Contemporary America Supreme Court Cases

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

In this case, law enforcement without a warrant forcibly entered a woman’s home in Ohio while searching for evidence related to a bombing and illegal gambling. When they conducted an unauthorized search, they discovered obscene material—information used to convict her under state law. Upon appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a 6–3 vote that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in either federal or state court, thereby incorporating the “exclusionary rule” into state jurisprudence.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

In this landmark case, a state education agency's official prayer—requiring public school students to recite a government-composed prayer—was challenged as a violation of the First Amendment’s prohibition on establishing religion. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that such government involvement in composing or mandating religious observance in public schools is unconstitutional because it breaches the constitutional mandate of separating church and state.

Baker v. Carr (1962)

This case challenged a state’s failure to reapportion its legislative districts in response to population shifts, arguing that unequal districting denied citizens equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court ruled that issues of legislative apportionment are justiciable, thus empowering federal courts to review such claims. This decision laid the foundation for the “one man, one vote” standard, fundamentally reshaping representation in American government.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

An indigent defendant, charged with a felony and unable to afford legal counsel, was denied a court-appointed attorney by state law. The Supreme Court unanimously determined that the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel is a fundamental guarantee that applies to state prosecutions through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision mandated that all criminal defendants in serious cases must be provided with legal representation if they cannot afford one, ensuring a fair trial for all.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

In this pivotal libel case, a public official sued the New York Times for defamatory statements contained in an advertisement about civil rights activities. The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a public official must prove that defamatory statements about their official conduct were made with “actual malice”—that is, with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. This ruling significantly strengthened protections for freedom of speech and of the press under the First Amendment, making it exceedingly difficult for public officials to win libel suits.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

This case involved the conviction of individuals who provided information about contraception in violation of a state law. The Supreme Court held that the law infringed on a constitutional right to privacy—a right derived from several guarantees in the Bill of Rights. The decision established that “zones of privacy” exist, within which the government may not intrude, setting a critical precedent for later cases involving reproductive rights and personal autonomy.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

An accused man, taken into custody for serious crimes, was interrogated without being informed of his constitutional rights—specifically, his right to remain silent and to have legal counsel. His subsequent confession was used against him at trial. The Supreme Court, by a narrow 5‑4 vote, held that such rights must be communicated prior to custodial interrogation, thus establishing that statements obtained in violation of these protections are inadmissible.

Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969)

In this case, students wearing black armbands to protest a war-related policy were suspended from school. The Supreme Court ruled that the students’ symbolic expression of dissent was protected speech under the First Amendment. The decision affirmed that neither students nor teachers "shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate," so long as their actions do not cause significant disruption.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

This case challenged state laws that provided financial support to nonpublic, religious schools. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, held that such laws violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Court established a three‑pronged test (secular purpose, primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion, and no excessive government entanglement with religion) to determine if a law is constitutional under the clause.

New York Times v. United States (1971)

After newspapers published classified documents detailing government actions in a war, the government sought a court injunction to halt further publication. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that prior restraint on publication is nearly impermissible under the First Amendment. This decision reinforced robust freedom of the press, affirming that the government may not censor material even if it concerns national security, without meeting a very high standard.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Several Amish families challenged a state compulsory school attendance law that required their children to attend school beyond a certain age, arguing that it violated their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court held that forcing Amish children into high school was not justified by the state’s educational interests, thereby prioritizing religious freedom and cultural preservation over uniform attendance requirements.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

A woman challenged her state's criminal abortion laws, arguing that they violated her right to privacy. The Supreme Court held that the constitutional right to privacy, derived from the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (and influenced by precedent decisions), protects a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion. The ruling established a trimester framework balancing a woman’s rights with the state’s interests in regulating abortions.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

Amid the fallout from a major political scandal involving a break-in at a party headquarters, the President claimed executive privilege to withhold taped Oval Office conversations from a congressional investigation. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, ruled that even the president is not above the law. The Court held that a specific need for evidence in a criminal trial can override a generalized claim of privilege, thus affirming judicial authority over executive actions in matters of national importance.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

This case challenged federal limits on campaign contributions and expenditures imposed by a law intended to prevent corruption. The Court upheld limits on individual contributions to political candidates as a valid means to avoid corruption, yet ruled that restrictions on how much candidates may spend violate First Amendment rights by infringing on free speech and association.

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

In this decision addressing affirmative action in higher education, a white applicant challenged an admissions policy that reserved a fixed number of spots for minority students. The Court ruled that rigid racial quotas were unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, but also held that race could be considered as one of several admission criteria to help remedy past discrimination.

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

Following an incident where a protester burned a flag as a political demonstration at a national convention, the case questioned whether such conduct is protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of symbolic speech. The Supreme Court, by a close 5‑4 margin, held that flag burning is a form of political expression and thus protected speech, despite its emotionally charged nature.

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

This case involved a challenge to a legislative district drawn primarily based on race. The plaintiffs argued that the oddly shaped district was designed solely to secure representation for a minority group, which they claimed violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled that racial gerrymandering, even with minority-enhancing intentions, must undergo strict scrutiny, meaning that such districts must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest.

United States v. Lopez (1995)

Here, the issue was whether Congress exceeded its constitutional authority under the Commerce Clause when it passed a law prohibiting the possession of firearms near schools. The Supreme Court, in a 5‑4 decision, held that possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce; thus, the federal law exceeded Congress’s powers, marking the first such limitation on federal authority under the Commerce Clause in many decades.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

In a highly consequential election dispute, the Court intervened in a recount process in one key state, ruling that differing methods of vote counting violated the Equal Protection Clause. With its decision halting the recount, the Court effectively awarded that state's electoral votes to one candidate, determining the outcome of the presidential election.

Kelo v. New London (2005)

In a case addressing economic revitalization, state and local officials used eminent domain to transfer private property to a private developer for the purpose of generating new business, tax revenue, and jobs in a distressed municipality. The majority ruled that “public use” under the Fifth Amendment can be interpreted broadly to mean “public benefit.”

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

This case challenged a local ban on handgun possession. The Court ruled that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, extending Second Amendment protections to state and local governments.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

In a contentious campaign finance dispute, a conservative nonprofit challenged limits on political spending imposed on corporations and unions. The Court held that restrictions on independent political expenditures constitute a violation of the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Shelby County v. Holder (2013)

This case involved a challenge to a key provision of federal voting rights law that used a coverage formula to subject certain jurisdictions to preclearance before changing voting practices. The Court, by a narrow margin, ruled that the formula was outdated because the conditions that once justified the measure no longer existed, thereby invalidating its application.

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. (2014)

A ruling addressing a health care mandate challenged on the grounds of religious freedom. The decision held that closely held, for‑profit corporations could be exempt from a contraceptive coverage requirement mandated for employer‑provided health plans, because the provision infringed on their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court concluded that the regulation did not represent the least restrictive means of achieving its health care objective.

Riley v. California (2014)

In a case involving a warrantless search incident during an arrest, the Court examined whether digital data on a cell phone is subject to Fourth Amendment protections. The decision ruled that police may not search and seize digital information from an individual’s phone incident to arrest without a warrant, as such a search violates constitutional privacy rights absent exigent circumstances.

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

This decision addressed the constitutionality of state laws that limited marriage to unions between one man and one woman. The Court ruled that these restrictions violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment by denying same‑sex couples the right to marry and requiring states to recognize valid marriages performed in other jurisdictions.