Important cases Legal English L3-S1

Plessy v Ferguson (1896)

Upheld the doctrine of “separate but equal”, declaring Jim Crow laws constitutional

Brown v Board of Education (1954)

Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, racial segregation is outlawed

Barron v. Baltimore (1833)

Refusal of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights before the ratification of the 14th Amendment

Plaintiff wanted the Court to apply the Just Compensation Clause of the 5th Amendment to the city of Baltimore

→ Chief Justice John Marshall found the case very clear: the Supreme Court had no authority to apply the Bill of Rights to the states.
→ This decision went unchallenged until 1868 when the 14th Amendment was ratified

Slaughterhouse Cases (1872)

Refusal of the incorporation of the Bill of Rights through the Privilege and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment

Louisiana slaughterhouses sued Louisiana under the 14th Amendment (Privileges and Immunities clause) for granting a monopoly to one corporation.

→ SCOTUS ruled that the 14th Amendment was meant to protect formerly enslaved people, federal civil rights protections in other matters did not extend to the states.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Incorporation of the 1st Amendment against a state via the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted by the state of New York for advocating to overthrow the government. He challenged the state statute based on the First Amendment via the state law’s violation of the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause. He won his case, but SCOTUS did not explain its interpretation of the Due Process Clause or what this could mean for other rights.

→ first time the Bill of Rights is validly used against a state

→ incorporation of the 1st Amendment

Palko v Connecticut (1937)

Rejection of the total incorporation of the Bill of Right, because the standard of the process of selective incorporation is how fundamental the liberty of the Amendment is 

It must be “deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”

Mapp v Ohio (1961)

Applied the “exclusionary rule” (illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in trial) to state and local courts

Gideon v Wainwright (1963)

States must provide counsel in felony cases (6th Amendment), based on the due process clause.

Benton v Maryland (1969)

Protection from double jeopardy (5th Amendment)

Loving v Virginia (1967)

-Any attempts by the government to interfere with substantive due process rights must face strict scrutiny.

-Uses substantive due process to protect interracial marriage, ruling that anti-miscegenation laws are unconstitutional

“What are you doing in bed with this woman?,” Sheriff R Garnett Brooks asked as he shone his flashlight on a couple in bed. It was 2 a.m. on July 11, 1958, and the couple in question, Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter, had been married for five weeks. “I’m his wife,” Mildred responded.

Obergefell v Hodges (2015)

Extended the right to interracial marriage established in Loving v Virginia to same-sex couples.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)

The court overturned Roe v. Wade (1973)

Concurring opinion : Justice Thomas called for the Court to review and reconsider all cases establishing Constitutional rights based on substantive due process

Roe v. Wade (1973)

Established a woman’s fundamental right to abortion based on privacy and founded on the concept of substantive due process

National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)

About the protection of hate speech

Nazis marched through a predominantly Jewish suburb of Chicago in Nazi uniforms

→ SCOTUS concluded that hate speech is “indistinguishable” in principle from speech that ‘‘[invites] dispute... induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger”, and that protection of this type of speech is “among the high purposes of the First Amendment.”

Snyder v. Phelps (2011)

About the protection of free speech

Reaffirms National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie (1977)

Supreme Court upheld the right for a fundamentalist Christian religious group to protest the funeral of a soldier with signs like “God hates you.”

Matal v. Tam (2017)

Definition and protection of hate speech

The Court defined hate speech for the first time (‘‘Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground’’). 

→ In the same decision, the Court unanimously reaffirmed that such speech is constitutionally protected, saying that ‘‘the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express the thought that we hate.”

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Regarding the protection of expressive conduct/symbolic speech under the 1st Amendment

Burning an American flag during an anti-government demonstration is protected speech

Citizens United (2010)

Regarding the limits of free speech

Limiting the capacity of corporations and unions to spend money on political campaigns is unconstitutional. “Money is speech.”

Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. (2021)

Regarding increased regulatory power of the government related to free speech

The Supreme Court ruled that a school district in Pennsylvania had violated the 1st Amendment by punishing a student for vulgar social media messages sent when she was not on school grounds

Zorach v Clauson (1951)

Regarding freedom of religion

→ Acknowledged that US institutions often presuppose a Supreme Being

• Their purpose is not to establish any specific religion.

• They guarantee the freedom to worship as one chooses, leaving space for a variety of beliefs

• They do not give preference to one group over another

Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

Confirmed the incorporation of the Establishment Clause

→ Government neutrality in religious matters
→ Individual freedom when it comes to religion

Justice Black’s majority opinion : “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.”

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

The Supreme Court held that the Establisment Clause forbids states to pay salary supplements in religious schools

→ establishes the “Lemon test” to determine when government action constitute an establishment of religion

The law violated the Establishment clause if, cumulatively : 

-It did not have a legitimate secular purpose
-Its primary effect was to advance or inhibit religion
-It created an excessive entanglement with religion

(test abandoned in 2019)

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

Regarding the application of the Establishment Clause

The Supreme Court upheld the Nebraska legislature’s practice of beginning each new legislative session with a prayer by a chaplain chosen by the state and paid out of public funds.

→  As US Congress designated a chaplain for this same purpose in 1789, after the Establishment Clause was drafted, this falls under the original intention of the Establishment clause.

→ example of an originalist interpretation of the Constitution

→ No application of the “Lemon Test”

BUT : Even though the Court upheld opening prayers in the Nebraska legislature, it has not allowed opening prayers in public school.

American Legion et al v. American Humanist Association (2017)

Regarding the application of the Establishment Clause

The Bladensburg Cross, built in 1918 as part of a veteran's memorial park

The Supreme Court ruled that it is constitutional for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission to maintain the cross with public money

→ The Supreme Court explicitly abandoned the Lemon test

There is a longstanding tradition of religious practices like crosses to honor fallen soldiers : government does not have the right to impose secularism

Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)

Regarding the application of the Establishment Clause

A public high school did not have the authority to prohibit a football coach from praying after a game on the school’s playing field. Students could voluntarily join him or not.

Engel v Vitale (1962)

Regarding the Establishment Court - School prayer

The New York State Board of Regents required a voluntary short non-denominational prayer to be recited at the beginning of every school day.

→ The state cannot hold prayers in public schools, even if participation is not compulsory and the prayer is not tied to a particular religion.
There’s an indirect coercive power when teachers start the day with an official prayer

Lee v. Weisman (1992)

Regarding the Establishment Court - Prayer at graduation

The Supreme Court ruled that the Establishment Clause was violated when a public high school official invited clergy to offer a prayer as part of its graduation ceremony.

→  Students could have elected not to attend the ceremony, but this would have deprived them of a once-in-a-lifetime celebration and thus the ceremony was equivalent to coercion.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000)

Regarding the Establishment Court - Pre-game prayer

The Court considered it coercion when a speaker said a pre-game prayer over the public high school’s loudspeaker
 Even if the students didn’t participate in the prayer, they were forced to listen to it.

Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001)

Regarding the Establishment Court - Religious after-school club

Milford Central School argued that students (aged 6-12) would feel coerced to participate in a private religious club which met on school grounds after school. Parental consent was necessary for participation.

→  The Court found against the school, arguing that the school was infringing on free speech and free exercise rights.

Reynolds v. United States (1879)

First Free Exercise Clause decision

Unanimous decision upholding a federal law prohibiting polygamy, even though the plaintiff demonstrated that he had a religious duty as a Mormon to have multiple wives

→ Free Exercise prohibits the government from regulating religious beliefs, but it can regulate religiously motivated actions

Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

The State of Massachusetts could compel vaccination against smallpox when necessary to control a smallpox outbreak despite religious objections.

Sherbert v. Verner (1963)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

A Seventh Day Adventist woman had her unemployment benefits withdrawn because of her refusal to work on Saturday. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, arguing that if a government rule infringes on someone’s ability to practice their religious beliefs it must be justified by a “compelling governmental interest”.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

Amish parents can’t be forced to send their children to school.

Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (1990)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

An Oregon law prohibiting the possession of controlled substances without a medical prescription respected the Free Exercise Clause even when it was applied to the use of peyote, a hallucinogenic drug used in a Native American Church.

Angered many because this case limited the “compelling government interest” test

City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

The Supreme Court ruled that Congress lacked authority to enforce RFRA at the state level.

→ Congress can not change the substance of a constitutional amendment and then impose such changes at the state level without respecting the constitutional amendment process

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

The Supreme Court supported the right of a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding based on his religious beliefs (he did serve gay people in his bakery however).

Given the decision of City of Boerne, no legal action under RFRA was available to the baker.

Mahmoud v Taylor (2024)

Regarding the Free Exercise Clause

The Court upheld the parents right to obtain an injunction prohibiting the Montgomery County Board of Education from compelling their children read LGBTQ+ inclusive storybooks since the school board had refused to grant them a religious exemption. Again, the parents could not claim under RFRA.

Miranda v Arizona (1966)

Supreme Court decision that obliged the police to inform arrested suspects of their 5th and 6th amendment rights before interrogation (they have to be “mirandised”)

“You have the right to remain silent.
Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you.
Do you understand the rights I have just read to you?
With these rights in mind, do you wish to speak to me?”

United States v. Patane (2004)

Regarding Miranda Rights and the exclusionary rule

The Court has ruled that excluding the un-Mirandized statements is “a complete and sufficient remedy”

This decision had a sweeping impact on law enforcement and was criticized by many.

Dickerson v US (2000)

Regarding Miranda Rights

Congress tried to overturn Miranda with a 1968 law, but the Supreme Court struck down this law.

New York v Quarles (1984)

Regarding Miranda Rights

Estblishes the “public safety exception” when circumstances present a clear and present danger to the public’s safety and when officers have reason to believe that the suspect has information that can end the emergency.

Illinois v Perkins (1990)

Regarding Miranda Rights

A jailed suspect’s confession to a police officer posing as an inmate is allowed in court

Miranda protects against coercion and not deception.

Salinas v Texas (2013)

Regarding Miranda Rights

Refusal to answer a question can be presented as evidence, even if the interrogation happened before the suspect was arrested or mirandized

Terry v Ohio (1968)

• Facts: A plain clothes policeman observed Terry and two other men who he believed to be “casing a job, a stick-up.” The officer stopped and frisked the three men, finding weapons on two of them. Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon and sentenced to 3 years in jail.

• Question: Was the search of Terry and the other men a violation of the 4th Amendment?

• Conclusion: The officers acted on more than a “hunch,” and a “reasonably prudent man” would have been warranted to believe that [Terry] was armed and a threat. The weapons seized could be used as evidence.

→ A police officer may lawfully stop an individual based on a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime. They may frisk or “pat down” the suspect to check for weapon.

Floyd v. City of New York (2013)

Regarding stop and frisks

Class action lawsuit against the NYC Police Department for stop and frisks

80% of people stopped were Black or Latino even though they only made up 52% of the city’s population. They were more likely to experience physical force and less likely to be found with a weapon (only 2.6%)

Decision: the NYPD had engaged in a pattern of racial profiling and unconstitutional stop and frisks

Missouri v. Frye (2012)

Regarding plea bargaining

Defendants have a right to assistance of counsel at the plea-bargaining stage.

Groppi v. Wisconsin (1971)

Regarding the motion for a change of venue

Question: If a state law categorically prevents a change of venue for a criminal misdemeanor jury trial, regardless of the extent of local prejudice against the defendant, is this law constitutional?

SCOTUS: No. The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment allows all defendants to change venues when necessary for a fair trial.

Brady v Maryland (1963)

Regarding the motion for discovery

Question : Did the prosecution’s suppression of Donald Boblit’s confession deny John Brady due process?
→ yes

Brady rule : requires prosecutors, when requested, to disclose evidence which is "material either to guilt or to punishment” (exculpatory evidence)

Katz v. United States (1967)

Definition of searches and seizures of property

Question: Does the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures require the police to obtain a search warrant in order to wiretap a public pay phone?

→ SCOTUS says yes

Katz rule :

A search is defined as intrusion with someone’s reasonable expectation of privacy, and to be a search, both must be true:
-An individual exhibits a personal expectation of privacy (subjective)
-Society would recognize this expectation as reasonable (objective)

Carpenter v. United States (2018)

Regarding the third-party doctrine

Limitation of the doctrine : cell phone data collected over 7 days is protected by the 4th Amendment (Katz Rule)

US v Jones (2012)

Regarding searches and seizures of property

The installation of a GPS device on the defendant’s car in order to track his movements constituted an illegal search (going back to the idea of trespassing on a person’s property)

Batson v. Kentucky (1986)

Regarding peremptory strikes (Trial - Selection of jurors)

Prosecution’s use of peremptory strikes based on race violates the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Regarding fairness in capital trials (death penalty - sentencing)

The judge and jury lacked precise guidelines to ensure fairness in sentence and a series of cases showed a pattern of racial bias.

Question: Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

→ Yes
→ De facto moratorium on executions

Flowers v Mississippi (2019)

Regarding fairness in capital trials (death penalty - sentencing)

Curtis Flower’s sentence is reversed, in part for a Batson violation.

Glossip v Gross

Regarding methods of execution (death penalty - sentencing)

The SCOTUS upheld the method of using midazolam in executions)

Atkins v. Virginia (2002)

Regarding who may be sentenced to death (death penalty - sentencing)

Execution of mentally disabled people is unconstitutional

Roper v. Simmons (2005)

Regarding who may be sentenced to death (death penalty - sentencing)

Execution of offenders who were under 18 when they committed a crime is unconstitutional, regardless of the crime

Hall v. Florida (2014)

Regarding who may be sentenced to death (death penalty - sentencing)

Florida’s strict IQ cutoff of 70 for intellectual disability was unconstitutional (there should be a 5-point margin or error, and other evidence should be admitted)

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)

Regarding who may be sentenced to death (death penalty - sentencing)

Death penalty is permitted in murder cases only

Woodson v. North Carolina (1976)

No mandatory death penalty sentences

Graham v. Florida (2010)

Regarding life without the option of parole for juveniles (Sentencing)

Sentencing juveniles with LWOP is unconstitutional other than for murder.

BUT isn’t relevant anymore since Miller v. Alabama (2012)

Miller v. Alabama (2012)

Regarding life without the option of parole for juveniles (Sentencing)

Question: Does the [mandatory] imposition of a life-without-parole sentence on a fourteen-year-old child violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments' prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?

• Conclusion: 5-4, yes

→ So mandatory life without parole for a juvenile murderer is unconstitutional

Montgomery v Alabama (2016)

Made Miller retroactive