This paper examines thirteen pivotal Supreme Court decisions spanning from 1819 to 2010 that have fundamentally shaped American constitutional law. The cases span multiple constitutional domains: federal versus state power (McCulloch v. Maryland, Gibbons v. Ogden), individual rights and liberties (Gideon v. Wainwright, Schenck v. United States), racial equality (Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v. Board of Education, Korematsu v. United States), religious freedom (Everson v. Board of Education, Lemon v. Kurtzman), privacy rights (Roe v. Wade), and equal protection in admissions (Regents v. Bakke, Fisher v. Texas, Citizens United v. FEC). Each case summary outlines the facts, constitutional question, and the Court's ruling, demonstrating how judicial interpretation has evolved across two centuries of American law.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) established foundational principles of federal supremacy and the implied powers of Congress. The State of Maryland enacted a statute obliging all banks not chartered by the state but operating within its borders to pay additional taxes. McCulloch, an employee at the Baltimore branch of the Bank of the United States, failed to comply with this regulation, and Maryland sued him for violation. McCulloch challenged the statute's constitutionality. The appellate court held that as an institution incorporated by Congress, the Bank of the United States had the right to establish branches anywhere in the country, and state governments possessed no power to control the constitutional operations of such institutions.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) expanded federal regulatory authority over interstate commerce. A New York statute granted Aaron Ogden, a steamboat owner conducting business within state waters, exclusive rights over those waters, requiring out-of-state steamboat operators to pay for access. Thomas Gibbons, another businessman operating between New York and New Jersey, challenged the constitutionality of this exclusivity on grounds that it created monopoly power and impeded interstate trade. The Court held that the law violated the congressional act controlling interstate coasting commerce. Only Congress possessed the power to regulate the operations of steamboat operators conducting business across state lines.
Schenck v. United States (1919) examined the limits of free speech protection during wartime. Schenck, a socialist, was arrested and charged with distributing circulars that encouraged people not to be intimidated by the government and to continue pushing for the repeal of the Conscription Act. He was charged with attempting to obstruct recruitment and cause panic in the military. When he challenged his conviction, the appellate court upheld the previous ruling that Schenck's actions posed imminent danger to the public and that he was not protected by the free speech provisions of the First Amendment under the circumstances.
Gitlow v. New York (1925) addressed state power to restrict speech threatening public security. Gitlow, an activist, was arrested and convicted under a New York state law for distributing copies of a manifesto that advocated for the use of class action and strikes in the settlement of industrial disputes. The state charged him with attempting to overthrow the government by force. He brought suit challenging the constitutionality of the law. The Court ruled in favor of the state, arguing that the First Amendment granted states the power to forbid any publication or speech that threatens public security.
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission struck down restrictions on political speech in campaign finance. The plaintiff, Citizens United, sought a court injunction that would bar the Federal Election Commission from applying the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) to its newly developed movie The Hillary, which presented diverse opinions on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. The plaintiff argued that any such application was a violation of the First Amendment. The Court sided with the plaintiffs, arguing that political speech was indispensable to any democracy.
Dred Scott v. Sandford represented one of the Supreme Court's most infamous decisions regarding citizenship and slavery. Dred Scott, descended from enslaved persons, had resided in the free state of Illinois and in an area of Louisiana that forbade slavery in accordance with the Missouri Compromise. He later moved to Missouri, where he was taken in as a slave. He sued for his freedom, but the Court rejected his claim, arguing that Article III recognized U.S. citizens as the only citizens of a state and that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional because it violated Article III's provisions.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) established the "separate but equal" doctrine that would dominate racial jurisprudence for decades. A Louisiana statute mandated that whites and blacks travel in different trains. Adolph Plessy, a person of mixed race, sought a seat in a train designated for whites and was charged with violating the state's racial segregation law. He brought suit against the state, arguing that the law was a violation of the Equal Protection provision of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court rejected his argument on grounds that the Equal Protection Clause was only applicable if individuals were equal in status; since whites and blacks were not equal, the clause could not be used as a substantive argument against the law.
Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld military authority to exclude citizens based on race during wartime emergency. At the height of World War II, Congress enacted statutes prohibiting American citizens of Japanese descent from accessing certain areas deemed substantially vulnerable to espionage. In accordance with this, the U.S. Army issued an order requiring all persons of Japanese descent to vacate the state of California. Korematsu ignored this order and remained in the prohibited zone. He was arrested but sued for his freedom, arguing that the order violated his constitutional rights. The Court rejected his suit, arguing that the security of the nation outweighed his rights as an individual and that compulsory exclusion was justified in circumstances of peril and emergency.
Brown v. Board of Education overturned the separate-but-equal doctrine and became a cornerstone of civil rights jurisprudence. The suit challenged the constitutionality of state laws that advocated for the segregation of children on the basis of race in public school settings. It was argued that such segregation deprived minority children of their rights to equal protection guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled in favor of minority children and rejected the earlier argument made in Plessy v. Ferguson, arguing that such segregation created an inferiority complex that had a detrimental effect on the well-being of children from minority groups.
Regents of University v. Bakke (1978) addressed affirmative action and equal protection in higher education admissions. Allan Bakke moved to challenge the constitutionality of the university's affirmative action program, where sixteen spots in a class of 100 were reserved for qualified students from minority groups. He argued that the admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it led to the rejection of his admission requests two times in a row. Five of the nine judges appointed to the case were of the opinion that the university policy violated the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment, symbolizing minimized white opposition to the ideology of racial equality.
Fisher v. Texas subjected race-conscious university admissions to strict judicial scrutiny. Abigail Fischer, a Caucasian, moved to challenge the constitutionality of the University of Texas undergraduate admission policy on grounds that by permitting the consideration of race, it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the determination of whether the university admission policy violated this clause was subject to strict judicial scrutiny—that such policies were unconstitutional as long as they were not precisely tailored to support the interests of government.
Everson v. Board of Education (1942) addressed state provision of services to religious school families. The State of New Jersey enacted a statute requiring schools to reimburse money to parents whose children used buses operated by the state to travel to school. Schools sued on grounds that the statute violated the provisions of the First Amendment. The Court ruled in favor of the state, arguing that services such as fire and police protection and even bussing were not in any way linked to the religious function and that the state's provision of the same was not a violation of the First Amendment.
Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971) established a test for evaluating Establishment Clause violations. The suit challenged the constitutionality of state laws that allowed the advancement of financial aid to church-associated learning institutions on grounds that such aid was in violation of the First Amendment. The Court held that such laws were indeed unconstitutional because they fostered religious inculcation, which would ultimately entangle the state with religious affairs.
"Right to counsel and Sixth Amendment protections"
"Constitutional privacy and abortion regulation"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.