Landmark Supreme Court cases

** page under construction **

AP Gov list of required Landmark Supreme Court cases

• cases as listed by College Board for inclusion in AP US Gov exam
  • Note: for 2023,
    • Roe v. Wade (1973) will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent Dobbs (2022) decision
    • Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971 will NOT be included, as it was overturned by the recent Kennedy (2022) decision
    • see: AP United States Government and Politics Exam – AP Central | College Board
• review of additional cases will yield greater student comprehension and analytical skills for understanding, evaluating and applying constitutional and legal concepts and Court decisions.

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED)

Case	Date	Court	AP Unit 1 Objective	Issues / Doctrine	Constitutional Issues	Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent	Related Cases
Baker v. Carr	1961	Warren	Republicanism (CON-3)	- - "One person one vote" standard - Political Question doctrine	Equal protection clause (14th amendment) Judicial review	ruled that the state of Tennessee had ignored a 1901 state law that required redistricting to be adjusted according to census results click EXPAND for more: the state had not drawn new districts since 1901, resulting in overrepresentation of rural over urban citizens held that challenges to state districting (gerrymandering) issues were not merely "political questions" and thus subject to Court review the Court was split on the case and the case had to be re-argued dissents: Justice Brennan argued that redistricting is a political question and should be left up to the states Justice Frankfurter held that the decision was "judicial overreach"	Reynolds v. Sims (1964) Shaw v. Reno , 1993)
Brown v. Board of Education	1954	Warren	Equal protection (PRD-1)	- equal protection - "separate is not equal"	Equal protection clause (14th amendment)	unanimous ruling held that segregated schools were "inherently unequal" and thus violated the 14th amendment's equal protection clause regarding public school segregation the ruling did not completely overturn Plessy, as Brown applied only to public education, but it became the primary precedent for further challenges to de jure (in law) segregation subsequent cases also addressed de facto (in fact or practice) segregation	Cooper v. Aaron (1958: affirmed Brown and enforced desegregation) Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971: busing to promote racial integration in schools) Milliken v. Bradley (1974: "busing"; distinguished between de jure and de facto segregation)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission	2010	Roberts	Electoral rules (PRD-2)	campaign finance law	Free speech clause (1st amendment)	held that "political spending" by organizations is protected speech click EXPAND for more: the case regarded advertising of a movie during a primary election season that was critical of Hillary Clinton and that violated a 2002 law, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prohibited "electioneering communication" by corporations, non-profits or unions withing 30 days of a primary or 60 days of an election; the law was invalidated by the case	McCutcheon v. FEC (2014: expanded campaign finance limits but did not end them)
Engel v. Vitale	1962	Warren	Civil Liberties (LOR-2)	Can public schools conduct prayer? - prayer in public school - "separation of Church and State" doctrine	Establishment clause (1st amendment)	ruled that official public school prayer (i.e., school-sponsored) violated the 1st amendment prohibition of government sponsored religion click EXPAND for more: the ruling affirmed the "wall of separation between Church and State," which is from a published letter by President Thomas Jefferson in 1802 dissent: Justice Stewart argued that the Establishment clause prohibited creation of a state- (government) sponsored church and not the non-mandatory practice of religion within a public school	Abington School District v. Schempp (1963: banned public school-sponsored Bible reading) Wallace v. Jaffree (1985: banned school-sponsored prayer but allowed for school-sponsored moment of silence for individual meditation)
Gideon v. Wainwright	1963	Warren	Civil Liberties (LOR-3)	- public counsel - incorporation case	Right to counsel (6th amendment)	Gideon requested but was denied a public attorney (Florida only allowed it for capital offenses) click EXPAND for more: the unanimous decision held that a state must provide counsel for criminal defendants who can not afford an attorney or who are otherwise incapable of representing themselves (incompetency or illiteracy) Gideon is an incorporation case, as the 6th amendment right to counsel was applied state law via the 14th amendment's Due Process clause	Powell v. Alabama (1932: required state-sponsored counsel in capital crimes; it importantly incorporated the 6th amendment right via the 14th amendment's "due process" clause) for similar cases regarding criminal protections: Massiah v. United States (1964: prohibited use of statements by criminals who had counsel without that attorney present) Miranda v. Arizona (1966: self-incrimination protections; incorporation of 5th amendment; see also Berghuis v. Thompkins 2010)
Marbury v. Madison	1803	Marshall	Judicial review (CON-5)	Judicial supremacy	Judicial review Original jurisdiction (Article III, Section 2) "legal remedy" concept	unanimous decision that settled a dispute between outgoing Adams and incoming Jefferson administrations over Adams' "midnight appointments", including one to Marbury click EXPAND for more: ruled that Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1793 was illegal under the Constitution, thus establishing "judicial review" created the power of the Courts to invalidate statutory laws based upon their "constitutionality" - Marbury lost his case, as the Court ruled that any legal remedy due to him was from an invalid law Marshall quoted Federalist No. 78 by Hamilton, "... that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void." note that Marshall's appointment to the Court as Chief Justice was one of Adams' final appointments after having lost the election of 1800	Hylton v. United States (1796)
McColluch v. Maryland	1819	Marshall	Federalism (CON-2)	implied powers	Supremacy clause (Article VI) Necessary and proper clause	Maryland tried to stop the Baltimore branch of the Second National Bank by taxing it click EXPAND for more: the Court ruled that the National Bank was legitimate and superseded (was over) state law, thus Maryland could not tax it the Court ruled that if the National Bank was legal (constitutional) measures to implement it were also Constitutional via the "necessary and proper clause" additionally, if a federal law was legal it is also "supreme" (Article VI) over state law Marshall's ruling denied 10th amendment reservations of unexpressed powers
McDonald v. Chicago	2010	Roberts	Civil Liberties (LOR-3)	- right to "keep and bear arms - incorporation case	Second amendment right to bear arms	in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) the Court affirmed the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" as an individual right by declaring a gun control law of the District of Columbia (DC) law unconstitutional. Since Heller regarded a DC law, which is a federal territory, the ruling was not immediately applicable to state law McDonald applied Heller it to state law via the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment	Heller v. District of Columbia (2008) People v. Aguilar (2013: upheld individual right to keep and bear arms)
New York Times v. United States	1971	Burger	Civil Liberties (LOR-2)	- prior restraint - freedom of the press	Freedom of the press (1st amendment)	the New York Times (NYT) newspaper published the leaked "Pentagon Papers," which were secret reports by the Pentagon regarding the U.S. intervention in Vietnam; the government fought to stop their publication based on national security grounds and that the possession of them by the NYT was illegal click EXPAND for more: the government was asking for "prior restraint" of further publication of the Papers (there were 7,000 pages, so the NYT started printing selections, upon which time the Government ordered the NYT to halt publication ("prior restraint" = to stop criminal behavior before it is actually done) the Court ruled that the government's need to keep certain secrets (i.e., classified information) was subordinate (less important than) to constitutional protections of the press, even if those secrets were unlawfully released (leaked) the ruling stated that when balanced against the freedom of the press, the government's position for prior restraint "carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint" the Court created a standard for testing the importance of keeping state secrets to the "grave and irreparable danger" standard other issues include, censorship, prior restraint, injunction
Schenck v. United States	1919	Hughes	Civil Liberties (LOR-2)	"clear and present danger"	- right to speech (1st amendment) - restriction on speech	unanimous decision that upheld laws that restricted anti-draft protests/ flyers during WWI were legal restrictions of the right to speech click EXPAND for more: the court reasoned that the criticisms of the draft were designed to induce others to commit a crime (resisting the draft) and would present a "clear and present danger" to the war efforts created the "clear and present danger" test for laws that limit First Amendment rights to speech and the press Justice Holmes' opinion included the phrase "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic," which is used to illuminate criminal speech	Abrams v. United States (1919: upheld a law that made it illegal to advocate for obstruction to the war efforts) Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969: partially overturned Schenck by creating the "imminent lawless action" standard that was stricter than the "clear and present danger" test)
Shaw v. Reno	1993	Rehnquist	Republicanism (CON-3)	- redistricting and gerrymandering	equal protection (14th amendment)	ruled that redistricting based on race (i.e. creating voting districts based on the race of the inhabitants) must meet the "strict scrutiny" standard (be carefully examined and measured for purpose and effect) click EXPAND for more: however, the Court held that states must take into account race in adherence to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the case was about a Federal government-ordered redistricting of a North Carolina district that had been gerrymandered to create a black-majority district; at the time, North Carolina was operating under desegregation-era Federal oversight that was to protect minorities; the government ordered the state to create two black-majority districts, the 2nd of which would have been 160 miles long and geographically odd the court ruled that the proposed district was clearly designed only with race in mind, which violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause dissenting judges noted that the strict scrutiny therefore applied to districting that advantaged blacks but not other non-racial groups and also that no voter was disenfranchised (not allowed to vote) by the districting plan	Miller v. Johnson (1995: addressed racial gerrymandering that had created a "geographic monstrosity" in order to have a black-majority of voters)
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District	1969	Warren	Civil Liberties (LOR-2)	Can public schools regulate student speech?- protests in public schools - public safety (protecting children) v. rights of minors - "substantial disruption" test	Free speech clause (1st amendment)	students who wore armbands to protest the Vietnam War were suspended by the school for violating a rule that was created specifically for this protest click EXPAND for more: the court held that the "silent symbol" of the armbands was not disruptive and the conduct of the students did not "materially and substantially interfere" with school operations or discipline and that even if they caused "discomfort and unpleasantness" in those who disagreed with them, the rights of the students the court allowed for circumstances in which student speech might cause disruptions the court created a "substantial disruption" test two justices dissented, including Justice Black who stated that "symbolic speech" was not a protected 1st amendment right and that people do not have a particular right to speak any "where" and "when" they please	West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943: outlawed rules or laws that force students to say the Pledge of Allegiance or to salute the flag) Miller v. California (1973: created the "Miller Test" for obscene materials, which may be legally banned)
United States v. Lopez	1995	Rehnquist	Federalism (CON 2)	validity of Commerce clause based on substantial effect on interstate commerce	Commerce clause (Article I, section 8)	by 5-4 vote, the Court struck a federal law that banned gun possession within 1,000 feet of a school; Congress justified the law under its powers derived from the Commerce class (power to regulate inter-state commerce), under the theory that guns were commonly sold across state lines click EXPAND for more: it was the first case since 1937 in which the Court held that the government had exceeded its powers under the Commerce clause Chief Justice Rehnquist set three standards for Federal regulation under the Commerce clause: the use of interstate channels for commerce instrumentality of interstate commerce (people or things that inherently engage in interstate commerce, such as an automobile or airplane) substantial impact on or relation to interstate commerce Justice Breyer's dissent argued that Congress was justified under the Commerce Clause because the economy might be impacted by gun violence that impaired education	Wickard v. Filburn (1942: expanded the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause; the issue of the case regarded whether or not Congress could regulate planting of corn, and the Court decided that since corn is sold across the country, even local planting of it impacts that commerce) United States v. Morrison (2000: similarly ruled that an act of Congress exceeded the powers granted Congress by the Commerce clause, in this case because the part of the law that the Court struck down was not directly related to economic activity)
Wisconsin v. Yoder	1972	Burger	Civil Liberties (LOR-2)	Can a state force parents who object on religious grounds to send their children to school? - parental rights - freedom of religion	Free exercise of religion clause (1st amendment) - incorporation case (via the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause)	the Court ruled that the First Amendments protection of the "free exercise" of religion supersedes (is more important than) the public interest in laws that create compulsory (required) school attendance click EXPAND for more: three Amish families argued that laws forcing their children to attend school past the 8th grade violated their religious belief the court ruled that not educating children past 8th grade created no burden upon society and thereby protecting the individual right to religion is the higher priority in his dissent, Justice Douglas argued that the case regarded parental rights and not the children's exercise of their religion (Justices Steward and Brennan responded that the children were following their parents' religion)	Reynolds v. United States (1878: found that religious duty was not a defense against illegal actions; the case regarded a man charged with bigamy (having multiple wives); Davis v. Beason, 1890 ruled that laws against bigamy did not violate the 1st Amendment's Free Exercise clause while not directly related to other cases, Yoder has been used as a basis for the parental right to homeschool or find alternatives to traditional schooling for children

AP US Gov Units / Learning Objectives re. Court Cases

In the above table, Landmark cases include categories for AP US Gov units and "Learning Objectives". These include:

• Unit 1 Court Cases Learning Objectives (CON)
  • CON = "Constitutionalism"
  • CON-2: Federalism reflects the dynamic distribution of power between national and state governments
    • 2.A. Describe the facts, reasoning, decision, and majority opinion of required Supreme Court cases
    • 2.B. Explain how the appropriate balance of power between national and state governments has been interpreted differently over time.
  • CON-3: The republican ideal in the U.S. is manifested in the structure and operation of the legislative branch.
    • CON-3 C. Explain how congressional behavior is influenced by election processes, partisanship, and divided government.
  • CON-4:
  • CON-5: The design of the judicial branch protects the Supreme Court’s independence as a branch of government, and the emergence and use of judicial review remains a powerful judicial practice.
    • CON-5 A. Explain the principle of judicial review and how it checks the power of other institutions and state governments.
• Unit 3 Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (LOR)
  • LOR = "Liberty and Order"
  • LOR-2: Provisions of the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights are continually being interpreted to balance the power of government and the civil liberties of individuals.
    • LOR 2.C. Explain the extent to which the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the First and Second Amendments reflects a commitment to individual libertY
  • LOR-3: Protections of the Bill of Rights have been selectively incorporated by way of the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to prevent state infringement of basic liberties.
  • PRD = "(civic) Participation in a Representative Democracy"
  • PRD-1: The Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause as well as other constitutional provisions have often been used to support the advancement of equality.
  • PRD-2: The impact of federal policies on campaigning and electoral rules continues to be contested by both sides of the political spectrum.
  • PRD-3:

Other Court Cases commonly assigned by AP US Government teachers

LANDMARK SUPREME COURT CASES (AP US GOV TEST REQUIRED)

Case	Date	Court	AP Unit 1 Objective	Issues / Doctrine	Constitutional Issues	Issues / Background / Description / Opinion / Dissent	Related Cases
Ex parte Milligan	1866	Chase	n/a	Can a military court try a citizen?- prohibited use of military tribunals when civilian courts are available	habeas corpus(note that "ex parte" means "on behalf of", thus for a court in which a party to a suit is absent or not notified)	- During the Civil War, the Lincoln administration tried northern dissenters in military courts - Decision: "marial rule can never exist when the courts are open" and martial law operates only under "military operations, where war really prevails"	Ex parte Merryman (1861 regarding suspemsion of habeas corpus) Ex parte Quirin (1942 regarding military trial of German spies in the U.S.)
Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US	1964	Warren	n/a	Can a public accommodation (a business or other publicly available service) discriminate by race?- racial discrimination - upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964	Commerce clause equal protection	- prior desegregation cases focused on public facilities (buses, school), but this case involved a private entity, a motel. However, since a motel is a "public accommodation," i.e. open to the public, the Court upheld the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that prohibited discrimination based on race, religion or national origin.	Katzenbach v. McClung (1964; upheld federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination in restraurants
Lemon v. Kurtzman	1971	Burger	n/a - this case was overturned in 2022 by Kennedy v. Bremerton School District) and so is no longer U.S. law and not on the AP US Gov test)	Can a state fund teach pay for religious schools? - government entanglement with religion - "Lemon Test": to assess secular (non-religious) purpose	Establishment clause (1st amendment)	- consolidated with a Rhode Island case that similarly tested validity of state compensation for religious school teachers - the "Lemon Test" resulted from this case, although Kennedy (2022) instructed lower courts to ignore the Lemon Test standard. - the Lemon Test proposed a "standard" for measuring legislative violation of the Establishment clause , including that the law must have a secular purpose neither advance nor inhibit religion not create "excessive government entanglement" with religion, as measured by 1. nature and purpose of the institution; 2) nature of the state aid; 3) resulting relationship between the government and the religious institution
Roe v. Wade	1973	Burger	n/a - this case was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022) and thus removed from the AP Gov Test in 2022 due to Dobbs decision)	- right to privacy - right to abortion - state regulation of abortion	due process (14th amendment 9th amendment reservation of the rights of the people	the court ruled that the Fourteenth amendment's "Due Process" clause creates a "right to privacy" that protects a woman's right to have an abortion click EXPAND for more: the court reasoned that the "due process" clause provides protection against excessive government restrictions of "personal liberty" the ruling struck down laws that banned abortion but still allowed some regulation of abortion, such as time limits on the age of the fetus and its "viability" for birth (which it deemed was in the 3rd trimester and so allowed for bans on abortion on it). dissent: Justice White argued that the Court has no standing to choose between a mother and an unborn child and said that in the decision the Court had exceeded it's powers of judicial review; he felt it was a political and not judicial question Justice Rehnquist argued that the Court had invented a right that the writers of the 14th Amendment had not intended, as when it was adopted in 1868 there were 36 state or territory laws limiting abortion	Griswold v. Connecticut (1965: held that laws banning contraception violated the right to marital privacy (in marriages) and that that right to privacy was implicit in the 1st, 3rd, 4th & 5th amendments) Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992: held that laws restricting abortion, such as mandatory waiting periods, spousal or parental notice, etc. had to meet the "undue burden standard" of creating undue or burdensome restrictions on individual rights) Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (pending as of April 2022)

Fourteenth Amendment "Incorporation Cases"

Incorporation meaning

• "Incorporation" refers to application of the rights and protections of the Bill of Rights to state law
  • in- = into + corp = body + -tion (makes a noun)
  • = "put into the body"
• the anti-Federalists (viz. Brutus) argued that the Constitution did not protect the rights of the citizens
  • thus the agreement was made that upon adoption of the Constitution it would be amended to include certain protections
  • the Bill of Rights (BOR) added these protections by limiting or prohibiting certain actions by the new federal government
    • thus the language of the BOR, "Congress shall make no law..." or "...shall not be violated"
  • it was understood by all the Founders that, except for where explicitly stated in the Constitution regarding the states, the Constitution and its amendments applied to the federal and not to the state governments
• in 1833, the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill or Rights does not apply to the states
  • Barron v. Baltimore (1833)
• following the Civil War, the Constitution was amended three times in order to
  1. abolish slavery (13th Amendment)
  2. provide to the former slaves citizenship and equal protection under the laws (14th amendment)
     1. and also to make arrangements for re-entry of rebellious states back into the Union
  3. secure the vote of former male slaves (15th amendment)

Fourteenth amendment

• the Fourteenth amendment explicitly applied to the federal and all state governments
  • given this national aspect, any case reviewed by the Courts regarding the 13-15th amendments was applicable to the states
  • it was through the 14th amendment's "due process" and "equal protection" clauses that, over time, the Courts applied other rights and protections from the BOR to the states, such as
    • 1st amendment protections of speech
    • 4th amendment protection of the rights of the accused (esp. search and seizure)
    • 5th amendment due process protections (especially self-incrimination and due process)
      • note that the 14th amendment "due process" clause explicitly repeats the 5th amendment language
• thus Court cases that apply the BOR protections to state laws are called "incorporation cases"

Select list of Landmark incorporation cases

• see this Wikipedia article that lists incorporation cases per each of the Bill of Rights:Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

14th Amendment "privileges or immunities," "due process" & "equal protection" clauses

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

privileges or immunities

• = protects the rights and protections of citizens
  • was intended to protect BOR protections (Amendments 1-8) from state law
  • however, the 1873 Slaughter-House Cases limited "privileges or immunities" to measures regarding U.S. (national) and not state citizenship
    • the case upheld a New Orleans law that took control of the city's slaughterhouse (meat packing) industry
    • the Court upheld the power of the city to enforce the public safety at the expense of the "privileges or immunities" of the litigants regarding their right to contract and property
• Courts have subsequently relied on the "Due Process" and "Equal Protection" instead of "Privileges or Immunities" clauses
  • Justice Thomas' concurring opinion (with the majority) in McDonald v. Chicago (2010; regarding gun rights) invoked the 14th amendment Privileges or Immunities clause
    • Judge Thomas argued that "substantive due process" is an invalid doctrine and that the Privileges or Immunities clause directly applies the Bill of Rights to state law
      • thus the Court need not rely on "process" in the Due Process clause and instead apply Amendments 1-8 directly

due process

• = the rules, procedures and processes required of the government when enforcing a law upon a citizen
  • these rules and processes include other BOR protections and are understood to apply to all government actions
• due process violations occur when
  • property is searched without a warrant
  • a criminal is held without charges
  • a court fails to adequately notify someone of a proceeding
• "due process" is also called "procedural law"

substantive due process

• in Lochner era cases, the Courts developed a concept called "substantive due process"
• whereas 5th and 14th Amendment "due process" regards "procedure" and "rules"
  • substantive due process:
    • regards actual rights, generally those "unenumerated," or not listed in the BOR
    • applies to any right or protection that is understood to be an inherent or fundamental right even if not specifically protected in law, such as
      • an individual's right to movement
      • economic liberties, such as the right to work or rights of contract
      • (note that near the end of the Great Depression, the Court accepted more limits on economic liberties)
• Warren era cases (1950s-1960s) employed "substantive due process" in creating "privacy" protections such as express in Roe v Wade (1973)

equal protection

• = the laws shall be applied or enforced upon all people equally
  • i.e. without undue burdens (going hard on) or leniencies (going easy on) different classes of people (race, religion, location, etc.)
• the clause deliberately applied Federal law over state law
• the phrase "equal justice under law" is derived from Fourteenth Amendment language in the Equal Protection clause
• both Brown v Board of Education (1954) ruling explicitly invoked the Equal Protection Clause
• other important cases include:
  • Strauder v. West Virginia (1880), which ruled that exclusion of blacks from a jury violated the Equal Protection clause
  • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which allowed racial discrimination in public facilities so long as they were "separate but equal"
    • in other words, even though Plessy legalized de jure segregation, the Court had to make that decision in terms of the 14th Amendment
    • Judge Harlan's lone dissent affirmed strict Equal Protection by stating that the Constitution "is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens"
  • Brown v. Board of Education (1954) applied the Equal Protection clause to eliminate racial segregation in public schools
• for list of cases decided under the Equal Protection Clause, see List of 14th Amendment cases (wikipedia)

List of Court Doctrines & Tests

• a "doctrine" is a judicial ruling that services as precedent for other cases
• "legal test" is a standard that a court may develop in a ruling that is used to decide if a case or action fits in or not to a certain legal category or type of case

Court Doctrines

• "One person one vote" standard (Baker v. Carr, 1961)
• Political Question doctrine
• Strict scrutiny
  • the idea that any limitation on "equal protection of the laws" (14th amendment) must be strictly scrutinized (carefully examined)
  • or that a law must carefully examined and measured for its purpose and effects

Legal Tests & Rules

• clear and present danger (Schenck v. US , 1919)
  • speech that creates a "clear and present danger" may be prohibited by law
• "grave and irreparable danger rule "(NY Times v. US, 1971)
  • updated from the "grave and probable danger" rule (Dennis v. US, 1951)
  • the government must show "irreparable" (unfixable) danger in order to justify "prior restraint"
    • "prior restraint" = stopping an action or behavior before it happens, usually referring to halting the publication of something that might pose a harm to national security
• imminent lawless action standard (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969)
  • in order to restrict speech, the government must demonstrate that the speech will produce "imminent lawless action," i.e., an illegal act that will be the direct result of the speech
• Miller Test (Miller v. California, 1973)
  • modified a previous test for obscenity, "utterly without socially redeeming value"
    • to lacking "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"
• substantial disruption test (Tinker v. Des Moines, 1969)
  • a standard for school prohibitions of student speech that may be considered lewd, offensive or disruptive
• Undue burden standard
  • a law must not create an "undue" (unnecessary) or overly burdensome or that is overly restrictive of fundamental rights

Major "Courts" (Chief Justices)

Marshall Court, 1801-1835

• under Chief Justice John Marshall
• early Republic period
• established judicial review and federal supremacy
• protected contract and property rights from state encroachment

Taney (Roger)

• prior to the Civil War, Taney defended slave states
• most important decision: Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
  • which invalidated the Compromise of 1850

Chase, Waite & Fuller Courts, 1864-1910

• Chief Justices Salmon P. Chase (1864-1873), Morrison Waite (1874-1888) and Melven Weston Fuller (1888-1910)
• the Chase court oversaw Reconstruction Era civil rights laws and cases
• Waite Courts
• Fuller Courts were marked by
  • anti- federal regulations
  • pro-freedom of contract
  • legalized segregation (Plessy v. Furgeson, 1894) and created the "separate but equal" doctrine

Lochner era

• named for the case "Lochner v. New York (1905)
  • in which the Court invalidated a maximum hours law under the theory that they violated private contract
  • the state of New York enacted a law that limited work hours
  • a baker, Joseph Lochner, was arrested for violating the law
  • the Court ruled that the law violated "due process" protections of individual rights to contract
    • i.e., that Lochner and his employees had a right to contract work hours without state interference
• the Lochner era Courts generally invalidated state and federal laws that regulated the workplace (hours, wages, etc.)
• the Lochner case created the idea of "substantive due process" (see "Incorporation cases")
• the Lochner era ended when, following President Franklin Roosevelt's "court packing scheme", the Court adjusted its attitude towards New Deal programs
  • West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, (1937) upheld a minimum wage law, and thus allowed for state restrictions on private contract

White, Taft & Hughes & Vinson Courts

• Edward Douglass White,
• William Howard Taft
• Charles Evans Hughes
• Vinso

Warren Court

• Chief Justice Earl Warren,

Full list of Landmark Supreme Court cases

Landmark Supreme Court cases: alphabetical

• Abington School District v. Schempp (1963: religion in schools)
• Baker v. Carr (1962, redistricting; "One person one vote" standard)
• Bakke v. Regents of the University of California (1978: limited affirmative action / racial preferences in college admissions)
• Bob Jones University v. US (1983)
• Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000: freedom of association; banned laws forcing inclusion in a private group; homosexuality)
• Bowers v. Hardwick (1986: privacy, homosexuality)
• Brown v. Board of Education (1954, equal protection, overturned Plessy)
• Buckley v. Valeo (1976)
• Bush v. Gore (2000: presidential election)
• Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)
• Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831)
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010: campaign finance)
• Civil Rights Cases of 1883 (five cases; the Court ruled that the 13th and 14th Amendments did not outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals)
• Clinton v. City of New York (1998)
• Clinton v. Jones (1997)
• Commonwealth v. Hunt (1842)
• Cooper v. Aaron (1958, states cannot nullify federal Court rulings)
• Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819: no state shall make laws that impair (violate) contract)
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008: gun rights upheld)
• Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
• Engel v. Vitale (1962: religion; banned school prayer)
• Escobeda v. Illinois (1964)
• Ex parte Endo (1944)
• Ex parte Milligan (1866)
• Fletcher v. Peck (1810: 1st ruling to invalidate a state law; regarded contracts & property rights)
• Furman v. Georgia (1972)
• Gibbons v. Ogden (1824: upheld federal interstate commerce / Commerce clause powers)
• Gideon v. Wainwright (1963: right to state-funded attorney)
• Gitlow v. New York (1925)
• Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)
• Griswald v. Connecticut (1965: "right to privacy; birth control)
• Grutter v. Bollinger (2003: upheld university diversity policies)
• Hamdi v. Rumsfield (2004)
• Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1983: speech; upheld limits on student publications)
• Heart of Atlanta v. US (1964: court ruled that the Commerce Clause gave Congress the power to prohibit racial discrimination in "public accommodations", i.e. businesses open to the public)
• Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968: prohibited racial discrimination in land sales or rental based on the 13th Amendment)
• Kelo v. City of New London (2005)
• Korematsu v. United States (1944)
• Lau v. Nichols (1974)
• Lawrence v. Texas (2003: right to privacy; banned anti-sodomy law; homosexuality)
• Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)
• Lochner v. New York (1905)
• Loving v. Virginia (1967: equal protection; banned miscegenation laws)
• Mapp v. Ohio (1961: probable cause, due process; evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in criminal court)
• Marbury v. Madison (1803: judicial review)
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018: free exercise of religion, right to discriminate based on religious belief)
• McCulloch v. Maryland (1819: Supremacy clause, upheld implied powers)
• McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010: gun rights; applied Heller decision to states)
• McGirt v. Oklahoma (2020, tribal reservation rights)
• Miller v. California (1973)
• Miranda v. Arizona (1966: due process; informed rights before questioning)
• Muller v. Oregon (1908)
• Munn v. Illinois (1876)
• Murray v. Curlett (MD) (1963
• National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012: updheld Obamacare by deciding that the requirement to purchase health care was a tax and not a governmental edict)
• NRLB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp (1937)
• New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985: public safety over rights of minors)
• New York Times v. Sullivan (1964: rights of press; "actual malice" requirement in libel)
• New York Times v. U.S. (1971)
• Northern Securities Co. v. U. S. (1904)
• Obergefell v. Hodges (2015: same-sex marriage)
• Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
• Plessy v. Ferguson (1896: legalized segregation under "separate but equal" doctrine)
• Pollock v. The Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895)
• Roe v. Wade (1973: right to privacy; abortion)
• Roper v. Simmons (2005: execution is cruel & unusual punishment for minors)
• Schenck v. US (1919: )
• Schechter v. U. S. (1936)
• Scott v. Sanford (1857)
• Shaw v. Reno (1993)
• Shelby County v. Holder (2013: voting rights)
• Terry v. Ohio (1969: probably clause/ reasonable search justified without warrant in certain circumstances)
• Texas v. Johnson (1989: symbolic speech protection in burning of flag)
• Tinker v. Des Moines (1969: rights of minors; search & seizure)
• U.S. v. American Library Association (2003)
• U. S. v. E. C. Knight Co. (1895)
• U.S. v. Nixon (1974: executive privilege)
• United States v. Windsor (2013: same-sex marriage)
• Van Order v. Perry (2005)
• Wabash, St. Louis, and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois (1886)
• West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943)
• West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937: legalized minimum wage laws)
• Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002, religion, school vouchers)