The puzzle - Where Each Case Fits 35

PUZZLE BOARD: Commerce power (all pieces in order)

Gibbons (1824, broad) → Knight (1895), Schechter (1935), Carter Coal (1936): manufacturing is local → Jones & Laughlin (1937): "close and substantial relation" → Darby (1941): Hammer overruled, Tenth Amendment a truism → Wickard (1942): aggregation → Heart of Atlanta (1964): civil rights by commerce → Lopez (1995), Morrison (2000): must be economic → Raich (2005): Wickard holds → NFIB (2012): activity, not inactivity

PUZZLE BOARD: Federalism / Tenth Amendment (all pieces)

Darby (1941, truism) → National League of Cities (1976, enclave) → Garcia (1985, political safeguards) → New York (1992), Printz (1997): no commandeering → Lopez (1995) → Shelby County (2013, equal sovereignty). Question underneath: who polices federalism, courts (Powell, O'Connor, Rehnquist) or Congress (Blackmun, Breyer, Ginsburg)?

PUZZLE BOARD: Presidential power (all pieces)

Prize Cases → Milligan (1866) → Neagle (1890) → Curtiss-Wright (1936) → Quirin (1942) → Korematsu (1944) → Youngstown (1952, Jackson's categories) → Nixon (1974) → Fitzgerald (1982) → Clinton v. Jones (1997) → Hamdi (2004) → Boumediene (2008) → Zivotofsky (2015). Rule of thumb: President wins with Congress behind him or with an exclusive power; loses alone against Congress or against the courts' own role

PUZZLE BOARD: Equal protection tiers (all pieces)

Carolene footnote four (1938) seeds it → Korematsu (1944) names strict scrutiny → Brown (1954), Loving (1967) make race strict → Reed (1971), Craig (1976), VMI (1996) make gender intermediate → Rodriguez (1973) keeps wealth/education at rational basis → Romer (1996) rational basis with bite → Bakke (1978), Grutter (2003), Parents Involved (2007), SFFA (2023) fight over whether strict scrutiny is colorblind

PUZZLE BOARD: Race and schools (all pieces)

Plessy (1896) → Gaines (1938) → Sweatt, McLaurin (1950) → Brown (1954) → Brown II (1955) → Cooper (1958) → Green (1968) → Swann (1971) → Milliken (1974) → Bakke (1978) → Grutter (2003) → Parents Involved (2007) → SFFA (2023)

PUZZLE BOARD: Voting (all pieces)

Colegrove (1946, political question) → Baker (1962) → Reynolds (1964, one person one vote) → Harper (1966) → South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966, VRA) → City of Rome (1980) → Crawford (2008) → Shelby County (2013) → Rucho (2019)

PUZZLE BOARD: Substantive due process / privacy (all pieces)

Lochner (1905) → West Coast Hotel (1937) kills economic SDP → Griswold (1965) revives it for privacy → Roe (1973) → Bowers (1986, stops) → Cruzan (1990) → Casey (1992, trims) → Lawrence (2003, Bowers overruled) → Obergefell (2015) → Dobbs (2022, Roe and Casey overruled). The test fight: "deeply rooted in history" (Bowers, Dobbs) vs. "reasoned judgment" (Casey, Lawrence, Obergefell)

PUZZLE BOARD: Establishment clause (all pieces)

Everson (1947, wall, bus fares OK) → Engel (1962), Schempp (1963): no school prayer → Allen (1968, textbooks) → Lemon (1971, three prongs) → Lynch (1984, endorsement born) → Jaffree (1985) → Allegheny (1989) → Weisman (1992, coercion) → Zelman (2002, private choice) → Van Orden / McCreary (2005) → Town of Greece (2014) → American Legion (2019) → Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022, Lemon abandoned)

PUZZLE BOARD: Free exercise (all pieces)

Reynolds (1879, belief vs. action) → Cantwell (1940, incorporated) → Sherbert (1963, compelling interest) → Yoder (1972) → Smith (1990, neutral laws win) → RFRA (1993) → Boerne (1997, RFRA not for states) → Lukumi (1993), Fulton (2021)

PUZZLE BOARD: Speech (all pieces)

Schenck (1919) → Chaplinsky (1942, categories) → Sullivan (1964, actual malice) → Tinker (1969, students) → Buckley (1976, money is speech) → Fraser (1986), Kuhlmeier (1988) → Austin (1990) → McConnell (2003) → Morse (2007) → Citizens United (2010) → Snyder (2011)

PUZZLE BOARD: Takings / property (all pieces)

Barron (1833) → Chicago B&Q (1897, incorporated) → Mahon (1922, "too far") → Causby (1946) → Penn Central (1978, balancing) → Loretto (1982) → Nollan (1987) → Lucas (1992, per se) → Dolan (1994) → Kelo (2005, public purpose) → Horne (2015), Cedar Point (2021)

PUZZLE BOARD: Incorporation and criminal process (all pieces)

Barron (1833, no) → Gitlow (1925) → Palko (1937) → Adamson (1947, Black vs. Frankfurter) → Mapp (1961) → Gideon (1963) → Malloy (1964) → Miranda (1966) → Gregg (1976) → Leon (1984), Quarles (1984, exceptions) → Dickerson (2000, Miranda entrenched) → Atkins (2002) → McDonald (2010, guns incorporated)

Korematsu v. United States (1944): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: strict scrutiny for race + wartime deference. BEFORE: Hirabayashi (1943); Carolene footnote four. THIS PIECE: names "the most rigid scrutiny" but defers to the military. AFTER: Loving (1967) gives the test teeth; Youngstown (1952) draws the post-war line; Trump v. Hawaii (2018) repudiates it; Hamdi (2004) cites §4001(a) passed to prevent another Korematsu

Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer (1952): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: separation of powers / presidential power. BEFORE: Neagle, Curtiss-Wright, Korematsu (deference). THIS PIECE: no inherent power; Jackson's three categories. AFTER: Nixon (1974), Hamdi (2004, category one), Zivotofsky (2015, category three but exclusive power)

United States v. Darby (1941): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: commerce power. BEFORE: Hammer (1918), Knight, Carter Coal; Jones & Laughlin (1937). THIS PIECE: overrules Hammer; commerce includes prohibition and production; Tenth Amendment a truism. AFTER: Wickard (1942), Heart of Atlanta (1964); National League (1976) tries to un-truism the Tenth

Wickard v. Filburn (1942): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: commerce power. BEFORE: Darby. THIS PIECE: aggregation; the outer edge. AFTER: Perez (1971), Heart of Atlanta; Lopez (1995) draws a line around it; Raich (2005) reaffirms; NFIB (2012) calls it the "ne plus ultra"

United States v. Carolene Products (1938): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: tiers of scrutiny. BEFORE: Lochner line killed by Nebbia (1934), West Coast Hotel (1937). THIS PIECE: rational basis for economics; footnote four for rights, elections, minorities. AFTER: Korematsu, Brown, Loving (strict); Craig (intermediate); Rodriguez (what stays rational); Romer; Kelo cites it (Thomas)

Missouri ex rel. Gaines v. Canada (1938): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: race and schools. BEFORE: Plessy (1896). THIS PIECE: enforce "equal" within the state. AFTER: Sipuel, Sweatt, McLaurin (1950) → Brown (1954)

Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech, categorical exceptions. BEFORE: Schenck, Gitlow. THIS PIECE: fighting words, libel, obscenity unprotected. AFTER: Sullivan (1964) rewrites libel; Cohen (1971) shrinks fighting words; Snyder (2011) protects outrageous speech on public matters

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment clause. BEFORE: Cantwell (1940) incorporated free exercise. THIS PIECE: incorporation of establishment; wall of separation; child benefit. AFTER: Engel, Schempp, Allen, Lemon; Zelman (2002) is Everson's child-benefit idea at full stretch

Adamson v. California (1947): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: incorporation. BEFORE: Barron (1833), Twining (1908), Palko (1937). THIS PIECE: fundamental fairness wins 5-4; Black's total incorporation loses. AFTER: selective incorporation (Mapp 1961, Malloy 1964, Miranda 1966, McDonald 2010); Griffin (1965) overrules the holding

Brown v. Board of Education (1954): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: race and schools; equal protection. BEFORE: Plessy, Gaines, Sweatt, McLaurin. THIS PIECE: separate is inherently unequal. AFTER: Brown II, Cooper, Green (1968), Swann; Loving (1967); Bakke/Grutter/Parents Involved argue about what Brown meant

Reynolds v. Sims (1964): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: voting, equal protection. BEFORE: Colegrove (1946), Baker v. Carr (1962). THIS PIECE: one person, one vote for both houses. AFTER: Harper (1966), Katzenbach (1966); Rucho (2019) leaves partisan gerrymanders alone

Loving v. Virginia (1967): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: strict scrutiny for race; marriage as a fundamental right. BEFORE: Korematsu, Brown, McLaughlin (1964). THIS PIECE: equal application fails; "most rigid scrutiny." AFTER: Zablocki (1978), Obergefell (2015) use the marriage half; Bakke, Grutter, Parents Involved use the strict-scrutiny half

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: desegregation remedies. BEFORE: Brown II (1955), Cooper (1958). THIS PIECE: results now, "root and branch." AFTER: Swann (1971, busing), Milliken (1974, limits), Parents Involved (2007)

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: commerce power as a civil-rights tool. BEFORE: Civil Rights Cases (1883) block the Fourteenth Amendment route; Darby, Wickard open the commerce route. THIS PIECE: Title II valid. AFTER: Perez (1971); Lopez (1995) limits; Katzenbach (1966) is the voting twin under the Fifteenth Amendment

South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: congressional enforcement power (Fifteenth Amendment §2). BEFORE: McCulloch; Reynolds. THIS PIECE: preclearance valid for "exceptional conditions." AFTER: City of Rome (1980); Boerne (1997) narrows §5 enforcement; Shelby County (2013) finds the conditions gone

Abington School District v. Schempp (1963): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment, school prayer. BEFORE: Everson, Engel (1962). THIS PIECE: purpose and primary effect test. AFTER: Lemon (1971) adds entanglement; Jaffree (1985), Weisman (1992), Santa Fe (2000); Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

Sherbert v. Verner (1963): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: free exercise. BEFORE: Reynolds (1879), Cantwell (1940), Braunfeld (1961). THIS PIECE: compelling interest for burdens on religion. AFTER: Yoder (1972); Smith (1990) confines it; RFRA (1993); Boerne (1997)

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech / press, libel. BEFORE: Chaplinsky (libel unprotected). THIS PIECE: actual malice for public officials. AFTER: Curtis Publishing (1967), Gertz (1974), Hustler (1988), Snyder (2011)

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: privacy / substantive due process reborn. BEFORE: Lochner (dead), Meyer, Pierce, Skinner, Poe (1961). THIS PIECE: a right of privacy with three possible homes. AFTER: Eisenstadt (1972), Roe (1973), Bowers (1986), Casey, Lawrence, Obergefell; Dobbs (2022) leaves it hanging

Board of Education v. Allen (1968): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: aid to religious schools. BEFORE: Everson (buses). THIS PIECE: textbooks OK, child benefit. AFTER: Lemon (1971) blocks salaries; Mueller (1983), Zobrest (1993), Zelman (2002) extend aid

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: student speech. BEFORE: Barnette (1943). THIS PIECE: schoolhouse gate; substantial disruption. AFTER: Fraser (1986), Kuhlmeier (1988), Morse (2007) narrow; Mahanoy (2021) reaffirms

Mapp v. Ohio (1961): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: incorporation, criminal process. BEFORE: Weeks (1914, federal rule), Wolf (1949). THIS PIECE: exclusionary rule applies to states. AFTER: Leon (1984, good faith), Herring (2009); Burger/Rehnquist Courts narrow but keep it

Miranda v. Arizona (1966): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: criminal process, Fifth Amendment. BEFORE: Malloy (1964), Escobedo (1964). THIS PIECE: warnings required. AFTER: Harris (1971), Quarles (1984) exceptions; Dickerson (2000) makes it permanent

United States v. Nixon (1974): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: executive privilege / rule of law. BEFORE: Marbury, Burr (1807), Youngstown. THIS PIECE: privilege is real but yields to criminal process. AFTER: Fitzgerald (1982), Clinton v. Jones (1997), Trump v. Vance (2020), Trump v. United States (2024)

Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: federalism, Tenth Amendment. BEFORE: Darby (truism), National League of Cities (1976, enclave). THIS PIECE: political safeguards; National League overruled. AFTER: New York (1992), Printz (1997), Lopez (1995) — O'Connor's prediction comes true

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: equal protection tiers (wealth, education). BEFORE: footnote four; Shapiro (1969, travel); Harper (1966, poll tax). THIS PIECE: no new suspect class, no new fundamental right. AFTER: Plyler (1982) is the exception; the Burger Court's brake on Warren-era expansion

Craig v. Boren (1976): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: equal protection, gender. BEFORE: Bradwell, Muller, Goesaert, Hoyt; Reed (1971); Frontiero (1973). THIS PIECE: intermediate scrutiny. AFTER: Hogan (1982), VMI (1996); Michael M. and Rostker (1981) show the limits

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: affirmative action. BEFORE: Brown, Loving (strict scrutiny), Washington v. Davis (1976, intent). THIS PIECE: quotas out, diversity in (Powell alone). AFTER: Croson (1989), Adarand (1995) settle strict scrutiny; Grutter (2003) adopts Powell; Parents Involved (2007); SFFA (2023) ends it

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment clause test. BEFORE: Everson, Schempp, Walz (1970). THIS PIECE: three prongs. AFTER: Lynch (1984) loosens, Weisman (1992) bypasses, Zelman (2002) uses only the effect prong, Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022) abandons

Roe v. Wade (1973): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: substantive due process / privacy. BEFORE: Griswold (1965), Eisenstadt (1972). THIS PIECE: fundamental right, trimesters. AFTER: Casey (1992) trims to undue burden; Bowers (1986) refuses to extend; Dobbs (2022) overrules

Lynch v. Donnelly (1984): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment, religious displays. BEFORE: Lemon; Marsh (1983, legislative prayer). THIS PIECE: crèche OK; endorsement test born in O'Connor's concurrence. AFTER: Allegheny (1989), Van Orden and McCreary (2005), American Legion (2019)

Wallace v. Jaffree (1985): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment, school prayer. BEFORE: Engel, Schempp, Lemon. THIS PIECE: purpose prong has teeth; Rehnquist's dissent attacks the wall. AFTER: Weisman (1992), Santa Fe (2000); Rehnquist's view wins in Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

Bowers v. Hardwick (1986): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: substantive due process, privacy limits. BEFORE: Griswold, Roe. THIS PIECE: "deeply rooted" test; morality is a rational basis. AFTER: Romer (1996) undermines; Lawrence (2003) overrules; Dobbs (2022) revives the test

Gregg v. Georgia (1976): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Eighth Amendment. BEFORE: Trop (1958, evolving standards), Furman (1972). THIS PIECE: death penalty valid with guided discretion. AFTER: Coker (1977), Atkins (2002), Roper (2005), Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) narrow who can be executed

United States v. Leon (1984): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Fourth Amendment, exclusionary rule. BEFORE: Weeks (1914), Mapp (1961). THIS PIECE: good-faith exception; rule is a remedy. AFTER: Krull (1987), Evans (1995), Hudson (2006), Herring (2009)

New York v. Quarles (1984): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Fifth Amendment, Miranda. BEFORE: Miranda (1966), Harris (1971). THIS PIECE: public-safety exception. AFTER: Dickerson (2000) says exceptions do not make Miranda non-constitutional

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: regulatory takings. BEFORE: Mahon (1922), Causby (1946), zoning cases. THIS PIECE: ad hoc three-factor balancing. AFTER: Loretto (1982), Nollan (1987), Lucas (1992), Dolan (1994), Kelo (2005)

United States v. Lopez (1995): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: commerce power limits. BEFORE: Jones & Laughlin, Darby, Wickard, Heart of Atlanta, Perez (no limits for 58 years). THIS PIECE: economic vs. noneconomic; first statute struck since 1936. AFTER: Morrison (2000) confirms; Raich (2005) confines; NFIB (2012) extends to inactivity

Gonzales v. Raich (2005): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: commerce power. BEFORE: Wickard (1942), Lopez (1995), Morrison (2000). THIS PIECE: Wickard survives for economic activity in a comprehensive scheme. AFTER: NFIB (2012) distinguishes activity from inactivity

Clinton v. Jones (1997): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: presidential immunity. BEFORE: Nixon (1974), Fitzgerald (1982). THIS PIECE: no immunity for private conduct. AFTER: Trump v. Vance (2020), Trump v. United States (2024)

Romer v. Evans (1996): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: equal protection, sexual orientation; rational basis with bite. BEFORE: Moreno (1973), Cleburne (1985); Bowers (1986). THIS PIECE: animus is not a legitimate end. AFTER: Lawrence (2003), Windsor (2013), Obergefell (2015)

United States v. Virginia (1996): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: gender, intermediate scrutiny. BEFORE: Reed, Craig (1976), Hogan (1982); Sweatt (1950). THIS PIECE: "exceedingly persuasive justification." AFTER: Morales-Santana (2017); the standard for gender ever since

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: affirmative action. BEFORE: Bakke (1978), Croson, Adarand. THIS PIECE: diversity compelling, holistic review OK, 25 years. AFTER: Gratz (same day), Parents Involved (2007), Fisher (2013, 2016), SFFA (2023)

Employment Division v. Smith (1990): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: free exercise. BEFORE: Reynolds (1879), Sherbert (1963), Yoder (1972). THIS PIECE: neutral, generally applicable laws need no compelling interest. AFTER: RFRA (1993), Boerne (1997), Lukumi (1993), Fulton (2021)

Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: abortion / stare decisis. BEFORE: Roe (1973), Akron (1983), Webster (1989). THIS PIECE: Roe's core kept, undue burden replaces trimesters. AFTER: Stenberg (2000), Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), Whole Woman's Health (2016), June Medical (2020), Dobbs (2022) overrules

Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: aid to religious schools. BEFORE: Everson, Allen, Lemon, Nyquist (1973), Mueller (1983), Witters, Zobrest, Agostini (1997). THIS PIECE: neutrality plus true private choice. AFTER: Trinity Lutheran (2017), Espinoza (2020), Carson (2022)

Lawrence v. Texas (2003): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: substantive due process, liberty and dignity. BEFORE: Griswold, Roe, Bowers (1986), Casey (1992), Romer (1996). THIS PIECE: Bowers overruled; morality insufficient. AFTER: Windsor (2013), Obergefell (2015); Dobbs (2022) leaves it in question

Lee v. Weisman (1992): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment, school prayer. BEFORE: Engel, Schempp, Jaffree; Marsh (1983). THIS PIECE: coercion test. AFTER: Santa Fe (2000); Town of Greece (2014) limits coercion outside schools; Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022)

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Congress's §5 enforcement power; free exercise. BEFORE: Katzenbach v. Morgan (1966, broad §5), Smith (1990), RFRA (1993). THIS PIECE: congruence and proportionality; Congress cannot redefine rights. AFTER: Kimel, Garrett, Hibbs, Lane; pairs with Shelby County on enforcement limits

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: establishment, religious displays. BEFORE: Stone v. Graham (1980), Lynch (1984), Allegheny (1989). THIS PIECE: purpose prong with an objective observer; Van Orden the same day goes the other way. AFTER: American Legion (2019) presumes old displays valid

Dickerson v. United States (2000): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Miranda's status; Congress vs. Court. BEFORE: Miranda (1966), §3501 (1968), Quarles (1984). THIS PIECE: Miranda is a constitutional rule; stare decisis. AFTER: Berghuis (2010), Vega v. Tekoh (2022) keep narrowing remedies without overruling

Atkins v. Virginia (2002): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Eighth Amendment, evolving standards. BEFORE: Trop (1958), Gregg (1976), Penry (1989). THIS PIECE: no executing the intellectually disabled; national consensus method. AFTER: Roper (2005), Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), Hall (2014)

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: regulatory takings. BEFORE: Mahon (1922), Penn Central (1978), Loretto (1982), Nollan (1987). THIS PIECE: per se taking for total deprivation. AFTER: Dolan (1994), Palazzolo (2001), Tahoe-Sierra (2002), Kelo (2005)

Kelo v. City of New London (2005): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: public use. BEFORE: Berman (1954), Midkiff (1984). THIS PIECE: economic development is a public purpose; deference. AFTER: state legislatures restrict; Court has not revisited

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: commerce, Necessary and Proper, taxing and spending. BEFORE: Wickard, Lopez, Morrison, Raich; McCulloch; Dole (1987). THIS PIECE: activity/inactivity; mandate survives as a tax; Medicaid coercion. AFTER: California v. Texas (2021) dismissed

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: war powers and due process. BEFORE: Milligan (1866), Quirin (1942), Korematsu (1944), Youngstown (1952). THIS PIECE: detention authorized by the AUMF, hearing required; not a blank check. AFTER: Rasul (2004), Hamdan (2006), Boumediene (2008)

Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: foreign affairs, recognition power. BEFORE: Curtiss-Wright (1936), Youngstown (1952), Belmont, Pink. THIS PIECE: exclusive presidential power beats a statute (category three). AFTER: cabins Curtiss-Wright's "sole organ"; cited in later executive-power cases

Shelby County v. Holder (2013): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: voting rights, enforcement power, federalism. BEFORE: Katzenbach (1966), City of Rome (1980), Northwest Austin (2009), Coyle (1911). THIS PIECE: coverage formula struck; equal sovereignty; current needs. AFTER: Brnovich (2021), Allen v. Milligan (2023)

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: race and schools, strict scrutiny. BEFORE: Brown (1954), Swann (1971), Bakke (1978), Grutter (2003). THIS PIECE: racial balancing not compelling; "stop discriminating on the basis of race." AFTER: SFFA (2023)

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: Second Amendment. BEFORE: Miller (1939, collective reading), Printz (1997, Thomas's footnote). THIS PIECE: individual right, self-defense at home. AFTER: McDonald (2010, incorporated), Bruen (2022, public carry, history and tradition), Rahimi (2024)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech, campaign finance. BEFORE: Buckley (1976), Bellotti (1978), Austin (1990), McConnell (2003), Davis (2008). THIS PIECE: no speaker-identity bans; Austin overruled. AFTER: SpeechNow (super PACs), McCutcheon (2014), FEC v. Cruz (2022)

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: substantive due process + equal protection; marriage. BEFORE: Loving (1967), Griswold (1965), Lawrence (2003), Windsor (2013), Baker v. Nelson (1972). THIS PIECE: fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples. AFTER: Pavan (2017), Respect for Marriage Act (2022); Dobbs (2022) leaves a question mark

Morse v. Frederick (2007): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: student speech. BEFORE: Tinker (1969), Fraser (1986), Kuhlmeier (1988). THIS PIECE: drug-advocacy exception. AFTER: Mahanoy (2021) reaffirms Tinker for off-campus speech

Snyder v. Phelps (2011): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech on public concern; tort liability. BEFORE: Chaplinsky (1942), Sullivan (1964), Hustler v. Falwell (1988). THIS PIECE: outrageous but protected. AFTER: funeral buffer-zone statutes; the Roberts Court's libertarian speech strand with Citizens United

Sweatt v. Painter (1950): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: race and schools. BEFORE: Plessy (1896), Gaines (1938), Sipuel (1948). THIS PIECE: intangibles make separate unequal; McLaurin same day. AFTER: Brown (1954) says separation itself is unequal

Dennis v. United States (1951): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech, sedition / incitement. BEFORE: Schenck (1919), Gitlow (1925), Whitney (1927). THIS PIECE: gravity × probability; Cold War deference. AFTER: Yates (1957), Brandenburg (1969)

Memoirs v. Massachusetts (1966): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech, obscenity. BEFORE: Chaplinsky (1942), Roth (1957). THIS PIECE: "utterly without redeeming social value." AFTER: Redrup (1967), Miller (1973)

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): where does it fit?

DOCTRINE: speech, incitement. BEFORE: Schenck, Whitney, Dennis, Yates. THIS PIECE: imminent lawless action; Whitney overruled. AFTER: Hess (1973), Claiborne Hardware (1982); Tinker (1969) is the school-side twin

PUZZLE BOARD: Sedition and incitement (all pieces)

Schenck (1919) → Abrams (1919) → Gitlow (1925) → Whitney (1927) → Dennis (1951) → Yates (1957) → Brandenburg (1969) → Hess (1973) → Claiborne Hardware (1982)