List of landmark court decisions in the United States

The following landmark court decisions in the United States contains landmark court decisions which changed the interpretation of existing law in the United States. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:

  • establishing a significant new legal principle or concept;
  • overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning;
  • distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
  • establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.

In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. United States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.

Individual Rights

Discrimination based on Race and Ethnicity

Discrimination based on sex

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights

Immunity from civil rights violations
  • Monroe v. Pape, 365 U.S. 167 (1961) While municipalities can not be liable under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, individuals acting "under color of law" can be sued for damages for denying the constitutional rights of individuals. (overruled in Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (in part))
  • Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547 (1967) Police officers are protected from being sued for civil rights violations under Section 1983 by the doctrine of qualified immunity.
  • Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978) A judge will not be deprived of judicial immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority. He will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the clear absence of all jurisdiction.
  • Monell v. Department of Social Services of the City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) Municipalities can be held liable for violations of Constitutional rights through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 actions. §1983 claims against municipal entities must be based on implementation of a policy or custom.
  • Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 (7th Cir. 1979) The Seventh Circuit established that a judge engaging in acts of public defamation inspired by racial prejudice is not protected by judicial immunity and therefore a civil lawsuit against a judge can be brought under the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
  • Will v. Michigan Department of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (1989) Neither States nor state officials acting in their official capacities are "persons" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when being sued for monetary damages.

Birth control and abortion

End of life

Citizenship

Freedom of movement
  • Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) Freedom of movement between states is a fundamental right; a state cannot inhibit people from leaving it by imposing a tax on doing so.
  • United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) The Constitution grants to the states the power to prosecute individuals for wrongful interference with the right to travel.
  • Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) A state cannot prohibit indigent people from moving into it.
  • Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
  • Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which makes it a crime for any member of a communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport, is an unconstitutional abridgment of the right to travel.
  • United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) There is a constitutional right to travel from state to state, and the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to citizens who suffer deprivations of their rights at the hands of a private conspiracy where there is state participation in the conspiracy, no matter how minimal.
  • Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) The fundamental right to travel and the Equal Protection Clause forbid a state from reserving welfare benefits only for persons that have resided in the state for at least one year.
  • Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999) A California law that limits new residents' benefits for the first year they live in the state is an unconstitutional violation of their right to travel.

Restrictions on involuntary commitment
  • Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972) A state violates due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his or her permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him or her.
  • O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) A state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
  • Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979) Clear and convincing evidence is required by the Fourteenth Amendment in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital.
  • Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982) Involuntarily committed residents have protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these interests.

Public health and safety
  • Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) A state's police power to enforce quarantine laws extends to restricting the movements of uninfected individuals.
  • Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) Individual liberty is not absolute, and a state's police power must be held to embrace at least such reasonable regulations established directly by legislative enactment to protect public health and safety, which extends to compulsory vaccination laws.
  • Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) School districts can constitutionally exclude unvaccinated students.
  • Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) States have broad authority to regulate the actions and treatment of children. Parental authority is not absolute and can be permissibly restricted if doing so is in the interests of a child's welfare. While children share many of the rights of adults, they face different potential harms from similar activities. Compulsory vaccination is an example of a fundamental police power.
  • Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) State statutes permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the intellectually disabled, "for the protection and health of the state" did not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (partially overruled by Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942) and fully by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)

Other areas
  • Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) Some of the rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause include the freedom of movement through the states, the right of access to the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, an exemption from higher taxes than those paid by state residents, and the right to vote. This case was decided by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington while riding circuit in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. It is notable for Washington asserting the existence of cognizable rights within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities Clause that are nowhere within the Constitution's text.
  • Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary.
  • Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) United States citizens abroad, even when associated with the military, cannot be deprived of the protections of the Constitution and cannot be made subject to military jurisdiction.
  • Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63 (1977) An employer may discharge an employee who observes a seventh-day sabbath, and that such employee is not entitled to equal employment opportunity protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to discriminate against an employee on the basis of his religion.
  • Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) The government lacks a substantial interest in excluding from K-12 public schools children who were not legally admitted into the country.

Criminal law

Fourth Amendment rights
Main article: Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
  • Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914) Exclusionary rule, under which evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be admitted at trial, formulated for federal prosecutions.
  • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 251 U.S. 385 (1920) All evidence developed and obtained based on evidence obtained unconstitutionally is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and cannot be used at trial.
  • Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Exclusionary rule applied to state prosecutions.
  • Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966) The application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination to searches that intrude into the human body means that police may not conduct warrantless blood testing on suspects absent an emergency that justifies acting without a warrant.
  • Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to all places where an individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
  • Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime and frisk the suspect for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment.
  • Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364 (1968) The privacy rights defined in Katz extend to the workplace.
  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) Individuals may sue federal government officials who have violated their Fourth Amendment rights even though such a suit is not authorized by law. The existence of a remedy for the violation is implied from the importance of the right that is violated.
  • United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 407 U.S. 297 (1972) Government officials must obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent make the Fourth Amendment's protections especially important when the government spies on its own citizens.
  • Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) The totality of the circumstances, rather than a rigid test, must be used in finding probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984) Creates the inevitable discovery exception to the Fourth Amendment, under which evidence that might otherwise be suppressed as unconstitutionally obtained can be included if the state can demonstrate that it would reasonably have been found in any event.
  • New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U.S. 325 (1985) The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches applies to those conducted by public school officials as well as those conducted by law enforcement personnel, but public school officials can use the less strict standard of reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause.
  • O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709 (1987) In the absence of reasonable workplace policy to the contrary, the Fourth Amendment applies to searches of public employees, their belongings or workplaces by their superiors if done with reasonable suspicion for administrative reasons.
  • Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) Schools may implement random drug testing upon students participating in school-sponsored athletics.
  • Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33 (1996) The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.
  • Board of Education v. Earls, 536 U.S. 822 (2002) Coercive drug testing imposed by school districts upon students who participate in extracurricular activities does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
  • Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103 (2006) Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects.
  • In re Directives, (2008) According to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.[1]
  • United States v. Jones, 565 U.S. 400 (2012) Attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Riley v. California, 573 U.S. 373 (2014) Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
  • Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018) Government acquisition of cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search, and, thus, generally requires a warrant.

Right to counsel
  • Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932) Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, a state must inform illiterate defendants charged with a capital crime that they have a right to be represented by counsel and must appoint counsel for defendants who cannot afford to hire a lawyer and give counsel adequate time to prepare for trial.
  • Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942) A defense lawyer's conflict of interest arising from a simultaneous representation of codefendants violates the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment.
  • Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455 (1942) Indigent defendants may be denied counsel when prosecuted by a state (overruled by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)).
  • Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) All defendants have the right to an attorney and must be provided one by the state if they are unable to afford legal counsel.
  • Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) A person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney.
  • Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer, and to have one appointed to them if they are indigent. A police interrogation must stop if the suspect states that he or she wishes to remain silent.
  • In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) Juvenile defendants are protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625 (1986) If a police interrogation begins after a defendant asserts his or her right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding, then any waiver of that right for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid (overruled by Montejo v. Louisiana (2009)).
  • Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 778 (2009) A defendant may waive his or her right to counsel during a police interrogation even if the interrogation begins after the defendant's assertion of his or her right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding.

Other rights regarding counsel
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) To obtain relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
  • Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction. Second, where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear or uncertain, attorneys must advise that deportation "may" result. Finally, attorneys must give their clients some advice about deportation—counsel cannot remain silent about immigration consequences.

Right to remain silent

Competence
  • Dusky v. United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) A defendant has the right to a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.
  • Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979) The competence of a committed patient is presumed until he or she is adjudicated incompetent.
  • Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) A defendant has the right to a competency evaluation before being executed.
  • Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) A defendant who is competent to stand trial is automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.
  • Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) The Supreme Court laid down four criteria for cases involving the involuntary administration of medication to an incompetent pretrial defendant.
  • Kahler v. Kansas, 589 U.S. ___ (2020) The Constitution's Due Process Clause does not necessarily compel the acquittal of any defendant who, because of mental illness, could not tell right from wrong when committing their crime.

Detention of terrorism suspects

Capital punishment
Main article: Capital punishment in the United States
  • Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U.S. 459 (1947) A condemned person does not suffer double jeopardy when he is executed again after the failure of the first attempt.
  • Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) The arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This decision initiates a nationwide de facto moratorium on executions that lasts until the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976).
  • Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Georgia's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it adequately narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. This case and the next four cases were consolidated and decided simultaneously. By evaluating the new death penalty statutes that had been passed by the states, the Supreme Court ended the moratorium on executions that began with its decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972).
  • Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) Florida's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it requires the comparison of aggravating factors to mitigating factors in order to impose a death sentence.
  • Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976) Texas's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it uses a three-part test to determine if a death sentence should be imposed.
  • Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) North Carolina's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence to be imposed.
  • Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) Louisiana's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence for a large range of crimes.
  • Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) A death sentence may not be imposed for the crime of rape.
  • Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) A death sentence may not be imposed on offenders who are involved in a felony during which a murder is committed but who do not actually kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place.
  • Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) A death sentence may not be imposed on defendants who are deemed to be legally insane.
  • Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987) The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who did not intend to cause the death, but was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life.
  • McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) Evidence of a "racially-disproportionate impact" in the application of the death penalty indicated by a comprehensive scientific study is not enough to invalidate an individual's death sentence without showing a "racially discriminatory purpose.
  • Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S. 361 (1989) The imposition of capital punishment on an individual for a crime committed at 16 or 17 years of age does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. (overruled by Roper v. Simmons (2005))
  • Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in capital punishment cases that involve foreign nationals.
  • Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) A death sentence may not be imposed on mentally retarded offenders, but the states can define what it means to be mentally retarded.
  • Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) A death sentence may not be imposed on juvenile offenders.
  • Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) The three-drug cocktail used for performing executions by lethal injection in Kentucky (as well as virtually all of the states using lethal injection at the time) is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
  • Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) The death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve homicide or crimes against the state such as treason and "drug kingpin activity".
  • Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. 863 (2015) The Eighth Amendment requires prisoners to show 1.) there is a known and available alternative method of execution and 2.) the challenged method of execution poses a demonstrated risk of severe pain, with the burden of proof resting on the prisoners, not the state.
  • Bucklew v. Precythe, 587 U.S. ___ (2019), Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain. When a convict sentenced to death challenges the State's method of execution due to claims of excessive pain, the convict must show that other alternative methods of execution exist and clearly demonstrate they would cause less pain than the state-determined one.

Other criminal sentences
  • Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) The Supreme Court extended Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to the parole revocation process, hold that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a parole board to give an evidentiary hearing prior to revoking the parole of a defendant and spelled out the minimum due process requirements for the revocation hearing.
  • Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) The Supreme Court issued a substantive ruling regarding the rights of individuals in violation of a probation or parole sentence. It held that a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked. More specifically the Supreme Court held that a preliminary and final revocation of probation hearings are required by Due Process; the judicial body overseeing the revocation hearings shall determine if the probationer or parolee requires counsel; denying representation of counsel must be documented in the record of the Court.
  • Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) In administrative proceedings regarding discipline, prisoners retain some of their due process rights. When a prison disciplinary hearing might result in the loss of good-time credits, due process requires that the prison notify the prisoner in advance of the hearing, afford him an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and furnish him with a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reason for the disciplinary action.
  • Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) A sentencing court cannot properly revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and make restitution, absent evidence and findings that he was somehow responsible for the failure or that alternative forms of punishment were inadequate to meet the State's interest in punishment and deterrence.
  • Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) Mandatory state sentencing guidelines are the statutory maximum for purposes of applying the Apprendi rule.
  • Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
  • Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.
  • Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial is read as requiring a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense and is an incorporated right to the states.

Other areas
  • Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884) State governments, as distinguished from the federal government, need not use grand juries in criminal prosecutions.
  • Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U.S. 86 (1923) Mob violence at criminal trials, such as those that followed the Elaine Race Riot, is a violation of due process. First 20th-century case where the Court protected the rights of Blacks in the South, and one of its first to review a criminal conviction for constitutionality.
  • Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932) Entrapment is a valid defense to a criminal charge.
  • Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936) Confessions obtained through physical force and torture are inadmissible at trial.
  • Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940) Confessions compelled by police through duress are inadmissible at trial.
  • United States v. Morgan, 346 U.S. 502 (1954) The writ of coram nobis is the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.
  • Thompson v. City of Louisville, 362 U.S. 199 (1960) Criminal convictions are unconstitutional when no element of the offense has been proven.
  • Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) Besides ruling that the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause applies to the states the Supreme Court held that punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
  • Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) The prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant (exculpatory evidence) to the defense.
  • Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) The Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment has been violated.
  • Aleman v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302 (7th Cir., 1998) A defendant who is found after acquittal to have benefited from corrupt or undue influence on the trier(s) of fact can be retried for the offense after such corruption has been discovered; the state has a right to an honest trial. A retrial in these circumstances does not constitute double jeopardy since the defendant was never truly in jeopardy during the first trial; this is one of only two circumstances where the same jurisdiction may retry a defendant who has been acquitted.
  • Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004) The Supreme Court held that the admission of "testimonial" hearsay in a criminal trial violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him unless the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Federalism
Main article: Federalism in the United States

Native American law

First Amendment rights
Main article: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

General aspects
  • National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) If a state seeks to impose an injunction in the face of a substantial claim of First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. Absent such immediate review, the appellate court must grant a stay of any lower court order restricting the exercise of speech and assembly rights.
  • Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (1989) Content-neutral restrictions on the time, place and manner of speech that are found to serve a compelling state interest must be narrowly tailored to their goal.

Freedom of speech and of the press
Main articles: Freedom of speech in the United States and Freedom of the press in the United States

Freedom of religion
Main article: Freedom of religion in the United States

Freedom of association
  • National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) The freedom to associate with organizations dedicated to the "advancement of beliefs and ideas" is an inseparable part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) Private citizens organizing a public demonstration have the right to exclude groups whose message they disagree with from participating.
  • Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) Private organizations are allowed to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations.

Freedom of petition
Main article: Right to petition in the United States
  • Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229 (1963) The Free Petition Clause extends to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) The Free Petition Clause encompasses petitions to all three branches of the federal government—the Congress, the executive including administrative agencies, and the judiciary.

Second Amendment rights
Main article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Third Amendment rights
Main article: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
  • Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982) Members of the National Guard qualify as "soldiers" under the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And the protection of the Third Amendment applies to anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises. This case is notable for being the only case based on Third Amendment claims that has been decided by a federal appeals court.

Fourteenth Amendment rights
Main article: Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Separation of powers
Main article: Separation of powers under the United States Constitution
  • Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803) Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional because it attempts to expand the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. Congress cannot pass laws that contradict the Constitution. This case featured the first example of judicial nullification of a federal law and it was the point at which the Supreme Court adopted a monitoring role over government actions.
  • Little v. Barreme, 6 U.S. 170 (1804) The President does not have "inherent authority" or "inherent powers" that allow him to ignore a law passed by the US Congress. Presidential orders which contradict acts of Congress are illegal, and military officers are responsible for the execution of illegal commands, despite the nature of military chain of command.
  • United States v. Klein, 80 U.S. 128 (1871) The principle of separation of powers prohibits Congress from prescribing a rule of decision for the federal courts to follow in particular pending cases, because the legislative branch cannot impair the exclusive powers of another branch.
  • Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52 (1926) The President has the exclusive power to remove executive branch officials, and does not need the approval of the Senate or any other legislative body.
  • J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928) Congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.
  • Springer v. Government of the Philippine Islands, 277 U.S. 189 (1928) American Constitutions, both state and federal, divides the government into three separate departments—the legislative, executive, and judicial. This separation and the consequent exclusive character of the powers conferred upon each of the three departments is basic and vital—not merely a matter of governmental mechanism. It may be stated then, as a general rule inherent in the American constitutional system, that, unless otherwise expressly provided or incidental to the powers conferred, the legislature cannot exercise either executive or judicial power; the executive cannot exercise either legislative or judicial power; the judiciary cannot exercise either executive or legislative power.
  • Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935) The President may not remove an appointee to an independent regulatory agency except for reasons that Congress has provided by law.
  • Nixon v. General Services Administration, 433 U.S. 425 (1977) Congress has the power to pass a law that directs the seizure and disposition of the papers and tapes of a former president that are within the control of the executive branch.
  • Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983) Congress may not promulgate a statute granting to itself a legislative veto over actions of the executive branch because such a veto is inconsistent with the bicameralism principle and Presentment Clause of the Constitution.
  • Bowsher v. Synar, 478 U.S. 714 (1986) Congress cannot reserve removal power over executive officers to itself, except for impeachment.
  • Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654 (1988) The Ethics in Government Act of 1978 is constitutional because it does not increase the power of the judiciary or legislative branches at the expense of the executive branch. Its restriction on the power of the United States Attorney General to remove an inferior officer only for good cause does not violate the Appointments Clause.
  • Plaut v. Spendthrift Farm, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995) Congress is unable to make any law or provision therein to reopen cases which have been previously adjudicated by or within federal courts. Congress violates the separation of powers principle when it orders federal courts to reopen their final judgments.
  • Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) The Line Item Veto Act is unconstitutional because it allows the President to amend or repeal parts of statutes without the pre-approval of Congress. According to the Presentment Clause of the Constitution, Congress must initiate all changes to existing laws.
  • National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513 (2014) For purposes of the Recess Appointment Clause, the Senate is in session when it says that it is if, under its own rules, it retains the capacity to transact business. D.C. Circuit affirmed.
  • Bank Markazi v. Peterson, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) A law which only applied to a specific case, identified by docket number, and eliminated all of the defenses that one party had raised does not violate the separation of powers in the United States Constitution between the legislative (Congress) and judicial branches of government.

Administrative law
Main article: United States administrative law
  • United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260 (1954) Administrative agencies are obliged to follow their own regulations, policies and procedures. Under the Accardi Doctrine, federal agencies which do not follow their own regulations or procedures run the risk of having their actions invalidated if challenged in court.
  • Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402 (1972) The case established the basic legal framework for judicial review of the actions of administrative agencies.
  • Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) An interpretation by a government agency of its own mandate from Congress is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is permissible under the statute, regardless as to whether it is the best possible interpretation or an interpretation the Court would have made.
  • Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) Agencies have the highest level of deference in interpreting their own regulations. However, deference is warranted only if the language of the regulation is ambiguous unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. The case expands Chevron deference by giving the agency the highest deference.
  • Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) Greenhouse gases are air pollutants, and the Environmental Protection Agency may regulate their emission under the Clean Air Act.
  • Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, 576 U.S. 743 (2015) The Environmental Protection Agency must consider costs when it regulates power plants under the Clean Air Act.
  • West Virginia v. Environmental Protection Agency, 596 U.S. ___ (2022) The Environmental Protection Agency only has limited authority to set caps on carbon emissions. Under the major questions doctrine, Congress is presumed not to delegate questions of vast economic and political significance to an agency except with clear statutory authorization.

Executive power

Domestic
  • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) The President cannot seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under the Constitution or statutory authority given to him or her by Congress. Commander-in-chief powers do not extend to labor disputes.
  • United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) The doctrine of executive privilege is legitimate; however, the President cannot invoke it in criminal cases to withhold evidence.
  • Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) Presidential aides were not entitled to absolute immunity, but instead deserved qualified immunity.
  • Halkin v. Helms, 598 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1978) The NSA is not required to disclose evidence which may threaten the diplomatic or military interests of the nation in court.
  • Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 731 (1982) The President is entitled to absolute immunity from legal liability for civil damages based on his official acts. The President is not immune from criminal charges stemming from his official or unofficial acts while he is in office.
  • Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) The President has no immunity that could require civil law litigation against him or her involving a dispute unrelated to the office of President to be stayed until the end of him or her term. Such a delay would deprive the parties to the suit of the right to a speedy trial that is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment.
  • Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) The court laid out a four-factor balancing test that lower courts must weigh before determining if congressional subpoenas involving the President and his papers are valid.
  • Trump v. Vance, 591 U.S. ___ (2020) Article II and the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution do not categorically preclude, or require a heightened standard for, the issuance of a state criminal subpoena to a sitting president.

Foreign

Other areas

Voting and Redistricting

Takings Clause
  • Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, private property can be taken for a public purpose as long as just compensation is paid.
  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) Whether a regulatory action that diminishes the value of a claimant's property constitutes a "taking" of that property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment depends on several factors, including the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, particularly the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, as well as the character of the governmental action.
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council. 503 U.S. 1003 (1992) Established the "total takings" test, i.e. has the owner been deprived of all possible beneficial use of the property, in determining whether a regulation limiting use of the property constitutes a regulatory taking
  • Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) A government agency may not take property in exchange for benefits that are unrelated to the agency's interest in the property.
  • Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon, which held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
  • Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) Local governments may seize property for economic development purposes. Noted for converting the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause to "public purpose."

Businesses/Corporations/Contracts

Copyright/Patents

Other

See also
  • List of overruled United States Supreme Court decisions

References
  1. Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Archived (PDF) from the original on August 3, 2019. Retrieved July 15, 2013.
  2. Sundara Rajan, Mira T. (2011). Moral Rights: Principles, Practice and New Technology. Oxford University Press. p. 142. ISBN 978-0-19-539031-5.
  3. Brossard, Dominique; Shanahan, James; Clint Nesbitt, T. (2007). The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology. ISBN 9781845932039.
  4. "Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A Retrospective on 25 Years of Biotech Patents" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 22, 2016. Retrieved December 3, 2016.
  5. "Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980)". Justia Law. Archived from the original on January 7, 2012. Retrieved July 30, 2023.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.