if they are unable to afford legal counsel.
- Escobedo v. Illinois, , a person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney.
- Miranda v. Arizona (and Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart) , police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer and to have one appointed if he is an indigent. The interrogation must stop if the suspect states he wishes to remain silent.
[edit] Right to competency evaluation
- Dusky v. United States, , affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.
- Ford v. Wainwright, , affirming a defendant's right to have a competency evaluation before being executed.
[edit] Other competency rights
- Godinez v. Moran, , a defendant competent to stand trial is automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel
[edit] Right to refuse treatment
- Rogers v. Okin, 478 F.Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979) The competency of committed patients is assumed until a patient is adjudicated incompetent.
[edit] Capital punishment
- Furman v. Georgia, , the method then in effect for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional.
- Jurek v. Texas , a "three-pronged" test for determining if the death penalty should be imposed is constitutional.
- Woodson v. North Carolina, North Carolina's mandatory death sentence statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.
- Gregg v. Georgia, Carefully drafted death penalty statutes may be constitutional. This ruling made executions possible again after Furman v. Georgia (see above) had stopped them.
- Proffitt v. Florida, Requirement of comparison of mitigating to aggravating factors to be used to impose death sentence is constitutional.
- Roberts v. Louisiana, , Mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional.
- Ford v. Wainwright , upheld the common law rule that the insane cannot be executed.
- Roper v. Simmons, A sentence of death may not be imposed on juveniles.
[edit] Landmark decisions in U.S. Federalism
- Marbury v. Madison , a case that established the Supreme Court's power to strike down acts of United States Congress that were in conflict with the Constitution (see judicial review).
- Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 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 various states.
- McCulloch v. Maryland, . The court stated the doctrine of implied powers, from the necessary and proper clause at Article I, section 8. To fulfill its goal, the federal government may use any means the constitution does not forbid (as opposed to only what the constitution explicitly allow or only what can be proved to be necessary). State government may in no way hinder the legitimate action of the federal government (here, Maryland cannot levy a tax on the Bank of the United States). The court has varied in time on the extents of the implied powers with a markedly narrower reading approximately from the 1840s to the 1930s.
- Ableman v. Booth, , state courts cannot issue rulings that contradict the decisions of federal courts.
- Missouri v. Holland, , treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment.
- United States v. Nixon, The President of the United States is not above the law.
- South Dakota v. Dole, Withholding of Federal highway funds to force state to raise drinking age to 21 is permissible.
- U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, State law cannot set term limits on members of Congress.
- United States v. Lopez, The Commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to prohibit mere possession of a gun near a school, because gun possession by itself is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce even indirectly.
- Clinton v. Jones, The President of the United States has no particular immunity, which could require civil law litigation against the President for a dispute unrelated to the office of President (e.g. having occurred before (s) he took office), to be stayed until the end of the President's term. Such delay would deprive plaintiffs, (and arguably the defendant), of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
- Printz v. United States, Brady Act requiring state official to execute a federal law (in doing background checks for gun ownership) is unconstitutional.
[edit] Landmark decisions in First Amendment Rights
[edit] Freedom of Speech and of the Press
- Schenck v. United States, Established the idea that "clear and present danger" in certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Schenck's attempts to obstruct recruitment processes were perceived as a "clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent".
- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, Established the “fighting words doctrine” that some words are not protected under the First Amendment because they are tantamount to violent actions.
- Roth v. United States (and Alberts v. California), Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment.
- New York Times v. Sullivan (and Abernathy v. Sullivan), Public officials, to prove they were libelled, must show not only that a statement is false,but also that it has been published with malicious intent.
- Brandenburg v. Ohio, Mere advocacy of the use of force, or of violation of law (in this case, by a Ku Klux Klan leader) is protected by the 1st Amendment free speech clause. Only inciting others to take direct and immediate unlawful action would be without constitutional protection.
- Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, Wearing armbands is a legitimate form of protest under the First Amendment, even on public school grounds.
- Cohen v. California, One should not be convicted for wearing a jacket in a courtroom emblazoned with the phrase "Fuck the Draft" (in the Vietnam War context), as this is communication, protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. The word "fuck" itself, clearly not directed at the hearer, is not in this particular instance a fighting word, and so not without constitutional protection.
- New York Times v. United States, Government's desire to keep so-called "Pentagon Papers" classified is insufficient to overcome 1st Amendment hurdle.
- Miller v. California, To be obscene, a work must fail several tests to determine its value to society, essentially having "no redeeming social value" to be so declared.
- Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, 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, A public figure shown in a parody must show actual malice to claim he is libelled.
- Texas v. Johnson, Law prohibiting burning of the American flag is unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment.
- Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
- Reno v. ACLU, The Communications Decency Act, regulating certain content on the Internet, is so overbroad as to be an unconstitutional restraint on the 1st Amendment.
- Erie v. Pap's A. M., Upholding the 1991 ruling that Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
[edit] Freedom of Religion
- Everson v. Board of Education, Government reimbursing transportation costs to and from Catholic schools does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment; however, a wall of separation must be erected between church and state.
- Engel v. Vitale, Government-directed prayer in public schools, even if it is denominationally neutral and non-mandatory, violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
- Abington School District v. Schempp (and Murray v. Curlett), The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment forbids state mandated reading of the Bible, or recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools.
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, 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, Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons.
- Lee v. Weisman, Public schools inviting clergy to read prayer at an official ceremony (here a graduation ceremony) violates First Amendment non-establishment clause.
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, Government must show a compelling interest to draw a statute targeting a religion's ritual (as opposed to a statute 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 First Amendment free exercise clause.
- Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, University can not fund secular groups from student dues, then exclude religious ones that also qualify under the same funding scheme.
- Agostini v. Felton, A government program sending government employees to parochial schools (and also, to other private schools) specifically to provide remedial education to disadvantaged children (and not to all children) does not violate the First Amendment non establishment clause.
- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005) Teaching intelligent design in public school biology classes violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because intelligent design is not science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents."
[edit] Right to Assemble and Petition the Government
- Hurley v. Irish American Gay Group of Boston, private parade organizers have a right to exclude groups from participating with whose message they disagree.
- Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, Private organizations' First Amendment right of expressive association allows them to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations.
[edit] Landmark Decisions in Other Areas of U.S. Law
- Fletcher v. Peck, , first time the Court struck down a State law as unconstitutional. A State legislature (in this case, Georgia) can repeal a previous, corruptly made law (in this case, a land grant), but not void valid contracts made under this law.
- Gibbons v. Ogden, The power to regulate interstate navigation is granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
- The Paquete Habana, , federal courts could look to customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law.
- Lochner v. New York, , asserted that the "right to free contract" or "liberty of contract" is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Baker v. Carr, The reapportionment of state legislative districts is not a political question, and is justiciable by the federal courts.
- Goldberg v. Kelly, , federal entitlement programs such as welfare conferred property rights on recipients, and their termination required procedural due process.
- San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, use of property tax as means to finance public education is constitutional.
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., , government agencies' interpretation of its own mandate from Congress is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
- Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., , making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.
- Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, , originality, not sweat of the brow, is the touchstone of copyright protection.
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, expert evidence must be generally accepted in the scientific community (Daubert standard).
- Breard v. Greene, , rejected jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in a capital punishment case dealing with a citizen of Paraguay.
- Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S. ___ (2008), foreign terrorism suspects have constitutional rights to challenge their detention at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in United States courts.
