court cases

Wisconsin v. Yoder

Wisconsin law required all children to attend public school until age 16 but 3 parents said high school attendance contradicted their religious beliefs. The court ruled in favor of the parents because free exercise of religion outweighed states interest in school attendance.

Lukumi Babalu Aye v. Hialeah

The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye practiced animal sacrifice. The ordinances prohibited possession of animals for sacrifice or slaughter, with specific exemptions for state-licensed activities. Court ruled in favor of the church because the ordinances only applied exclusively to the church and suppressed more religious conduct than necessary

Hobby Lobby v. Burwell

The Affordable Care Act required employers to provide health insurance covering contraceptives. The Green family argued this violated their faith. The Court ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby, stating that "closely held" for-profit corporations are protected by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Employment Division v. Smith or Oregon v. Smith

The Supreme Court ruled that two Native Americans could be denied unemployment benefits after being fired for using peyote in a religious ceremony. The Court held that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause does not excuse individuals from complying with "neutral" laws that apply to everyone, regardless of their religious beliefs. This decision fundamentally changed the law by making it much harder to win religious exemptions from general government regulations.

Engel v. Vitale

New York's program of daily classroom prayers was found unconstitutional. The Court ruled that by providing the prayer, New York officially backed a particular belief system, which violated the Establishment Clause, even if the prayer was voluntary and non-denominational.

Lemon v. Kurtzman

The Supreme Court struck down state laws that provided taxpayer funding for the salaries of teachers at religious schools. The Court addressed the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, ruling that the government must maintain a "wall of separation" between church and state. This case fundamentally changed the law by creating the "Lemon Test," a three-part standard requiring that any government action must have a secular purpose, not primarily advance or inhibit religion, and avoid "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Regents of University of Wisconsin v. Southworth

University of Wisconsin requires students to pay an activity fee that is used to fund campus services and extracurricular activities. Southworth sued the University, arguing that mandatory student fees used to fund various political and religious student organizations violated their First Amendment rights by forcing them to support speech they disagreed with. The Court ruled that universities can charge mandatory fees to fund student groups. The Court held that such funding is constitutional as long as the university allocates the funds in a viewpoint-neutral manner, meaning they cannot discriminate based on the group's specific ideology or religious mission.

Schenck v. US

Schenck distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the 13th amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. He was charged with violating the Espionage Act (criminalized conveying information with intent to interfere with the U.S. armed forces' success or to promote enemy success). The court ruled against Schenck. Justice Holmes established the "Clear and Present Danger" test, famously comparing Schenck’s actions to "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic." This set the precedent that speech can be limited if it provokes an immediate danger to the country.

Tinker v. Des Moines

Students wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War and were suspended. The Court ruled in favor of the students. The Court famously stated that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." It established that school officials must prove that student speech would "materially and substantially interfere" with the operation of the school to suppress it.

Mahanoy v. B.L.

A cheerleader posted a vulgar snapchat off campus after failing to make it on the varsity team and the school suspended her from cheerleading. The Court ruled in favor of the student. While schools can regulate some off-campus speech (like bullying or threats), the Court held that B.L.'s speech was protected because it happened off-campus, on a personal device, and did not cause a substantial disruption to the school environment.

Morse v. Fredrick

At a school-sanctioned event, a student unfurled a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." The principal (Morse) confiscated it and suspended him. The Court ruled in favor of the principle. The Court held that schools may restrict student speech that can reasonably be viewed as promoting illegal drug use, even if the speech does not cause a substantial disruption.

Bethel v. Fraser

Matthew Fraser gave a speech at a school assembly using graphic sexual metaphors to nominate a classmate for office and got suspended. The court ruled in favor of the school. The Court distinguished this from Tinker, ruling that schools have a responsibility to protect students from lewd, vulgar, or offensive language that is inconsistent with the "fundamental values of public school education."

Texas v. Johnson

Johnson burned an american flag as a means of protest. Sentenced to one year of jail for outlawing flag descration. Court favored johnson and he was protected by first amendment. The case established that the government cannot compel respect for a symbol by punishing actions that protest it

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Chaplinsky, a Jehovah’s Witness, called a city marshal a "God-damned racketeer" and a "damned Fascist" in a public place. The Court ruled against Chaplinsky. This case created the "Fighting Words" doctrine, stating that certain words—those that by their very utterance inflict injury or incite an immediate breach of the peace—are not protected by the First Amendment.

Citizens United v. FEC

A non-profit corporation (Citizens United) wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton, but was blocked by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which restricted corporate funding of "electioneering communications.". The Court ruled that government cannot limit corporate or union spending on political broadcast. The Court held that corporations have free speech rights and that funding of "independent expenditures" (not direct contributions to candidates) is a form of protected political speech

Brandenberg vs Ohio

A KKK leader was convicted under an Ohio law for advocating "revengeance" against the government during a rally. The Court ruled in favor of Brandenberg. This replaced the "Clear and Present Danger" test with the "Imminent Lawless Action" test. Speech can only be prohibited if it is (1) directed at inciting imminent lawless action and (2) is likely to produce such action.

NY Times v Sullivan

An L.B. Sullivan (an Alabama official) sued the NY Times for libel regarding an ad that contained minor factual inaccuracies about police conduct during civil rights protests. The Court ruled in favor of NY Times. To protect "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open" debate, the Court ruled that public officials must prove "actual malice"—that the publisher knew the statement was false or acted with reckless disregard for the truth—to win a libel suit.

Cox vs. New Hampshire

A group of Jehovah’s Witnesses held a parade without a permit, violating a state law requiring a license for processions on public streets. The Court ruled in favor of the state. This established the "Time, Place, and Manner" doctrine. Governments can require permits and impose restrictions on assembly as long as the rules are content-neutral, serve a significant government interest (like traffic safety), and leave open alternative channels for communication

DeJong vs Oregon

Dirk De Jonge was arrested for speaking at a peaceful meeting organized by the Communist Party under a "criminal syndicalism" law. The Court ruled in favor of DeJong. This was a landmark case that incorporated the right of assembly to the states via the 14th Amendment. The Court held that the right to peaceably assemble for lawful discussion cannot be denied just because the organization sponsoring the meeting advocates for unpopular or even revolutionary change

Gideon v Wainwright

Clarence Gideon was denied a court-appointed lawyer because Florida law only provided counsel in capital (death penalty) cases. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is a fundamental right that applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision changed the legal system by requiring states to provide a public defender to any defendant who cannot afford an attorney, ensuring a fairer trial for all.

Mapp v. Ohio

Police entered Dollree Mapp’s home without a valid search warrant and found obscene materials, leading to her conviction. The Court ruled in favor of Mapp. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. This decision established the Exclusionary Rule for all states, meaning evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court.

Nix v. Williams

Williams was arrested and made statements to the police (w/o an attorney present) which helped lead the searchers to find the body. His Miranda rights were only read to him after his arrest. During this time, the police were already searching the area the body was in. The Court ruled against Williams. The Court created the "Inevitable Discovery" exception, allowing the evidence to be used because a legal search party would have found the body anyway. This narrowed the Exclusionary Rule by permitting evidence if the prosecution proves it would have eventually been found through lawful means.

Roe v. Wade

A Texas woman,Roe, challenged state laws that made abortion illegal except to save the mother's life. The Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment creates a "right to privacy" that is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision to have an abortion. This legalized abortion nationwide and established a trimester framework to balance the rights of the mother against the interests of the state.

Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Miranda confessed to a crime after a two-hour interrogation without being told he had the right to an attorney or to remain silent. The Court ruled in favor of Miranda. The Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning. This created the famous "Miranda Warning" that is now standard procedure for every arrest in America

Dobbs v Jackson

Mississippi passed a law banning most abortions after 15 weeks, directly challenging previous Supreme Court precedents. The Court ruled that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion, officially overturning Roe v. Wade. This decision returned the authority to regulate or prohibit abortion entirely to individual state governments

Harmelin v. Michigan

Ronald Harmelin was sentenced to life in prison without parole for possessing a large quantity of cocaine under a mandatory state law. He argued this violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." The Court upheld the sentence, ruling that the Eighth Amendment does not require sentences to be proportionate to the crime, only that they are not "cruel.

Plessey vs. Ferguson

Homer Plessy was arrested for sitting in a "whites only" railroad car to challenge Louisiana’s segregation laws. The Court ruled against him, stating that segregated facilities did not violate the Equal Protection Clause as long as they were equal in quality. This established the "separate but equal" doctrine, which provided the legal justification for Jim Crow laws for decades.

Mendez vs. Westminster

Mexican-American families in California sued after their children were forced into segregated "Mexican schools." The Ninth Circuit Court ruled that segregating students based on national origin violated the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark case was the first to successfully challenge the "separate but equal" logic and served as the blueprint for the eventual desegregation of all U.S. schools

Brown vs. Board

Black students were denied admission to white public schools under laws permitting racial segregation. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and violate the Equal Protection Clause. This landmark decision overturned Plessy and ignited the modern Civil Rights Movement by ordering the desegregation of public schools

Shaw vs. Reno

North Carolina created a highly irregular, "snake-like" district to ensure the election of a second Black representative. The Court ruled that while race can be considered, districts drawn in a bizarre shape solely to separate voters by race violate the Equal Protection Clause. This established that "racial gerrymandering" must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny.

Baker v. Carr

Tennessee had failed to redraw its legislative districts for decades, leaving urban voters with significantly less representation than rural voters. The Court ruled that redistricting is not a "political question" and can be decided by federal courts. This led to the "one person, one vote" standard, requiring districts to be roughly equal in population.

Grutter vs. Bollinger

A white student challenged the University of Michigan Law School’s use of race as a "plus factor" in admissions. The Court upheld the policy, ruling that the school had a compelling interest in the educational benefits of a diverse student body. This reaffirmed the Bakke decision, allowing for holistic affirmative action programs that do not use quotas.

UC Regents vs. Bakke

A white applicant was rejected from medical school because seats were specifically reserved for minority students. The Court ruled that while "race-conscious" admissions are legal to promote diversity, rigid racial quotas are unconstitutional. This allowed colleges to continue affirmative action programs as long as race was only one of many factors considered. Race can be A factor not THE factor.

Korematsu vs. US

During WWII, the U.S. government ordered Japanese Americans into internment camps regardless of their citizenship. The Court ruled that the exclusion order was constitutional, prioritizing national security over individual rights during a time of "emergency and peril." Although never formally overturned by a later case, the decision is now widely regarded as one of the Court’s greatest failures.

Reed vs. Reed

An Idaho law mandated that "males must be preferred to females" when choosing who would administer a deceased person's estate. The Court unanimously ruled that this arbitrary preference based on sex violated the Equal Protection Clause. This was the first time the Supreme Court ever used the Fourteenth Amendment to strike down a law that discriminated against women.

Faragher vs. Boca Raton

A female lifeguard sued the City of Boca Raton, alleging that her supervisors created a "sexually hostile atmosphere." The Court ruled that employers are legally responsible for the harassment committed by their supervisors. However, the ruling also noted that employers can defend themselves if they have clear anti-harassment policies that the employee failed to use.

Bowers vs. Hardwick

A gay man was charged with violating a Georgia law that criminalized sodomy after a police officer saw him in his own bedroom. The Court ruled that there was no constitutional right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This decision allowed states to continue criminalizing private, consensual same-sex activity for nearly twenty more years.

Lawrence vs. Texas

Police entered a private home and arrested two men for engaging in a consensual sexual act under a Texas "Homosexual Conduct" law. The Court overturned Bowers, ruling that the Due Process Clause protects the right of adults to engage in private, consensual intimacy. This decision effectively decriminalized same-sex relationships across the United States.

Windsor v. US-DOMA

Edith Windsor was forced to pay massive estate taxes after her wife died because the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) did not recognize their marriage. The Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional because it denied same-sex couples the "equal liberty" protected by the Fifth Amendment. This forced the federal government to recognize same-sex marriages performed in states where it was legal.

Obergefell v. Hodges

Same-sex couples sued several states to challenge bans on same-sex marriage and the refusal to recognize out-of-state licenses. The Court ruled that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide and required all states to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples

Masterpiece vs Colorado

A Christian baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The Court ruled in favor of the baker, but only because the state commission had shown open hostility toward his religion during the legal process. The ruling avoided the larger question of whether a business can broadly refuse service based on religious beliefs.

McDonald v. Chicago

Tthe Supreme Court struck down a citywide handgun ban after a resident argued he needed a firearm for self-defense. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms is a fundamental right that applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. This changed the law by "incorporating" the Second Amendment, preventing states from enacting total bans on handguns and ensuring the right to self-defense is protected nationwide.

US v. Lopez

a high school student was charged with a federal crime for bringing a concealed handgun to school under the Gun-Free School Zones Act. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had exceeded its authority under the Commerce Clause, as carrying a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that affects interstate commerce. This landmark decision changed things by limiting federal power for the first time in decades, reasserting that states—not the national government—have the primary authority to regulate local matters like education and safety.