Essay cores - author, holding, rule, quote, precedent 27

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

Black, 6-3 • HELD: exclusion of Japanese Americans from the West Coast valid under the war powers • RULE: racial restrictions are "immediately suspect" and get "the most rigid scrutiny," but "pressing public necessity" can justify them • QUOTE (dissent): Jackson, the precedent "lies about like a loaded weapon"; Murphy, "legalization of racism" • PRECEDENT: origin of strict scrutiny language; repudiated in Trump v. Hawaii (2018)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952)

Black, 6-3 • HELD: Truman's steel seizure unconstitutional; presidential power must come from the Constitution or an act of Congress • RULE: Jackson's three categories (congressional authorization = maximum; silence = twilight; opposition = "lowest ebb") • QUOTE: "The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone" • PRECEDENT: the framework for Hamdi, Zivotofsky

United States v. Darby (1941)

Stone, 8-0 • HELD: FLSA valid; Congress may bar goods made under substandard wages and regulate the production itself • RULE: commerce power includes prohibition; intrastate activity with a substantial effect is reachable; Tenth Amendment "is but a truism" • PRECEDENT: Hammer v. Dagenhart "should be, and now is, overruled"; Knight's production/commerce line abandoned

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

Jackson, 9-0 • HELD: home-grown, home-consumed wheat is within the commerce power • RULE: aggregation — local activity reachable "if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce," and one farmer's "contribution, taken together with that of many others similarly situated, is far from trivial" • PRECEDENT: outer limit of the commerce power until Lopez; reaffirmed in Raich; "ne plus ultra" per NFIB dissent

United States v. Carolene Products (1938)

Stone, 6-1 • HELD: federal filled-milk ban valid under rational basis • RULE: footnote four — presumption of constitutionality for economic regulation, but "more exacting judicial scrutiny" for Bill of Rights guarantees, restrictions on the political process, and "discrete and insular minorities" • PRECEDENT: birth of the double standard and tiers of scrutiny

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938)

Hughes, 7-2 • HELD: Missouri must provide legal education to Black students within the state; out-of-state tuition does not satisfy equal protection • RULE: the right is personal and must be furnished "within its borders"; equal means equal • PRECEDENT: first crack in Plessy; starts Sipuel → Sweatt → McLaurin → Brown

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942)

Murphy, 9-0 • HELD: "fighting words" are unprotected • RULE: certain classes of speech ("the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words") are "no essential part of any exposition of ideas" • PRECEDENT: categorical approach; libel category later rewritten by Sullivan

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Black, 5-4 • HELD: reimbursing parents for parochial-school bus fares does not violate the Establishment Clause • RULE: clause incorporated against the states; "wall of separation between church and State"; no aid to "all religions," but neutral public-welfare benefits to children are permitted (child-benefit theory) • PRECEDENT: foundation of Lemon's purpose/effect analysis and of Allen, Zelman

Adamson v. California (1947)

Reed, 5-4 • HELD: Fifth Amendment self-incrimination privilege not incorporated; comment on silence allowed • RULE: Palko's fundamental-fairness test ("implicit in the concept of ordered liberty") • QUOTE: Black (dissent) for total incorporation; Frankfurter (concurrence), "canons of decency and fairness" • PRECEDENT: Black loses the case, wins the war via selective incorporation (Mapp, Malloy, Griffin overrules Adamson's holding in 1965)

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Warren, 9-0 • HELD: racial segregation in public schools violates equal protection even with equal tangibles • RULE: "Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" • QUOTE: "we cannot turn the clock back to 1868"; segregation generates "a feeling of inferiority… unlikely ever to be undone" • PRECEDENT: rejects Plessy "in the field of public education"; Brown II (1955) "all deliberate speed"

Reynolds v. Sims (1964)

Warren, 8-1 • HELD: both houses of a state legislature must be apportioned by population • RULE: "one person, one vote"; "Legislators represent people, not trees or acres" • DISSENT: Harlan, the Fourteenth Amendment never reached apportionment • PRECEDENT: extends Baker v. Carr; equality applied to votes

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

Warren, 9-0 • HELD: miscegenation ban violates equal protection and due process • RULE: racial classifications get "the most rigid scrutiny" and need a purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination"; "equal application" is no defense; marriage is a fundamental liberty • PRECEDENT: mature strict scrutiny for race; marriage line to Zablocki, Obergefell

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968)

Brennan, 9-0 • HELD: a freedom-of-choice plan that leaves schools segregated fails Brown II • RULE: boards must dismantle dual systems "root and branch"; a plan must "work now"; results, not form • PRECEDENT: ends "all deliberate speed"; leads to Swann busing

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964)

Clark, 9-0 • HELD: Title II of the Civil Rights Act valid under the commerce clause • RULE: Congress may reach local activity with "a real and substantial relation to the national interest"; legislating against "moral wrongs" through commerce is fine • PRECEDENT: commerce carries civil rights because the Fourteenth Amendment reaches only state action (Civil Rights Cases); Darby/Wickard applied

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966)

Warren, 8-1 • HELD: Voting Rights Act (coverage formula, test suspension, preclearance) valid under the Fifteenth Amendment §2 • RULE: McCulloch standard — Congress may use "any rational means" against "unremitting and ingenious defiance"; "exceptional conditions can justify legislative measures not otherwise appropriate" • PRECEDENT: Shelby County (2013) uses the same test to strike the formula

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963)

Clark, 8-1 • HELD: state-required Bible reading and Lord's Prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause • RULE: a law must have "a secular legislative purpose and a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion" • PRECEDENT: follows Engel; the first two prongs of Lemon

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Brennan, 7-2 • HELD: denying unemployment benefits to a Sabbatarian who refuses Saturday work violates free exercise • RULE: a substantial burden on religious practice requires a "compelling state interest" (strict scrutiny) • PRECEDENT: confined by Smith (1990); Congress tried to restore it with RFRA

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964)

Brennan, 9-0 • HELD: a public official cannot recover for defamation without proof of "actual malice" (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard) • RULE: debate on public issues should be "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open"; erroneous statement is "inevitable in free debate" • PRECEDENT: pulls libel of officials inside the First Amendment, narrowing Chaplinsky's category

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

Douglas, 7-2 • HELD: ban on contraceptive use by married couples violates a constitutional right of privacy • RULE: "penumbras, formed by emanations" of the Bill of Rights (Douglas); Ninth Amendment (Goldberg); Fourteenth Amendment liberty (Harlan, White) • DISSENT: Black, no general right of privacy; this is Lochner again • PRECEDENT: foundation for Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell

Board of Education v. Allen (1968)

White, 6-3 • HELD: lending secular textbooks to parochial-school students is permissible • RULE: Schempp's purpose-and-effect test; benefit runs to children and parents, not the church • PRECEDENT: child-benefit line from Everson to Zelman; Lemon distinguishes teachers from books

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Fortas, 7-2 • HELD: suspending students for black armbands violates the First Amendment • RULE: students do not "shed their constitutional rights… at the schoolhouse gate"; schools may regulate only on a showing of "material and substantial" disruption • PRECEDENT: narrowed by Fraser, Kuhlmeier, Morse

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Clark, 6-3 • HELD: evidence obtained by an unconstitutional search is inadmissible in state court • RULE: exclusionary rule incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment • PRECEDENT: overrules Wolf v. Colorado (1949); narrowed by Leon's good-faith exception

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Warren, 5-4 • HELD: statements from custodial interrogation are inadmissible unless the suspect was warned of the rights to silence and counsel • RULE: prophylactic warnings protect the Fifth Amendment privilege • PRECEDENT: narrowed by Quarles's public-safety exception; entrenched as a "constitutional rule" in Dickerson

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Burger, 8-0 • HELD: the President must produce the Watergate tapes; executive privilege exists but is not absolute • RULE: a generalized "presumptive privilege" for confidentiality yields to "the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial" • QUOTE: Marbury, courts' "province and duty… to say what the law is" • PRECEDENT: Nixon v. Fitzgerald (immunity for official acts), Clinton v. Jones

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985)

Blackmun, 5-4 • HELD: FLSA applies to a city transit authority • RULE: the "traditional governmental function" test is "unworkable"; states are protected by "the structure of the Federal Government itself" (political safeguards), a limit "of process, rather than one of result" • DISSENT: Powell, Tenth Amendment reduced to "meaningless rhetoric"; O'Connor, the Court "will in time again assume its constitutional responsibility" • PRECEDENT: overrules National League of Cities (1976); answered by New York (1992), Printz (1997), Lopez (1995)

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Powell, 5-4 • HELD: Texas property-tax school finance does not violate equal protection • RULE: wealth is not a suspect class; education is not a fundamental right because not "explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution"; rational basis; local control • DISSENT: Marshall, sliding-scale scrutiny • PRECEDENT: refuses to extend Shapiro; closes the federal door on school finance

Craig v. Boren (1976)

Brennan, 7-2 • HELD: Oklahoma's 3.2% beer age difference (women 18, men 21) violates equal protection • RULE: intermediate scrutiny — gender classifications "must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives" • DISSENT: Rehnquist, the test "comes out of thin air" • PRECEDENT: builds on Reed v. Reed (1971); sharpened by VMI (1996)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Powell (judgment), 5-4 each way • HELD: the 16-seat minority set-aside is invalid, but race may be considered in admissions • RULE (Powell alone): strict scrutiny; a diverse student body is a compelling interest; quotas are not narrowly tailored; race may be a "plus" in individualized review (Harvard plan) • SPLIT: Brennan four — intermediate scrutiny for benign classifications; Stevens four — Title VI only • PRECEDENT: Powell's solo opinion becomes law in Grutter (2003); ended by SFFA (2023)

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Burger, 8-0 • HELD: state salary supplements to parochial-school teachers violate the Establishment Clause • RULE: three prongs — secular purpose; primary effect that "neither advances nor inhibits religion"; no "excessive government entanglement with religion" • PRECEDENT: synthesizes Everson, Schempp, Walz; loosened in Lynch, bypassed in Weisman, abandoned in Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Blackmun, 7-2 • HELD: Texas abortion ban unconstitutional; the right of privacy in Fourteenth Amendment liberty "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy" • RULE: fundamental right, so strict scrutiny; trimester framework (first: no regulation; second: maternal health; after viability: may proscribe) • DISSENT: Rehnquist, this is Lochner's Peckham, not Holmes; White, "raw judicial power" • PRECEDENT: extends Griswold; modified by Casey (1992); overruled by Dobbs (2022)

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

Burger, 5-4 • HELD: Pawtucket's crèche in a larger Christmas display does not violate the Establishment Clause • RULE: Lemon is not "a per se rule"; "unbroken history of official acknowledgment" of religion; context of the whole display • CONCURRENCE: O'Connor's endorsement test — would an objective observer see government endorsing religion? • PRECEDENT: Allegheny (1989), Van Orden/McCreary (2005)

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985)

Stevens, 6-3 • HELD: Alabama's "meditation or voluntary prayer" minute violates the Establishment Clause • RULE: Lemon's purpose prong — the statute had no secular purpose (the sponsor said it was to return prayer) • DISSENT: Rehnquist, the "wall of separation" is "a metaphor based on bad history"; the clause bars only a national church or preference among sects • PRECEDENT: Engel/Schempp line; Rehnquist's dissent is the accommodationist manifesto

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)

White, 5-4 • HELD: Georgia's sodomy law does not violate due process as applied to homosexual conduct • RULE: fundamental rights are those "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition"; this is not one; rational basis; morality is a legitimate interest • DISSENT: Blackmun, the case is about "the right to be let alone" • PRECEDENT: overruled by Lawrence (2003); its test revived by Dobbs (2022)

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Stewart (plurality), 7-2 • HELD: the death penalty is not per se cruel and unusual; Georgia's guided-discretion statute valid • RULE: "evolving standards of decency" (Trop); bifurcated trial, aggravating factors, appellate review cure Furman's arbitrariness; retribution and deterrence are legitimate • DISSENT: Brennan, Marshall — always unconstitutional • PRECEDENT: reads Furman (1972) as condemning arbitrariness, not death

United States v. Leon (1984)

White, 6-3 • HELD: evidence seized under a warrant later found invalid is admissible if police relied on it in good faith • RULE: the exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy to deter police, not a personal right; cost-benefit • PRECEDENT: narrows Mapp without overruling it

New York v. Quarles (1984)

Rehnquist, 5-4 • HELD: an unwarned answer to "Where is the gun?" is admissible • RULE: public-safety exception — Miranda's "prophylactic" rule yields when officers face an immediate danger • PRECEDENT: narrows Miranda; Dickerson later insists Miranda is still constitutional

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978)

Brennan, 6-3 • HELD: landmark designation blocking a tower over Grand Central is not a taking • RULE: "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries" weighing economic impact, "distinct investment-backed expectations," and the character of the action; the "parcel as a whole," not air rights alone • DISSENT: Rehnquist, the cost should be "borne by all" (Holmes's "shorter cut") • PRECEDENT: baseline for regulatory takings; Lucas carves the per se exception

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Rehnquist, 5-4 • HELD: the Gun-Free School Zones Act exceeds the commerce power • RULE: three categories (channels, instrumentalities, activities that "substantially affect" commerce); gun possession is noneconomic, with no jurisdictional element or findings • QUOTE: "We start with first principles"; "pile inference upon inference" would create "a general police power" • PRECEDENT: first commerce limit since 1936; Morrison (2000); confined by Raich

Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

Stevens, 6-3 • HELD: the Controlled Substances Act may reach home-grown medical marijuana • RULE: Wickard aggregation; "quintessentially economic" activity inside a comprehensive scheme; rational basis — "the task before us is a modest one" • DISSENT: O'Connor, "States as laboratories," definition "breathtaking"; Thomas, "rewriting" the clause • PRECEDENT: confines Lopez/Morrison to noneconomic, stand-alone statutes

Clinton v. Jones (1997)

Stevens, 9-0 • HELD: a sitting President has no temporary immunity from a civil suit for unofficial conduct • RULE: Fitzgerald's immunity covers official acts only; separation of powers is not threatened by litigation; "the President is subject to judicial process in appropriate circumstances" • PRECEDENT: Nixon (1974); Fitzgerald (1982); later Trump v. Vance (2020)

Romer v. Evans (1996)

Kennedy, 6-3 • HELD: Colorado's Amendment 2 violates equal protection • RULE: rational basis, but a law "inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class that it affects" has no legitimate end; "A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws" • DISSENT: Scalia, "a modest attempt by seemingly tolerant Coloradans"; Bowers allows moral disapproval • PRECEDENT: opens with Harlan's Plessy dissent; animus logic reused in Windsor; undermines Bowers for Lawrence

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Ginsburg, 7-1 • HELD: VMI's men-only admission violates equal protection; the VWIL program is no remedy • RULE: the state must show "an exceedingly persuasive justification"; generalizations about "the way women are" do not count • DISSENT: Scalia, the Court destroys a tradition by its own "smug assurances" • PRECEDENT: Craig intermediate scrutiny with teeth; Sweatt's separate-program logic

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

O'Connor, 5-4 • HELD: Michigan Law's race-conscious holistic admissions survive strict scrutiny • RULE: student-body diversity is a compelling interest (Powell's Bakke opinion adopted); individualized review with no quotas is narrow tailoring; "25 years from now" preferences should be unnecessary • DISSENT: Rehnquist, "critical mass" is a quota; Thomas, "racial aesthetics" • PRECEDENT: Gratz (same day) strikes a points system; effectively overruled by SFFA (2023)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990)

Scalia, 6-3 • HELD: denying unemployment benefits for sacramental peyote use does not violate free exercise • RULE: "neutral" laws of "general applicability" need no compelling interest; Sherbert limited to unemployment and "hybrid rights" cases; otherwise "courting anarchy" • CONCURRENCE: O'Connor keeps Sherbert's test • PRECEDENT: Congress passes RFRA (1993); Boerne (1997) strikes it as to states

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)

O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter (joint opinion), 5-4 • HELD: Roe's "central holding" reaffirmed; Pennsylvania's rules upheld except spousal notification • RULE: stare decisis ("liberty finds no refuge in a jurisprudence of doubt"); trimesters rejected; "undue burden" = "substantial obstacle" before viability • DISSENT: Scalia, "the Imperial Judiciary"; Rehnquist would overrule Roe • PRECEDENT: modifies Roe; cited in Lawrence; overruled by Dobbs (2022)

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

Rehnquist, 5-4 • HELD: Cleveland's school-voucher program does not violate the Establishment Clause • RULE: a neutral program of "true private choice" in which aid reaches religious schools "only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals" is valid; the 96% figure is irrelevant • DISSENT: Souter, Everson's "no tax in any amount"; Breyer, religious strife • PRECEDENT: Mueller, Witters, Zobrest line; accommodationist peak

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Kennedy, 6-3 • HELD: Texas's same-sex sodomy law violates due process • RULE: liberty "presumes an autonomy of self"; Bowers's history "overstated"; moral disapproval is not a legitimate state interest for criminalizing private adult conduct; "The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny" • CONCURRENCE: O'Connor on equal protection • DISSENT: Scalia, same-sex marriage is next • PRECEDENT: "Bowers was not correct when it was decided… and now is overruled"; cited over a dozen times in Obergefell

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Kennedy, 5-4 • HELD: clergy prayer at a public-school graduation violates the Establishment Clause • RULE: coercion test — the state may not use "subtle coercive pressure" on students whose attendance is "in a fair and real sense obligatory"; Lemon not needed • DISSENT: Scalia, tradition of public invocations; "psycho-journey" • PRECEDENT: Engel/Schempp line; Santa Fe (2000)

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Kennedy, 6-3 • HELD: RFRA is unconstitutional as applied to the states • RULE: Congress's §5 power is "remedial," not substantive; legislation must show "congruence and proportionality" to the violation; Congress cannot change the meaning of the right (Marbury) • DISSENT: O'Connor, Smith was wrong • PRECEDENT: limits Katzenbach v. Morgan's broad reading of §5; pairs with Smith and Shelby

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005)

Souter, 5-4 • HELD: Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses violate the Establishment Clause • RULE: Lemon's purpose prong judged by an "objective observer" who knows the displays' history; a later secular makeover cannot cure a religious purpose • DISSENT: Scalia, the nation's heritage of acknowledging God • PRECEDENT: same day, Van Orden v. Perry upholds the Texas Capitol monument (Breyer the swing, context and 40 years)

Dickerson v. United States (2000)

Rehnquist, 7-2 • HELD: Congress cannot overrule Miranda by statute (§3501) • RULE: Miranda "announced a constitutional rule"; stare decisis — the warnings "have become part of our national culture" • DISSENT: Scalia, Miranda itself called the rule prophylactic; "judicial arrogance" • PRECEDENT: entrenches Miranda despite Quarles/Leon-style exceptions

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Stevens, 6-3 • HELD: executing people with intellectual disability is cruel and unusual • RULE: "evolving standards of decency" measured by a national consensus (state legislation and "the direction of change"), plus the Court's own judgment on culpability and deterrence • DISSENT: Scalia, a minority of states is no consensus; the Court's "feelings and intuition" • PRECEDENT: overrules Penry (1989); Roper (2005) follows for juveniles

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)

Scalia, 6-3 • HELD: a regulation that leaves beachfront lots with no economically beneficial use is a taking requiring compensation • RULE: per se (categorical) taking when regulation "denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land," unless "background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance" already barred the use • DISSENT: Blackmun, "a missile to kill a mouse" • PRECEDENT: Mahon's "too far" made categorical; exception to Penn Central balancing

Kelo v. City of New London (2005)

Stevens, 5-4 • HELD: taking homes for a private economic-development plan satisfies "public use" • RULE: public use means "public purpose"; deference to a "carefully considered" legislative plan (Berman, Midkiff) • DISSENT: O'Connor, "Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton"; Thomas, "use" means use by the public • PRECEDENT: 40+ states respond by statute

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

Roberts; 5-4 (commerce), 5-4 (tax) • HELD: the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of the commerce or Necessary and Proper powers, but is valid as a tax; Medicaid expansion coercive • RULE: "The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity"; Congress may not compel people "to become active in commerce by purchasing a product" (activity/inactivity) • DISSENT (Ginsburg): a "newly minted" limit resembling Lochner, Carter Coal • PRECEDENT: completes Lopez/Morrison/Raich line; Wickard "ne plus ultra"

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

O'Connor (plurality); 5-4 on detention, 8-1 on process • HELD: the AUMF authorizes detaining a citizen captured as an enemy combatant, but due process requires "a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker" • RULE: Jackson category one plus Mathews balancing; "a state of war is not a blank check for the President" • DISSENT: Scalia, try him for treason or suspend the writ; Thomas, defer • PRECEDENT: Quirin followed, Milligan distinguished; Rasul, Hamdan, Boumediene

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015)

Kennedy, 6-3 • HELD: Congress cannot require passports to list "Israel" for Jerusalem-born citizens • RULE: the President's power to recognize foreign sovereigns is "exclusive and conclusive" (Reception Clause, "one voice"), so he prevails even in Jackson's category three • DISSENT: Roberts, "Today's decision is a first"; Scalia, passports are Congress's • PRECEDENT: first statute struck for intruding on an exclusive presidential foreign-affairs power; cabins Curtiss-Wright

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

Roberts, 5-4 • HELD: the VRA's §4(b) coverage formula is unconstitutional • RULE: "equal sovereignty" of the states; preclearance "imposes current burdens and must be justified by current needs"; a formula based on "decades-old data and eradicated practices" is irrational • DISSENT: Ginsburg, "throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet"; "second-generation barriers" • PRECEDENT: Katzenbach (1966) distinguished on the facts; §5 left formally intact, dead in practice

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)

Roberts, 5-4 • HELD: race-based student assignment in Seattle and Louisville violates equal protection • RULE: strict scrutiny; racial balancing is not a compelling interest; Grutter's diversity confined to higher education; plurality: "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race" • CONCURRENCE: Kennedy, race-conscious but not individually race-classifying tools allowed • DISSENT: Breyer, "undermines Brown's promise" • PRECEDENT: Brown claimed by both sides; SFFA (2023)

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

Scalia, 5-4 • HELD: the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense; D.C.'s ban and trigger-lock rule struck • RULE: the prefatory clause "announces a purpose" but does not limit the operative clause; "right of the people" means individuals; "longstanding prohibitions" (felons, mentally ill, sensitive places) remain lawful • DISSENT: Stevens, militia purpose, Miller settled it; Breyer, interest balancing • PRECEDENT: McDonald (2010) incorporates; Bruen (2022) history-and-tradition

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

Kennedy, 5-4 • HELD: the ban on corporate independent electioneering expenditures (BCRA §203) violates the First Amendment; disclosure rules upheld • RULE: political speech gets strict scrutiny; the government may not restrict speech "on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity"; Austin's antidistortion rationale rejected • DISSENT: Stevens, corporations "are not actually members" of society; "an amalgamation of resuscitated dissents" • PRECEDENT: overrules Austin (1990) and part of McConnell (2003); follows Buckley, Bellotti

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

Kennedy, 5-4 • HELD: same-sex couples have a fundamental right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses • RULE: "reasoned judgment" identifies fundamental rights; four principles (autonomy, two-person union, children, keystone of social order); the two clauses are "connected in a profound way"; "equal dignity in the eyes of the law" • DISSENT: Roberts, "Just who do we think we are?", Dred Scott/Lochner lineage; Scalia, "hubris" • PRECEDENT: Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, Windsor

Morse v. Frederick (2007)

Roberts, 5-4 • HELD: a school may punish a student's "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" banner at a school-sanctioned event • RULE: schools may restrict speech reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use; Tinker's disruption test is not the only test • CONCURRENCE: Alito, drugs only, never political speech • DISSENT: Stevens, a "nonsense banner" • PRECEDENT: Tinker → Fraser → Kuhlmeier → Morse

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

Roberts, 8-1 • HELD: Westboro Baptist's funeral picketing is protected; the IIED verdict is reversed • RULE: speech on "matters of public concern" in a public place, peacefully and lawfully, gets full protection even when outrageous; "we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker" • DISSENT: Alito, "vicious verbal assault" on a private person • PRECEDENT: Sullivan's "uninhibited, robust, and wide-open"; Hustler v. Falwell

Sweatt v. Painter (1950)

Vinson, 9-0 • HELD: Texas's separate law school does not satisfy equal protection; Sweatt admitted to UT • RULE: equality includes intangibles ("reputation of the faculty… traditions and prestige"); a law school "cannot be effective in isolation" • QUOTE: "we cannot agree" the schools are "substantially equivalent" • PRECEDENT: applies Gaines; avoids Plessy; sets up Brown

Dennis v. United States (1951)

Vinson plurality, 6-2 • HELD: Smith Act convictions of Communist leaders stand • RULE: "whether the gravity of the 'evil,' discounted by its improbability, justifies such invasion of free speech" (Hand) • DISSENT: Black, "in calmer times"; Douglas, no evidence of danger • PRECEDENT: hollows out Schenck's imminence; narrowed by Yates, replaced by Brandenburg

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966)

Brennan plurality, 6-3 • HELD: "Fanny Hill" cannot be banned • RULE: three elements must coalesce: prurient appeal, patent offensiveness, "utterly without redeeming social value" • DISSENT: Clark, any expert can supply value; Harlan, state latitude • PRECEDENT: refines Roth; replaced by Miller (1973)

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Per curiam, 9-0 • HELD: Ohio criminal syndicalism statute unconstitutional; conviction reversed • RULE: advocacy punishable only if "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and… likely to incite or produce such action" • CONCURRENCE: Douglas, discard clear and present danger • PRECEDENT: overrules Whitney (1927); retires Dennis; Hess (1973) confirms imminence