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.