Supreme Court Cases Years, Holding, and Significance

Brown v. Board I Year

1954

Brown v Board I Holding

Separating children in public schools based on race was unconstitutional. Overruled the "separate but equal" principle given in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). Unanimous.

Brown v Board I significance

Declared state-sanctioned segregation in public schools unconstitutional. Major victory for the civil rights movement. Catalyst for further civil rights movements.

Brown v. Board II Year

1955

Brown v. Board II Holding

Implementation of problems identified in Brown I required varied local solutions. Responsibility falls on local school authorities and courts which originally heard school segregation cases. Act promptly and move "with all deliberate speed." Unanimous

Brown v. Board II Significance

Mandated implementation and gave guidelines for how to do it. Vague language enabled states to delay and resist integration. Demonstrates self-executing paradox.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Year

1977

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Holding

No and yes (partial). Four justices held that any racial quota system supported by government violates Civil Rights Act of 1964. Powell argued that rigid use of racial quotes violate Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Remaining four believe race in admissions is constitutionally permissible. Powell joined. OVERALL: Bakke admitted and racial quotas in university admissions are unconstitutional, but race CAN be considered as one factor among many. 8-1 decision, White dissenting.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke Significance

One of the earliest cases regarding RCC and college admissions. Set precedent for future affirmative action policies in higher education. Hard quotas cannot be used, but race can act as a "plus" factor among many others.

Grutter v Bollinger Year

2003

Grutter v Bollinger Holding

The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions when it attempts to achieve educational benefits from a racially diverse student body. Race is one factor among many that determine admissions. Upheld University of Michigan LAW SCHOOL's affirmative action policy. Chief Justice Rehnquist dissented, joined by Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas.

Grutter v Bollinger Significance

Upheld the ideas given in Bakke (race can be considered as long as it is one factor among many). Represents how affirmative action, RCC, and college admissions have been intertwined in an ongoing discussion for decades.

Hopwood v. Texas Year

1996

Hopwood v. Texas Holding

NOT A US SUPREME COURT CASE. Reversed and remanded by US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. District concluded that the Law School can continue to use race in admissions. Appeals court reversed and remanded. School has no compelling justification under the Fourteenth Amendment or the Supreme Court precedent (Bakke, Gratz, Grutter), as it did not prove the goal of correcting perceived racial imbalance of the student body.

Hopwood v. Texas Significance

Temporarily eliminated race-conscious admissions and scholarship programs. Led to alternative diversity initiatives (Top 10% Plan). Overturned by Grutter.

Powell v. Alabama Year

1932

Powell v. Alabama Holding

Defendants in capital cases must be given access to counsel under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. Scottsboro Boys (nine Black youths accused of rape) had been denied effective legal assistance. Chief Justice Butler dissented, joined by Justice McReynolds.

Powell v. Alabama Significance

First time the Court recognized that the right to counsel is essential to a fair trial, especially where defendants are illiterate, indigent, or face capital punishment. Laid groundwork for later decisions that would expand the right to counsel for all criminal defendants.

McClesky v. Kemp Year

1987

McClesky v. Kemp Holding

Statistical evidence of racial disparities in the death penalty did not prove an equal-protection violation for the petitioner. He failed to show purposeful discrimination his specific case. Justice Brennan dissented (joined by Marshall, in part Blackmun, Stevens), Blackmun (joined by Marshall, Stevens), and Stevens (joined by Blackmun), and Stevens (joined by Blackmun).

McClesky v. Kemp Significance

Limited the ability to challenge systemic racial bias in capital sentencing with statistical evidence alone. Criticized for limiting equal protection access for defendants. Stands today.

Milliken v. Bradley Year

Federal court could not impose a multi-district (city + suburban) desegregation remedy (like cross-district busing) unless there was evidence that the outlying districts engaged in segregation or there was interdistrict violation. Remedies were limited to the district in which the constitutional violation occurred. Justice White (joined by Douglas, Brennan, Marshall) and Marshall (joined by Douglas, Brennan, White) dissented.

Milliken v. Bradley Significance

Narrowed desegregation framework established under Brown v. Board of Education. Restricted remedies for segregation even if it existed in metro areas. Has had long term effects on school integration policies and racial segregation in education.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Year

2023

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Holding

Race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard + UNC violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Ended race-based affirmative action in undergrad admissions nationwide. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissented.

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard Significance

Overturned decades of precedent (Grutter, Gratz, Bakke) that allowed some consideration of race in admissions. Vast changes in admission policies at US colleges and universities.

Mapp v. Ohio Year

1961

Mapp v. Ohio Holding

Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Exclusionary rule must be applied to states. Justices Harlan, Frankfurter, and Whittaker dissented.

Mapp v. Ohio Significance

Nationalized the exclusionary rule and brought state law enforcement under same constitutional standard as federal law.

Miranda v. Arizona Year

1966

Miranda v. Arizona Holding

Statements made by suspects in police custody may not be used in prosecution unless the suspect has been informed of their rights AND has waived those rights knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently. Justice Harlan (joined by Stewart and White) and Justice Clark (partially) dissented. Reaffirmed in Dickerson.

Miranda v. Arizona Significance

Established "Miranda rights" and "Mirandizing" a person. Changed a lot of law enforcement interrogation practices to protect Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

Gideon v. Wainwright Year

Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right and states are required to provide counsel for indigent defendants in felony cases. Unanimous opinion.

Gideon v. Wainwright Significance

Extended the right to counsel to state courts. Overruled Betts v. Brady (1942).

Batson v. Kentucky Year

1986

Batson v. Kentucky Holding

Prosecutor's use of peremptory jury challenges to dismiss jurors based solely on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Burger (joined by Rehnquist) and Justice Rehnquist (joined by Burger) dissented. "Cross section of the community/peers."

Batson v. Kentucky Significance

Established Batson challenge (three-step process) for reviewing such exclusions. Strengthened fair-trial rights by addressing racial discrimination in jury selection. Protects impartial jury service.

Gregg v. Georgia Year

1976

Gregg v. Georgia Holding

Death penalty does not always constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as long as sentencing process includes:

1) Guided discretion

2) Bifurcated trials

3) Appellate review

Justices Brennan and Marshall dissented (death penalty always violates the Eighth Amendment).

Gregg v. Georgia Significance

Reinstated the death penalty in the US after Furman. Established constitutional procedures for capital punishment. Some states have abolished death penalty.

Payne v. Tennessee Year

1991

Payne v. Tennessee Holding

Victim impact statements are admissible during the sentencing phase of capital trials. Eighth Amendment does not categorically bar such statements from juries. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Blackmun dissented.

Payne v. Tennessee Significance

Allowed juries to hear emotional impact of the victims and families. overturned booth and gathers

Atkins v. Virginia Year

2002

Atkins v. Virginia Holding

Executing individuals with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Scalia, Thomas) dissented.

Atkins v. Virginia Significance

Limited the scope of the death penalty by recognixing that offenders with diminished intellectual capacity are less culpable.

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Year

2025

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Holding

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1962 does not impose a higher evidentiary standard (background circumstances rule) on plaintiffs who are part of majority groups when bringing employment discrimination claims. Unanimous.

Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services Significance

Eliminated a heightened burden that some circuits required for majority group plaintiffs. Equalized standard for discrimination claims under Title VII.

Kristi Noem v. Perdomo Vasquez Year

2025

Kristi Noem v. Perdomo Vasquez Holding

Application for stay is granted. Justice Kavanaugh concurred, Justice Sotomayor filed dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Kagan, Jackson).

Kristi Noem v. Perdomo Vasquez Significance

Allows the Executive Branch to rely on four factors (apparent race/ethnicity, speaking in accented English or Spanish, presence where undocumented immigrants "are known to gather", working specific jobs) to conduct detentive stops in California.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP Year

2024

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP Holding

Reversed the lower court's finding of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering of South Carolina's congressional map. Held that plaintiffs had not shown race was the predominant factor over partisan considerations in drawing the districts. Justice Kagan (joined by Sotomayor, Jackson) dissented.

Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP Significance

Narrows scope for challenging redistricting on racial-gerrymandering grounds and raises evidentiary burden for plaintiffs claiming race-based vote dilution or mapping.

Wolf v. Colorado Year

1949

Wolf v. Colorado Holding

Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Exclusionary rule does not apply to the states. Justices Douglas, Murphy, and Rutledge dissented. Overruled by Mapp.

Wolf v. Colorado Significance

Disparity between federal and state criminal procedure protections. States could admit evidence obtained via unconstitutional search and seizure, federal could not.

Florida v. Bostick Year

1991

Florida v. Bostick Holding

Police may request consent to search a bus passenger's luggage if a reasonable person in the same situation would feel free to decline. This kind of encounter does not necessarily constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. Justices White, Stevens, O'Connor dissented.

Florida v. Bostick Significance

Narrowed what is considered a seizure in Fourth Amendment cases, especially in confined public-transportation settings. Expanded law enforcement's abilities to conduct consensual searches.

Dickerson v. United States Year

2000

Dickerson v. United States Holding

Miranda cannot be overruled or abolished by statutes or states. Justice Scalia (joined by Thomas) dissented.

Dickerson v. United States Significance

Cemented the constitutional rights of Miranda rights and prevented Congress/future courts from legislating away Miranda rights.

Roper v. Simmons Year

2005

Roper v. Simmons Holding

Executing individuals for crimes committed while underage 18 violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruela nd unusual punishments. Chief Justice Rehnquist (joined by Scalia, Thomas, Alito) dissented.

Roper v. Simmons Significance

Abolished the juvenile death penalty nationwide. Continued discussion on youth culpability.

Griswold v. Connecticut year

1965

Griswold v. Connecticut (holding)

The Connecticut statutes violated the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution. The constitution has certain provisions which guarantee married couples a right to privacy.

precedent: Pierce v. Society of Sisters and Meyer v. Nebraska

Griswold v. Connecticut (significance)

established zones of privacy and paved the way for future privacy cases including Roe v. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges.

Roe v. Wade (year)

1973

Roe v. Wade (holding)

The Texas statutes were unconstitutional because they are an invasion of personal privacy protected under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. However, the right to an abortion is not unqualified and must be considered against pertinent state interests in the regulation.

Roe v. Wade (significance)

 expanded the constitutional rights to privacy and created the trimester framework for State abortion regulations.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (year)

1989

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (holding)

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require states to allocate any resources toward preforming abortions.

the Missouri statute did not violate unconstitutionally violate Roe because the key elements of the trimester framework are not found in the Constitutions text and the framework has proven to be too rigid and unworkable

dissent: Justices Blackmun and Stevens concurred in part and dissented in part, finding a conflict with Roe and Griswold, respectively.

Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (significance)

Webster did not overturn Roe v. Wade but narrowed its scope, allowing more state regulation of abortions. The case demonstrates the tension between the conservative justices and the principle of stare decisis. It marked a shift toward greater state power to restrict abortions and laid the groundwork for later cases such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992).

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (year)

1992

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (holding)

The state has a compelling interest in protecting the life of an unborn child; thus, it may ban an abortion of a viable fetus except when the health of the mother is at risk.

Justices White, Scalia, and Thomas concurred and dissented in part, finding that all of the provisions should have been upheld, and Roe should have been overturned

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (significance)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey reaffirmed abortion as a constitutional right but gave the states more power to regulate it. Additionally, the “undue burden” test (rather than strict scrutiny) became standard for abortion cases until Roe and Casey were overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022).

Romer v Evans (year)

1996

Romer v Evans

Facts: The Amendment to the Colorado Constitution repeals protections afforded to persons discriminated against by reason of their sexual orientation.

Holding: The law cannot survive strict scrutiny and is unconstitutional (equal protection clause) because it targets a suspect class and burdens a fundamental right; furthermore, the law has no relationship with any legitimate governmental interest.

Romer v Evans (significance)

Romer v. Evans protected the rights of gay and lesbian individuals against discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause. It established that laws motivated by mere prejudice toward a group cannot stand under constitutional scrutiny and was important precedent in later cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (year)

1990

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (holding)

facts: Appellant was left in vegetative state after car accident

holding: ). Missouri does not violate the Federal Constitution by requiring clear and convincing evidence of an incompetent’s wishes to withdraw life-support. The Due Process Clause provides individual liberty which must be balanced with the states’ interest in protecting the life of the patient.

Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (significance)

This was the first case to address the “right to die”, reaffirming that competent individuals have the right to refuse medical treatment but allowed states to set strict evidentiary standards for incapacitated patients and their surrogates.

Lawrence v. Texas (year)

2003

Lawrence v. Texas (holding)

facts: 2 men arrested after being caught engaging in sexual intercourse by two police officers responding to a reported weapons disturbance

holding: In Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), the Court held individuals have a right to privacy in matters that so fundamentally affect a person as the decision to have a child. Further, Roe v. Wade (1973), recognized the right of a woman to make certain decisions that affect her own destiny. In Romer v. Evans (1996), the Court named homosexuals, lesbians, and bisexuals a protected class under state anti-discrimination laws. Therefore, the lack of legitimate government concern in this regulation makes it unconstitutional.

Lawrence v. Texas (Significance)

Bowers v. Harwick is overruled and Justice Stevens’ dissent in the decision should have been controlling and does control in this case.

Everson v. Board of Education (year)

1947

Everson v. Board of Education (holding)

Facts: A New Jersey statute permitted district boards of education to reimburse parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of their children to and from the private schools that they attend.

holding: The Establishment Clause requires governments to avoid excessive entanglement with religion; however, states may reimburse students for the cost of transportation in parochial schools.

ustices Jackson, Frankfurter, Rutledge, and Burton dissented because the statute is at odds with the separation between church and state.

Everson v. Board of Education (significance)

State laws may provide equal access to transportation for all students, regardless of the religious affiliation or secular nature of their school.

Abington School District v. Schempp (year)

1963

Abington School District v. Schempp (holding)

facts: concerned laws requiring readings from the Holy Bible in public school at the beginning of each day.

holding: Public schools cannot sponsor Bible readings and recitations of the Lord’s Prayer under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. Cantwell v. Connecticut requires the government to remain neutral is religious proclamations.

Abington School District v. Schempp (significance)

While the Schempp decision was controversial, it gave an ultimate answer to the question concerning prayer in public schools and reaffirmed the principle of the separation of church and state in education.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (year)

1971

Lemon v. Kurtzman (holding)

facts: Rhode Island passed the Salary Supplement Act which provides a 15% bonus to teachers in private schools at which the average per-student expenditure on secular education is below the average at public schools.

Holding: The statutes of both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island required overly scrutinizes oversight of the ongoings of religion education, contributing to a highly involved state in religion.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (significance)

Creation of the Lemon test that concerns government entanglement with religion and requires statutes concerning government funding in non-secular schools to meet the requirements of the three-pronged test.

The lemon test: The three-pronged test for determining whether a law meets the requirements of the Establishment Clause is whether it (1) has a legitimate secular purpose, (2) does not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and (3) does not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.

Edwards v. Aguillard (year)

1987

Edwards v. Aguillard (holding)

Facts: The “Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act” in Louisiana, prohibits teachers in public elementary and secondary schools from teaching the theory of evolution unless the instruction is accompanied by the theory of “creation science

Holding: The three-pronged test developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) can be used to analyze issues related to Establishment Clause violations. The Act in question failed all three prongs.

Edwards v. Aguillard (significance)

Teaching creationism in public schools violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court became less tolerant of the sponsorship of religious dogma in public schools.