Student's Guide to the Supreme Court

Encyclopedias

Edited by: Bruce J. Schulman

  • Citations
  • Add to My List
  • Text Size

  • Entries A-Z
  • Subject Index
  • Front Matter
  • Back Matter
    • A
    • B
    • C
    • D
    • E
    • F
    • G
    • H
    • I
    • J
    • K
    • L
    • M
    • N
    • O
    • P
    • Q
    • R
    • S
    • T
    • U
    • V
    • W
    • X
    • Y
    • Z


      • Loading...
    • Student's Guides to the U.S. Government Series

      • Volume 1: Student's Guide to Elections
      • Volume 2: Student's Guide to Congress
      • Volume 3: Student's Guide to the Presidency
      • Volume 4: Student's Guide to the Supreme Court

      Copyright

      View Copyright Page

      List of Illustrations

      Charts/Graphs
      Photos

      Reader's Guide

      The list that follows is provided as an aid to readers in locating articles on related topics. The Reader's Guide arranges all of the A-Z entries in the Student's Guide to the Supreme Court according to seven key concepts of the curriculum in American Government: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties; Constitutional Issues; Laws; People; Principles of Government; Supreme Court Cases; and Supreme Court Procedures and Processes. Some articles appear in more than one category.

      About the Advisory Editor

      Bruce J. Schulman is The William E. Huntington professor of History at Boston University, a position he has held since 2007. Dr. Schulman has also served as the Director of the American and New England Studies Program at Boston University. Prior to moving to Boston University, Dr. Schulman was associate professor of History at the University of California, Los Angeles. Dr. Schulman received his Ph.D. and M.A. from Stanford University; he received his B.A., Summa Cum Laude with Distinction, in history from Yale University.

      Since the 1980s, Dr. Schulman has been teaching and writing about the political face of the United States. He has taken an active role in education at the high school level as well as serving as the Principal Investigator for the Teaching American History Grant program with the Boston Public Schools. He also worked with the History Alive program, a curriculum-based interactive instructional program. In addition, Dr. Schulman served as director of The History Project in California, a joint effort of the University of California and the California State Department of Education to improve history education in the public primary and secondary schools.

      Dr. Schulman is the author of several award-winning and notable books that combine his interest in history and politics. Among them are: From Cotton Belt to Sunbelt: Federal Policy, Economic Development, and the Transformation of the South, 1938–1980; Lyndon B. Johnson and American Liberalism; The Seventies: The Great Shift in American Culture, Politics, and Society; and Rightward Bound: Making America Conservative in the 1970s (co-edited with Julian Zelizer). Dr. Schulman's published books and numerous essays have examined and scrutinized the fabric of America's political and socioeconomic life and its direct impact on today's citizens.

      Preface

      As British Prime Minister Winston Churchill once remarked, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.” In CQ Press's new series, Student's Guides to the U.S. Government, librarians, educators, students, and other researchers will find essential resources for understanding the strange wonder, alternately inspiring and frustrating, that is American democracy.

      In the Student's Guide to the Supreme Court, the fourth volume in the Student's Guides series, both young and experienced researchers, especially students and teachers, will find all they need to know about America's highest court and its far-reaching decisions—the constitutional provisions and legal procedures, the pivotal cases and the contentious debates, the key players and the watershed policy changes—the mystery and controversy of the American judicial system. Part aristocracy (the black-robed justices head the only unelected branch of government), and part democracy (all Americans can access the legal system and they do so with vigor), this most dynamic and scrutinized branch of the federal government has always been a mass of contradictions. As the Supreme Court developed from an institution without clear purpose (and even without its own building) into the unchallenged arbiter of the nation's most pointed and vexing controversies, its principal actors and their decisions have become sources of fascination and conflict. Critics have seen danger in the unchecked power of judges shielded from the will—and the votes—of the ordinary citizens. However, partisans of justice the world over also have hailed the Supreme Court as a beacon of hope, a symbol of the rule of law—an institution that makes even the most powerful leader subject to the same rules as the lowliest striver. Justice Hugo Black captured the judiciary's essential role when he explained that, “No higher duty, or more solemn responsibility rests upon this Court than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield … for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution.”

      The Student's Guide to the Supreme Court unravels the historical development of the American judicial system—the ways the Supreme Court has changed over the past two-and-a-half centuries as well as its current status—unlocking the mysteries surrounding such contemporary issues as affirmative action, the qualifications for the nation's highest court, the death penalty, school prayer, and the separation of powers. Each of the three parts of the Student's Guide to the Supreme Court takes a unique approach to enhancing users' understanding of the high court. Part One features three essays, each of which addresses a provocative issue or question about America's highest court: “The Supreme Court: The Weakest or the Strongest Branch of Our Government?;” “How Does the President Nominate a Supreme Court Justice?;” and “Do They Matter? How Supreme Court Decisions Affect Modern American Life.”

      Part Two features more than 160 A-Z entries spanning everything from the constitutional debate surrounding abortion to operation of war powers. Not only do entries address the major decisions the Court has handed down, the issues it has tackled, and the doctrines it has developed, but also the ways in which the judicial branch has been organized, the contributions of key justices, and the relationship between the Supreme Court and other institutions—including Congress, the president, political parties, the states, and the federal bureaucracy. Special features within Part Two abound: “Point/Counterpoint” highlights opposing views on the same issue using primary evidence and concludes with a thought-provoking “Document-Based Question.” “Spotlight” focuses on unique situations and events. “Decision Makers” takes a closer look at notable individuals, and “Justice for All” examines important moments in the long journey to extend the fundamental rights of citizens to all Americans.

      Part Three contains a “Primary Source Library” of key documents, including laws, excerpts from landmark Supreme Court rulings, photos, and political cartoons that are essential to understanding the history of the American Supreme Court—from its earliest days through its development as a truly coequal and powerful branch within the nation's system of checks and balances. These documents complement the information highlighted in both the essays in Part One and the A-Z entries in Part Two. Part Three also includes guidelines for using the Primary Source Library and for general research. The guidelines offer direction on Researching with Primary and Secondary Sources, Developing Research Questions, Identifying Sources of Information, Planning and Organizing research for use in a paper or report, Documenting Sources for the Bibliography, and Citing Sources.

      Other helpful tools include a List of Illustrations, a Reader's Guide that arranges material thematically according to the key concepts of the American Government curriculum, and a timeline of Historical Milestones of the U.S. Supreme Court. The Guide concludes with a Glossary of political and judicial terminology, a Selected Bibliography, a Case Index, and a General Index.

      An eye-catching, user-friendly design enhances the text. Throughout, numerous charts, graphs, tables, maps, cross-references, sources for further reading, and images illustrate concepts.

      The Student's Guides to the U.S. Government Series

      Additional titles in the Student's Guides to the U.S. Government series include the Student's Guide to Elections, the Student's Guide to Congress, and the Student's Guide to the Presidency. Collectively, these titles offer indispensable data drawn from CQ Press's collections and presented in a manner accessible to secondary level students of American history and government. The volumes place at the reader's fingertips essential information about the evolution of American politics from the struggles to create the United States government in the late eighteenth century through the ongoing controversies and dramatic strides of the early twenty-first century.

      For study in American history, the Student's Guides to the U.S. Government collect a treasury of useful, often hard-to-find facts and present them in the context of the political environment for easy use in research projects, answering document-based questions, and writing essays or reports.

      The Student's Guides offer valuable tools for civics education and for the study of American politics and government. They introduce young people to the institutions, procedures, and rules that form the foundations of American government. They assemble for students and teachers the essential material for understanding the workings of American politics and the nature of political participation in the United States. The Guides explain the roots and development of representative democracy, the system of federalism, the separation of powers, and the specific roles of legislators, executives, and judges in the American system of governance. The Guides provide immediate access to the details about the changing nature of political participation by ordinary Americans and the essential role of citizens in a representative democracy.

      At the heart of the Student's Guides to the U.S. Government is the conviction that the continued success of the American experiment in self-government and the survival of democratic ideals depend on a knowledgeable and engaged citizenry—on educating the next generation of American citizens. Understanding American government and history is essential to that crucial education process, for freedom depends on knowing how our system of governance evolved and how we are governed.

      By learning the rudiments of American government—the policies, procedures, and processes that built the modern United States—young people can fulfill the promise of American life. By placing at hand—in comprehensive essays, in easily recovered alphabetical format, and in pivotal primary source documents—the essential information needed by student researchers and all educators, the Student's Guides to the U.S. Government offer valuable, authoritative resources for civics and history education.

      Bruce J.Schulman, Ph.D., Advisory Editor William E.HuntingtonProfessor of History, Boston University

      Historical Milestones of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1787–2009: A Timeline

      1787:Delegates at the Constitutional Convention include an independent Supreme Court in the proposed new U.S. government.
      1788:Nine of thirteen states ratify the Constitution, making it the Supreme Law of the Land.
      1789:Congress passes the Judiciary Act of 1789, establishing the structure of the Supreme Court and other subordinate courts.
      1791:The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, are added to the Constitution; these amendments guarantee Americans many civil rights and protections.
      1793:In Chisholm v. Georgia, the Court rules that citizens of one state have the right to sue another state in federal court, without the consent of the defendant state. The ratification of the Eleventh Amendment in 1795 reverses this ruling, barring such suits from federal court unless the defendant state consents.
      1801:John Marshall is appointed the fourth Chief Justice of the United States.
      1803:In Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court establishes the principle of judicial review, asserting its right to declare laws passed by Congress unconstitutional.
      1819:In Maryland v. McCulloch, the Supreme Court rules that the “necessary and proper” clause of the Constitution grants Congress the power to charter a national bank. Observing that the “power to tax involves the power to destroy,” the Court also held that the national bank was immune to state taxation.
      1819:In Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the Supreme Court confirms the sanctity of contracts by ruling that the states cannot alter or repeal private corporate charters, such as that between New Hampshire and the trustees of Dartmouth College establishing that institution.
      1819:In Sturges v. Crowninshield, the Supreme Court rules that the Constitution's grant of power to Congress to enact a uniform bankruptcy law does not deny states the power to pass such laws, at least until Congress enacts a bankruptcy law.
      1824:The Supreme Court defines the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce in Gibbons v. Ogden.
      1832:In Worcester v. Georgia, the Court rules that federal jurisdiction over Indian affairs is exclusive, leaving no room for state authority. States lack any power to pass laws affecting Indians living in Indian Territory within their borders. The Court reverses the conviction, under Georgia law, of two missionaries who had failed to comply with a state law requiring the licensing of all white persons living in Indian Territory.
      1833:The Supreme Court rules in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to protect persons only against the action of the federal, not state, government.
      1857:In Dred Scott v. Sandford, the Supreme Court rules that blacks are not, and cannot become, citizens of the United States.
      1865:The Thirteenth Amendment, outlawing slavery, is ratified.
      1868:The Fourteenth Amendment, defining citizenship and guaranteeing due process of law, is ratified. The amendment also guarantees equal protection of the law.
      1870:The Fifteenth Amendment, guaranteeing African American males the right to vote, is ratified.
      1870:In Hepburn v. Griswold (First Legal Tender Case), the Court declares unconstitutional acts of Congress that substituted paper money for gold as legal tender for the payment of debts contracted prior to adoption of the first Legal Tender Act in 1862. The law was enacted to help the Union finance the Civil War (1861–1865), but the Court holds it an improper exercise of Congress's implied powers under the “necessary and proper” clause.
      1871:Knox v. Lee, Parker v. Davis (Second Legal Tender Case) overturns Hepburn v. Griswold. The Court now holds that Congress had exercised its implied powers properly when it made paper money legal tender for the payment of debts.
      1875:In Minor v. Happersett, the Court rules that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee women the right to vote. A state therefore does not violate that amendment's guarantee when it denies a woman the right to vote. “[T]he Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage on anyone,” the Court said.
      1877:In Munn v. Illinois, the Court rules that the state police power includes the right of states to regulate private business.
      1883:In the Civil Rights Cases, the Court rules that neither the Thirteenth Amendment nor the Fourteenth Amendment empowers Congress to enact a law barring discrimination against blacks in privately owned public accommodations. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits only state-sponsored discrimination, not private discriminatory acts, the Court holds. Private discrimination does not violate the Thirteenth Amendment because “such an act of refusal has nothing to do with slavery or involuntary servitude.”
      1886:In Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific Railway Co. v. Illinois, the Court determines that states may not regulate the rates charged by railroads that form part of an interstate network, even if the state regulates only for the intrastate portion of a trip. Such state regulation infringes upon the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.
      1889:In Chae Chan Ping v. United States (Chinese Exclusion Case), the Supreme Court rules that the power of Congress over the entry of aliens, derived from the need to preserve the nation's sovereign status, is exclusive and absolute. The Court upholds an act of Congress that barred the entry of Chinese aliens into the United States.
      1895:In In re Debs, the Court rules that a federal court injunction that was intended to break the 1894 Pullman strike was valid, as was Eugene V. Debs's conviction. A lower court upheld the validity of the injunction under the Sherman Antitrust Act (1890), and the Court affirms the validity on the broader grounds of national sovereignty, which the Court says gave the federal government authority to remove obstructions to interstate commerce and transportation of the mails.
      1896:In Plessy v. Ferguson, the Supreme Court upholds the concept of “separate but equal” facilities for whites and African Americans.
      1908:The Court decides in Twining v. New Jersey that the Fourteenth Amendment does not automatically extend the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination—or other provisions of the Bill of Rights—to state defendants.
      1911:In Standard Oil Co. v. United States, the Court rules that only unreasonable combinations and undue restraints of trade are illegal under the federal Antitrust Act. In this decision, which resulted in the breakup of the Standard Oil monopoly, a majority of the Court for the first time adopted the so-called “rule of reason.” Previously, the Court had held that any combination that restrained trade, whether “reasonable” or “unreasonable,” was a violation of the federal statute.
      1914:In Weeks v. United States, the Court rules that a person whose Fourth Amendment rights to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure are violated by federal agents has the right to demand that evidence obtained in the search be excluded from use against him in federal courts. This was the Court's first decision adopting the so-called exclusionary rule.
      1915:The Court rules in Guinn v. United States that an Oklahoma “grandfather clause” for voters was an unconstitutional evasion of the Fifteenth Amendment guarantee that states would not deny citizens the right to vote because of their race. Oklahoma law imposed a literacy test upon potential voters but exempted all persons whose ancestors voted in 1866. The Court rules that although race, color, or previous servitude were not mentioned in the law, selection of a date prior to adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment was intended to disenfranchise blacks in “direct and positive disregard” of the amendment.
      1918:Ruling in the Selective Draft Law Cases, the Court determines that Congress is authorized to institute a compulsory draft of persons into the armed forces under its power to raise armies and under the necessary and proper clause. Moreover, service in the military is one of the duties of a citizen in a “just government.” Compulsory conscription is not involuntary servitude in violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
      1919:In Schenck v. United States, its first decision dealing with the extent of the First Amendment's protection for speech, the Court sustains the Espionage Act of 1917 against a challenge that it violated the guarantees of freedom of speech and press. The First Amendment is not an absolute guarantee, the Court says. Freedom of speech and press may be constrained if “the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”
      1925:In Gitlow v. New York, the Court rules that the First Amendment prohibition against government abridgment of the freedom of speech applies to the states as well as to the federal government. The freedoms of speech and press “are among the fundamental personal rights and ‘liberties’ protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states,” the Court asserts—even though it rejected Gitlow's free speech claim. This ruling was the first of a long line of rulings holding that the Fourteenth Amendment extended the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state, as well as federal, action.
      1928:The Court rules in Olmstead v. United States that wiretaps do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures where no entry of private premises occurred.
      1930:In Patton v. United States, the Court rules that the three essential elements of a jury trial required in federal courts by the Sixth Amendment are a panel of twelve jurors, supervision by a judge, and a unanimous verdict.
      1931:In Near v. Minnesota, the Court rules that a state law that bars continued publication of a newspaper that prints malicious or defamatory articles is a prior restraint of the press in violation of the First Amendment. This decision marks the first time the Court specifically enforced the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of the press to strike down a state law because it infringed too far on that freedom.
      1932:In Powell v. Alabama (known as the “First Scottsboro Case”), the Court rules that, under the particular circumstances of this case, in which a number of young black men charged with raping two white women were tried in a hostile community atmosphere, the failure of the trial court to provide the defendants the effective aid of an attorney for their defense constitutes a denial of due process.
      1935:In Norris v. Alabama (known as the “Second Scottsboro Case”), the Court sets aside the conviction of the black defendant because blacks had been consistently barred from service on both the grand jury and trial jury in this case.
      1935:The Court holds its first session in the new Supreme Court building.
      1937:In National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., the Court rules that the federal power to regulate interstate commerce permits Congress to regulate intrastate matters that directly burden or obstruct interstate commerce. In this case, the Court finds that a dispute between management and labor that threatened to close down a Pennsylvania steel factory directly affected interstate commerce because the factory was in a stream of commerce. This decision, in which the Court finally abandoned its narrow view of the federal power to regulate interstate commerce, sustained the constitutionality of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.
      1937:In DeJonge v. Oregon, the Court rules that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly prohibits a state from making it a crime to organize and participate in a meeting at which no illegal action was discussed, even if the meeting was held under the auspices of an association that had as its goal the forcible overthrow of the government. For the first time, the Court recognizes that the right of assembly is on an equal footing with the rights of free speech and free press, and that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of assembly is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
      1942:In Betts v. Brady, the Court rules that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause does not require states to supply defense counsel to defendants too poor to employ their own attorney. This decision was overturned by Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963.
      1943:The Court determines in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that the First Amendment guarantee of the free exercise of religion protects the right of persons to remain silent and forbids the government to compel them to participate in a symbolic display of patriotic unity that conflicts with their religious beliefs. The Court upholds the right of Jehovah's Witnesses' children to refuse to participate in compulsory flag salute ceremonies in public schools.
      1944:In Korematsu v. United States, the Court upholds the removal of Japanese Americans to relocation centers at inland camps away from the West Coast. It holds that the removal program was within the combined war powers of the president and Congress. In this case, for the first time, a majority of the Court says it would give classifications by race increased attention to ensure that racial antagonism does not lie at the base of the classification. In this instance, however, the Court holds that military necessity warrants the racial classification.
      1952:In Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer (also known as the “Steel Seizure Case”), the Court rules that President Harry S. Truman (1945–1953) exceeded his power in seizing the nation's steel mills to prevent a strike. The president had based the seizure order on his general powers as commander in chief and chief executive. The Court holds he could not take such action without express authorization from Congress.
      1954:In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court holds that segregation of the races is unconstitutional, overturning its ruling in the Plessy case (1896).
      1961:In Mapp v. Ohio, the Court rules that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure must be excluded from use at state as well as federal trials.
      1962:The Court rules, in Engel v. Vitale, that public school officials may not require pupils to recite a state-composed prayer at the beginning of each school day, even though the prayer is denominationally neutral and pupils who so desire may be excused from reciting it. Official state-sanctioned prayers, the Court holds, are unconstitutional attempts by government to establish religion.
      1962:In Baker v. Carr, the Court rules for the first time that constitutional challenges to the mal-distribution of voters among legislative districts might properly be resolved by federal courts. The Court rejects the doctrine set out in Colgrove v. Green (1946) that all such apportionment challenges are “political questions” beyond the proper reach of the federal courts.
      1963:In School District of Abington Township v. Schempp, the Supreme Court rules that state-ordered recitation of the Lord's Prayer and the reading of the Bible in the public school system as a devotional exercise violates the establishment clause.
      1963:In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court unanimously determines that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to state as well as federal defendants the Sixth Amendment guarantee that all persons charged with serious crimes will be provided the aid of an attorney. Betts v. Brady (1942) was overruled. States are required to appoint counsel for defendants who cannot afford to pay their own attorneys' fees.
      1964:In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, the Court rules that the commerce power may be used to prohibit racial discrimination in privately owned public accommodations. This decision effectively overturns the Court's 1883 Civil Rights Cases and sustains Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That section prohibited discrimination, on the basis of race, religion, or national origin, in accommodations that catered to interstate travelers or that served food or provided entertainment, a substantial portion of which was shipped through interstate commerce.
      1964:The Court determines in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of the press protects the press from libel suits for defamatory reports on public officials unless the officials prove that the reports were made with actual malice. Actual malice is defined as “with knowledge that it [the defamatory statement] was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not.” Until this decision, libelous statements were not protected by the First Amendment.
      1964:In Escobedo v. Illinois, the Court expands a suspect's right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment, holding that confessions obtained by police who had not advised the suspect of his right to counsel—or acceded to his requests for counsel—are inadmissible as evidence.
      1964:In Reynolds v. Sims, the Court rules that the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires application of the “one person, one vote” apportionment rule to both houses of a state legislature.
      1966:The Court determines in Miranda v. Arizona that the due process guarantee requires that suspects in police custody be informed of their right to remain silent, that anything they say may be used against them, and that they have the right to counsel—before any interrogation can permissibly take place.
      1967:The Supreme Court determines in In re Gault that juveniles have some—but not all—due process privileges in juvenile court proceedings. The privilege against self-incrimination and the right to counsel do apply.
      1967:In Loving v. Virginia, the Court unanimously decides that a state law punishing persons who enter into interracial marriages violates both the equal protection and due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state,” the Court declares. This decision is the first in which the Court explicitly holds classifications by race “inherently suspect” and justifiable only by compelling reasons.
      1969:In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court determines that students have the right to engage in peaceful nondisruptive protest, recognizing that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech protects symbolic as well as oral speech. The wearing of black armbands to protest the Vietnam War is “closely akin” to the “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment, the majority says, and therefore a public school ban on this form of protest, which did not disrupt the school's work or offend the rights of others, violates these students' rights.
      1970:The Court rules in In re Winship that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of due process requires that juveniles, like adult defendants, be found guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The Supreme Court forbids states to use a lesser standard of proof in juvenile proceedings.
      1971:In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education, the Court unanimously determines that busing, racial balance ratios, and gerrymandered school districts are all permissible interim methods of eliminating the vestiges of state-imposed segregation from Southern schools. There are limits to the remedies that might be used to eliminate the remnants of segregation, the Court says, but no fixed guidelines setting such limits can be established. The Court acknowledges that there might be valid objections to busing when so much time or distance is involved as to risk the children's health or to impinge significantly on the education process.
      1971:In New York Times Co. v. United States, United States v. The Washington Post, (known as the Pentagon Papers Case), the Court denies the federal government's request for a court order barring continued publication in the New York Times and the Washington Post of articles based on classified documents detailing the history of U.S. involvement in Indochina, popularly known as the Pentagon Papers.
      1973:In Roe v. Wade, the Court determines that the right to privacy, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's due process guarantee of personal liberty, encompasses and protects a woman's decision whether or not to bear a child. This right is impermissibly abridged by state laws that make abortion a crime. During the first trimester of pregnancy, the decision to have an abortion should be left entirely to a woman and her physician. The state can forbid abortions by non-physicians. During the second trimester, the state may regulate the abortion procedure in ways reasonably related to maternal health. During the third trimester, the state may, if it wishes, forbid all abortions except those necessary to save the mother's life.
      1974:In United States v. Nixon, the Court rules that neither the separation of powers nor the need to preserve the confidentiality of presidential communications alone can justify an absolute executive privilege of immunity from judicial demands for evidence to be used in a criminal trial. The Court holds that President Richard M. Nixon (1969–1974) comply with a subpoena for tapes of certain White House conversations, sought for use as evidence against White House aides charged with obstruction of justice in regard to the investigation of the break-in at the Democratic National Headquarters in the Watergate Office Building in June 1972.
      1977:In Coker v. Georgia, the Court determines that the death sentence for the crime of rape is an excessive and disproportionate penalty forbidden by the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment.
      1978:In Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, the Court decides that a special state medical school admissions program under which a certain number of slots were set aside for minority group members, and white applicants were denied the opportunity to compete for them, violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Title VI forbids exclusion of anyone, because of race, from participation in a federally funded program. Admissions programs that consider race as one of several factors involved in the decision to admit an applicant are not unconstitutional in and of themselves.
      1983:In Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha, United States House of Representatives v. Chadha, United States Senate v. Chadha, the Court finds the “legislative veto” unconstitutional. The one-house legislative veto, under which Congress claimed the power to review and veto executive branch decisions implementing laws, is unconstitutional. It violates the separation of powers between executive and legislative branches, and it runs counter to the “single, finely wrought, and exhaustively considered procedure” the Constitution prescribes for the enactment of legislation: approval by both chambers and signature of the president.
      1984:In United States v. Leon, the Court rules that illegally obtained evidence may be used by the prosecution at trial if the police officers who seized it were acting on a search warrant and believed they were acting legally. This ruling is the Court's first adoption of a “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule it adopted seventy years earlier in Weeks v. United States, which had barred all use of such evidence at trial.
      1985:The Court rules in Wallace v. Jaffree that moment-of-silence laws intended to restore prayer to the nation's public schools are unconstitutional. The Court strikes down an Alabama law that permits a moment of silence for prayer or meditation at the beginning of each school day. The history of the law made clear that it was intended as an endorsement of religion, to encourage students to pray.
      1986:In Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education, the Court determines that an affirmative action plan voluntarily adopted by a school board, under which white teachers with more seniority were laid off to preserve the jobs of newly hired black teachers, is unconstitutional—a denial of the white teachers' right to equal protection of the law. The primary flaw was that the plan was adopted without any evidence showing that the school board had previously discriminated against black teachers.
      1987:In Edwards v. Aguillard, the Court rules that a Louisiana law requiring public schools that teach the theory of evolution also teach “creation science” violates the establishment clause, because the state legislature enacted it for the purpose of promoting religion.
      1988:The Court rules in Thompson v. Oklahoma that it is unconstitutional for a state to execute a capital defendant who was younger than sixteen at the time of his offense, if his sentence was imposed under a law that does not set a minimum age at which defendants are subject to the death penalty.
      1989:In Stanford v. Kentucky, the Court determines that the imposition of the death penalty upon a defendant convicted of a capital crime committed when he or she was sixteen or seventeen years old does not violate the ban on cruel and unusual punishment simply because of the defendant's youth.
      1989:In Texas v. Johnson, the Court rules that the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of expression precludes a state from punishing someone for desecrating the American flag in the course of a peaceful political demonstration.
      1990:In Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, the Court determines that states may stop the family of a comatose patient from disconnecting life support systems unless the family shows clear and convincing evidence of the patient's previously expressed wish to die under such circumstances. Because the choice between life and death is a personal decision of overwhelming finality, the Court says, a state may require clear and convincing evidence of that personal choice.
      1991:The Court rules in Arizona v. Fulminante that the use of a coerced confession at trial does not automatically taint a conviction that results. If there is other evidence sufficient to convict the defendant, use of a compelled confession may be a harmless error, and therefore not require a new trial. With this decision, the Court reverses a 1967 decision, Chapman v. California, which established the rule that due process is always denied when a forced confession is used against a defendant.
      1992:In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, the Court affirms the central holding of Roe v. Wade (1973), which established a constitutional right to abortion, and said states may not prohibit abortions at least until a fetus becomes viable.
      1995:In United States v. Lopez, the Court rules that Congress exceeded its authority to regulate interstate commerce when it passed a law banning guns within one thousand feet of a school. The Court says the statute had “nothing to do with commerce or any sort of economic enterprise.” The simple possession of a gun in or near a school is an essentially local, noncommercial activity that does not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the Court said.
      1995:The Court rules in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton that states may not set a limit on the number of terms their representatives serve in Congress. The Constitution sets three qualifications for members of Congress: age, citizenship, and residency. To allow states to adopt term limits would create a patchwork of tenure qualifications and undermine the uniform national character of Congress sought by the Founders, the Court concludes.
      1996:In Romer v. Evans, the Court rules that an amendment to the Colorado state constitution prohibiting local laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination violates the federal Constitution's guarantee of equal protection. The amendment, adopted by voters in 1992, barred any legislative, executive, or judicial action designed to protect Coloradans based on their “homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships.” The Court says the amendment lacked a rational relationship to any legitimate state interest. Indeed, it “seems inexplicable by anything but animus [animosity] toward the class that it affects,” the majority says.
      1997:The Court determines in Clinton v. Jones that a president is not immune from being sued and forced to stand trial for alleged private wrongdoing. In Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982), the court ruled that a president is forever shielded from being sued over “official acts,” but the justices refused to extend that shield of immunity to the president's private life.
      1998:In Clinton v. City of New York, the Court rules that the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 is unconstitutional because it allows the president to amend laws passed by Congress. Justice John Paul Stevens notes that the Constitution gives the president an all-or-nothing choice when presented with a bill passed by the House and Senate—sign it into law, or veto it. Passed as a reform favored by Republicans as well as Democrats, the Line Item Veto Act authorized the chief executive to “cancel” select items in large spending bills.
      1999:The Court rules in City of Chicago v. Morales that a city cannot arrest suspected gang members for “loitering” simply because they fail to disperse when told to do so by a police officer. Such a law gives police too much authority over persons who may be standing innocently on a street corner. The Court says: “Freedom to loiter for innocent purposes is part of the ‘liberty’ protected by … the 14th Amendment.”
      2000:In Bush v. Gore, the Court stops the recount of presidential ballots in Florida, noting that the Florida Supreme Court's recounting methods deny citizens equal protection of the law. Florida's twenty-five electoral votes are awarded to Republican Texas Governor George W. Bush, making him the forty-third president of the United States and ending the dispute between Bush and Democrat Al Gore, who had won the popular vote.
      2002:In Atkins v. Virginia, the Court rules that the death penalty for a mentally retarded defendant is cruel and unusual punishment and is therefore prohibited. Persons who have an I.Q. of less than 70 are more likely to act on impulse and less likely to consider the consequences, Stevens notes.
      2003:The Court determines in Lawrence v. Texas that state laws that criminalize private sexual conduct between consenting adults are unconstitutional. The ruling struck down a Texas sodomy law as well as similar laws in twelve other states. It also overrules Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had upheld a Georgia sodomy law.
      2003:The Court decides in Grutter v. Bollinger that a “compelling interest” in racial diversity validates a college's or university's use of a minority student's race as a “plus factor” in admissions. The decisions affirm the rule set in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed a limited use of race. The Court upholds the admissions policy at the University of Michigan Law School because officials “engage in a highly individualized, holistic review of each applicant's file.” However, it strikes down the undergraduate admissions policy at the university because all minority applicants received twenty bonus points.
      2003:In Ewing v. California and Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court determines that it is not cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a repeat offender to decades in prison even if such a long sentence is triggered by a petty crime. The pair of rulings upholds California's “three strikes and you're out” law. Although the law was enacted in response to the highly publicized kidnapping and murder of 12-year-old Polly Klass by a paroled kidnapper, the statute may be triggered by a minor crime if the offender has prior felonies. Gary Ewing had a long record of thefts and was given a twenty-five-year term for trying to steal golf clubs from a pro shop. Leandro Andrade had two burglary convictions and received a fifty-year sentence for stealing videotapes from a Kmart.
      2003:In Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, the Court rules that state agencies can be sued for damages by employees who are denied the right to take unpaid leave to care for a sick relative. Chief Justice Rehnquist rejects the state's claim that it had a “sovereign immunity” from the federal Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993. This law “aims to protect the right to be free from gender-based discrimination in the workplace,” he says, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the authority to remedy race and sex discrimination by states.
      2003:In Virginia v. Black, the Court rules that the blanket banning of cross burning violates the First Amendment's protection for freedom of speech. States, however, can make it a crime to burn a cross with an intent to intimidate if prosecutors prove that the action was meant as a threat and not solely as symbolic speech.
      2003:In United States v. American Library Association, Inc., the Court rules that public libraries must install software filters on computers to prevent juveniles from viewing sexually explicit materials on the Internet. The Court rules that the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000 is a constitutional exercise of Congress's spending powers and does not impose unconstitutional conditions on public libraries or free expression. Chief Justice Rehnquist notes that adults could request that filters be removed while they use the computers.
      2004:In McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission, the Court upholds major aspects of the 2001 law intended to thwart corruption—or the appearance of corruption—in political elections. The Court rules that the ban on unlimited donations to political parties, known as soft money, does not violate free speech.
      2004:In Locke v. Davey, the Court upholds the provisions of Washington State's Promise Scholarship program, which offers taxpayer-funded scholarships to low-income college students enrolled in secular studies. The justices rule that the states do not violate the First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom if they choose not to subsidize students studying for the ministry.
      2004:In Rasul v. Bush, the Court rules that foreign detainees held at the U.S. naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, are legally entitled to file petitions for writs of habeas corpus when they believe they are being held illegally because the base falls under the jurisdiction of federal courts. The Court notes that Guantánamo Bay is “territory over which the United States exercises exclusive jurisdiction and control.”
      2004:In Missouri v. Seibert, the Court rejects the police tactic of questioning suspects twice, first before advising them of their Miranda rights—with the intention of eliciting a confession—and again after. The Court determines that the strategy intentionally avoids informing suspects of their right to remain silent before questioning and undermines Miranda.
      2005:In Roper v. Simmons, the Court rules that executing people who commit crimes before they turn eighteen constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
      2005:In Van Orden v. Perry, the Court rules that, taken in historical context, the six-foot-tall monument of the Ten Commandments on display on the grounds of the Texas capitol in Austin does not violate the Establishment Clause. The monument, which has been up for about forty years without causing controversy, is one of seventeen in the twenty-two-acre park. Chief Justice Rehnquist notes, “Simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the Establishment Clause.”
      2005:In Jackson v. Birmingham Board of Education, the Court decides that the federal law, known as Title IX, which forbids sex discrimination in schools and colleges also protects third-party “whistleblowers” who file such complaints. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor notes that, “The statute is broadly worded: it does not require that the victim of the retaliation must also be the victim of the discrimination that is the subject of the original complaint.”
      2005:In Cutter v. Wilkinson, the justices unanimously determine that the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, a federal law that requires prison officials to accommodate inmates' religious requirements, does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
      2005:In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court upholds the right of Congress to prohibit the use of medical marijuana as well as to prosecute those who violate the law, even in the eleven states that have passed initiatives legalizing marijuana for medical purposes.
      2006:In Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, the Court upholds a federal law that says colleges and universities must grant military recruiters the same access to students as other potential employers or else lose federal financing. A group of law schools challenged the law, called the Solomon Amendment, saying it violated their First Amendment right to free speech and association. The law schools objected to the military's presence on college campuses because of its policy of excluding openly gay men and women.
      2007:In Winkleman v. Parma City School District, the Court concludes that parents do indeed have enforceable rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The case arose from a situation in which Jeff and Sandee Winkelman contested the adequacy of the Parma City School District's Individual Education Plan for their eight-year-old autistic son, Jacob. In its decision, the Court reviewed the IDEA statute, noting both specific instances in which it anticipated parents initiating and participating in administrative proceedings, as well as pointing to the language that presumes and affirms parents' rights under the Act. The Court reverses the ruling of the Sixth Circuit.
      2007:In Brendlin v. California, the Court rules that a passenger in a car that was detained in an unwarranted traffic stop was “seized” under the terms of the Fourth Amendment and may thus challenge the seizure. Bruce Edward Brendlin was a passenger in the car that was stopped for expired license tags. Upon verifying that Brendlin was a parole violator, the officers formally arrested him and searched him, the driver, and the car, finding, among other things, methamphetamine paraphernalia. Charged with possession and manufacture of that substance, Brendlin moved to suppress the evidence obtained in searching his person and the car, arguing that the officers lacked probable cause or reasonable suspicion to make the traffic stop, claiming it was an unconstitutional seizure of his person. In a 9-0 decision, Justice David Souter clearly notes: “When a police officer makes a traffic stop, the driver of the car is seized within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. The question in this case is whether the same is true of a passenger. We hold that a passenger is seized as well and so may challenge the constitutionality of the stop.”
      2008:In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court overturns the District of Columbia's handgun ban; the Court rules that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to own a gun for private use – not only in connection with service in a militia.
      2008:In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court strikes down as unconstitutional a Louisiana statute that allowed the death penalty for the rape of a child in which the victim did not die. The Court holds that all such laws, where the crime against an individual involved no murder, were not in keeping with the national consensus restricting the death penalty to the worst offenses.
      2009:Associate Justice David Souter announces his resignation from the Court; President Barack Obama (2009-) selects Sonia Sotomayor as his first nominee to the Court. She is confirmed by the Senate in August 2009 and becomes the first Hispanic justice to serve on the Court.
      2009:In Ricci v. Stefano, the Court rules that the City of New Haven, Connecticut, discriminated against ten white firefighters who passed a promotional exam but were subsequently denied promotions because no minority candidates passed the same exam.
      2010:In Kiyemba v. Obama, the Court remands the case back to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, because most of the Guantánamo detainees involved in the case have been offered resettlement in another country. The Supreme Court notes that the Court of Appeals should determine, in the first instance, what further proceedings in that court or in the District Court are necessary and appropriate for the full and prompt disposition of the case in light of the new developments.
      2010:In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court overturns key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, often called the McCain-Feingold Act, and determines that corporations and unions may establish political action committees (PACs) for express advocacy or electioneering communications purposes and that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. The Court notes that the decision supported the First Amendment's most basic free speech principle—that the government has no business regulating political speech.
    • Using Primary Sources

      Researching with Primary and Secondary Sources

      A primary source is firsthand information or data. A primary source has not been subject to analysis by someone else. Typical primary sources—such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, Marbury v. Madison (1803), and an image of the Supreme Court Chamber—are eyewitness accounts of events, letters, diary entries, photographs, and documents. In the Primary Source Library, Part Three of this volume, there is a variety of primary sources, especially useful when researching how the U.S. Supreme Court was formed and how it operates.

      In contrast, a secondary source is information that has been reviewed and analyzed by someone else. For example, a biography of Thurgood Marshall, the first African American to serve on the Court, is a secondary source. The author of such a biography has reviewed and analyzed a variety of primary and secondary sources to present a biography of the subject (Marshall). Most magazine articles, books, and Internet sources are secondary sources.

      Developing Research Questions

      When you are assigned a report and select a topic for research, it is important to begin with a clear sense of direction. Ask yourself several questions that will help you limit your topic. For example, for a report on judicial review, you will likely be able to find hundreds of primary and secondary sources. However, to help narrow the topic, ask yourself the following questions:

      • What is judicial review?
      • How did judicial power come about?
      • Who can exercise this power?
      • Under what circumstances would the Supreme Court use its power of judicial review?
      • When has this power been used in the past?
      • In what ways has this power been exercised recently?
      • What is the impact of judicial review on American society today?

      With answers to these questions, you will have the focus you need to begin further research.

      Identifying Sources of Information

      You likely will begin looking for information in your school or local library. You can also locate other sources of information within your community, such as local government sources, newspaper offices, historical societies, and museums. All of these sources can provide valuable information. However, you must determine if the information will be useful to your research topic. Evaluate and decide on the usefulness of the source. Useful sources should have the following characteristics:

      • Pertinent and appropriate

        Is the information related to your topic? Skim the book, and check the table of contents and the index.

      • Trustworthy and dependable

        Is the source objective? Does it seem accurate? What sources did the author of the book or article use?

      • Current and recent

        How old is the source? Is the information out of date? Keep in mind that historical documents such as the U.S. Constitution and topics such as Marbury v. Madison (1803) are researched and evaluated by political scientists and historians. Be sure that some of your sources are current analyses.

      • Typical and representative

        Be certain to find balanced or unbiased sources. If you are writing about a controversial topic, such as Bush v. Gore (2000), be sure to use sources that represent both sides of the issue.

      Planning and Organizing

      As you gather various primary and secondary sources, you begin to develop a plan for your report. This might include a preliminary outline with headings and subheadings that will help you organize your resources and report. With this plan you can decide what information to include in your notes.

      Thorough note-taking is essential; you will want to document all the information you have gathered for your report. Following are useful tips for taking notes:

      • Use ruled index cards.
      • Use a separate card for each item of information.
      • Use a separate card for each source.
      • Use the following techniques to record information:
      • Quote

        Copy the information exactly as it appears in the source. Use quotation marks to indicate a direct quote.

      • Paraphrase

        Rewrite the information in your own words.

      • Summarize

        Condense the information, noting essential material and key ideas.

      Documenting Sources for the Bibliography

      On index cards, keep a record of the books, newspaper or magazine articles, Internet sites, and other sources you have consulted. As you locate useful sources, record the publishing data on your index cards, so you can easily find the information later. This data will be essential for compiling the bibliography at the end of your report.

      Citing Sources

      All writers must identify the sources of the words, facts, and thoughts that they find in other works. Noting your sources allows you reader to check those sources and determine how reliable or important a particular piece of information is.

      What you should Document
      • Someone's exact words
      • A close paraphrase of another's ideas or several ideas
      • Information on the topic which is not found in most books on the subject or which is not generally known
      What you do not have to Document
      • Simple definition, commonly used sayings, or famous quotations
      • Information that is common knowledge or that is easily found in most sources
      Author and Publication Information

      Author information should always appear at the beginning of your citation, with the author's last name first.

      • For books with two authors, reverse only the first author's name, followed by a comma and the second author's name.
      • If no author is noted, list the editor; if no editor is identified, start with the title of the work.
      • Should you use more than one work by the same author, you do not need to list the author information each time. Use three hyphens followed by a period to begin the line.
      • The name of the work (underlined or in italic type) appears next, followed by a period.

      Publication information follows the author and title of the work. You also may need to include the editor's name, volume or edition number, and a series name.

      Citing Online Sources

      When citing online sources, you likely will not be able to include all the information in the list that follows. Many online sources do not provide all this information. Therefore, provide as much information as possible.

      • Author or editor of the source
      • Title of a book (underlined or in italic type)
      • Title of an article, short work, or poem (in quotation marks)
      • Publication information for any print version of the source
      • Title of the database, scholarly project, periodical, or professional site (underlined)
      • Version number of the source or journal; volume number, issue number, or other identifier
      • Date of the electronic version or last update
      Using the Primary Source Library in this Volume

      In Part Three of this volume, you will find a wealth of primary sources useful for various research topics. In chronological order, important source documents appear that are related to the establishment, development, and daily functioning of the U.S. Supreme Court. To help you find out how the powers of the Court have grown over time, for example, the following primary sources would be useful:

      • The Judiciary Act of 1789
      • Marbury v. Madison (1803)
      • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
      • Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

      For more information about doing research with authoritative sources, consult your local librarian, teacher, or one of numerous available publications.

      Glossary

      adjourned Delayed until a stated later time or indefinitely

      alienage Being from a foreign country

      aliens Those belonging or owing allegiance to another country or government

      amendments Changes to the U.S. Constitution

      appeal The transfer of a case from a lower to a higher court for a new hearing; a case thus transferred; a request for a new hearing

      appropriate To set aside something, such as funds, for a specific use

      appropriation Resource or fund set apart for a particular use

      bankruptcies Proceedings in a federal court in which a debtor's assets are sold or surrendered and the debtor is relieved of further liability

      battery An intentional unpermitted act causing harmful or offensive contact with the “person” of another

      charter A founding document

      class action suit A lawsuit brought by one or a few individuals on behalf of an entire class of people

      colonial Of or relating to colonies, those lands that are dependent on a parent country for trade and military protection

      communism The economic and social philosophy based on the holding of all property in common, with actual ownership being held by the community as a whole or the state

      Communist Party A worldwide political organization that advocates the principles of communism through a communist form of government

      contempt of court Situation that occurs when someone disobeys a court order, shows disrespect for the judge, or disrupts judicial proceedings; contempt can be either direct

      (occurs in the judge's presence and disrupts court proceedings) or indirect (occurs outside the presence of the judge)

      counterfeit money Fake coins or currency passed off as genuine

      default Failure to do something required by law; failure to satisfy the terms of a loan obligation or to pay back a loan

      Democratic Party One of the two major political parties in the United States; the Democratic Party originated in the late 1820s

      discrimination Treating, considering, or making a distinction in favor of or against a person based on the group, class, race, or religion to which that person belongs rather than on individual merit

      due process The principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law of the land

      due process clause Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no one will be deprived of life or liberty without having access to the formal legal process

      due process guarantee Assurance that no one will be deprived of life or liberty without having access to the formal legal process

      equal protection clause Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees to all persons equal protection under the law

      establishment clause Clause of the First

      Amendment, which prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another

      executive privilege The power claimed by the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to resist subpoenas and other interventions by the legislative and judicial branches of government

      Federalist A member of the Federalist Party, one of the first political parties in the United States; Federalists believed in a strong central government and, in foreign policy, favored Great Britain

      gerrymandered The condition (of a voting district) of having been designed to give one group an unfair advantage in an election

      gerrymandering The division of a geographical area into voting districts designed to give an unfair advantage to one party in elections

      Great Depression In United States history, a serious economic downturn that began with the crash of the stock market in 1929 and ended after the nation entered World War II (1939–1945)

      incumbent Politician running for the office that she or he is currently holding

      indicted Formally charged with a serious crime

      indictment The filing of a formal charge against anyone accused of a capital or otherwise serious crimes

      indigent Lacking food, clothing, and other necessities of life because of poverty

      injunction A court order prohibiting a party from a specific course of action

      interstate commerce The trading of goods across state lines

      jurisdiction The right and power of a court to interpret and apply the law

      lame-duck A politician who, at the end of his or her current term, will be succeeded either due to choice or to term limits

      libel Written or printed words or images that defame a person, as opposed to spoken words or gestures

      literacy tests Exams given to determine how well educated an individual is; often used to prevent minority groups from voting

      lynchings Illegal executions, by hanging, of individuals by a mob

      malice A legal term referring to a party's intention to do injury to another party; malice may be either expressed or implied

      monopoly A situation in which a business or individual has sufficient control over a market to prevent any meaningful competition

      naturalization The process by which a foreign-born person becomes a citizen

      nullify To make something of no consequence or value

      obscenity Words, acts, or images designed to incite lust or depravity; language, images, or actions that are offensive in polite society

      parochial schools Private schools usually organized by a religious group

      plaintiff The person who brings charges in a court of law

      poll taxes Money paid in order to vote

      pragmatic Practical; concerned with facts

      precedents Established courses of action in a given situation

      progressive Wanting social, economic, and governmental reforms, especially in the late 1800s and early 1900s

      ratification A formal approval or confirmation (of an amendment or treaty)

      ratified Approved

      ratify To approve

      reapportionment The redistribution of representation in a legislative body, especially the periodic reallotment of U.S. congressional seats as required by the U.S. Constitution

      religious toleration Accepting or permitting others' religious beliefs and practices that disagree with one's own

      Republican Relating to a republic

      Republican Party Founded in 1854, one of the two major political parties in the United States

      restrictive covenants a deed restriction that limits the property rights of the owner; in urban centers, restrictive covenants, which first became popular in the late nineteenth century, created segregated neighborhoods

      salutatorian In the United States and Canada, an academic title given to the second-highest graduate of an educational institution

      seditious Disloyal; in opposition to civil authority or government

      separation of powers The division of authority among different branches of government

      standing Legal right

      states' rights The concept that the rights and laws of individual states override the powers of the federal government

      statutory law Written law (as opposed to oral law or traditions)

      subpoena A writ summoning a person to court to give testimony

      subversive A person who secretly works to overthrow a government or political system

      tariffs Taxes on imported goods

      test cases Lawsuits filed to determine the courts' position on a matter of law

      treason A crime against one's nation

      unanimous Having the agreement or consent of all persons involved

      veto Rejection of a bill

      white primaries Primary elections in which only whites could cast ballots for candidates; now illegal

      writ of certiorari An order issued by an appeals court to a lower court to review that court's findings

      Selected Bibliography

      Alonso, Karen. Korematsu v. United States: Japanese-American Internment Camps. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1998.
      Alonso, Karen. Loving v. Virginia: Interracial Marriage. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2000.
      Baum, Lawrence. The Supreme Court. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2009.
      Chin, Steven A.When Justice Failed: The Fred Korematsu Story. Orlando, Fla.: Steck-Vaughn, 1992.
      Cohen, Henry. Freedom of Speech and Press: Exceptions to the First Amendment. Hauppauge, N.Y.: Novinka Books, 2008.
      Colby, William H.Long Goodbye: The Deaths of Nancy Cruzan. Carlsbad, Calif.: Hay House, 2003.
      Crompton, Samuel Willard. McCulloch v. Maryland: Implied Powers of the Federal Government. New York: Chelsea House Publications, 2007.
      Cromwell, Sharon. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Slave's Case for Freedom and Citizenship. Mankato, Minn.: Compass Point Books, 2009.
      Curry, George. The Affirmative Action Debate. New York: Basic Books, 1996.
      Davis, Abraham L., and Barbara L.Graham. The Supreme Court, Race, and Civil Rights: From Marshall to Rehnquist. Belmont, Calif.: Sage, 1996.http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781452234106
      Dean, John W.The Rehnquist Choice: The Untold Story of the Nixon Appointment That Redefined the Supreme Court. New York: Free Press, 2002.
      Devillers, David. Marbury v. Madison: Powers of the Supreme Court. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1998.
      Drewry, Gavin, et al. The Court of Appeal. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2007.
      Ellis, Richard J., ed. Judging Executive Power: Sixteen Supreme Court Cases That Have
      Shaped the American Presidency. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2009.
      Ellsberg, Daniel. Secrets: A Memoir of Vietnam and the Pentagon Papers. New York: Penguin, 2003.
      Farish, Leah. The First Amendment: Freedom of Speech, Religion, and the Press. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1998.
      Faux, Marian. Roe v. Wade, Updated Edition: The Untold Story of the Landmark Supreme Court Decision that Made Abortion Legal. New York: Cooper Square Press, 2000.
      Finkelman, Martin. Dred Scott v. Sandford: A Brief History with Documents. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1997.
      Fireside, Harvey, and SarahFuller. Brown v. Board of Education: Equal Schooling for All. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1994.
      Fisher, Louis. The Supreme Court and Congress: Rival Interpretations. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2008.
      Foley, Michael A.Arbitrary and Capricious: The Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the Death Penalty. New York: Praeger, 2003.
      Forsyth, Christopher, ed. Judicial Review and the Constitution. Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing, 2000.
      Fridell, Ron. Gideon v. Wainwright: The Right to Free Counsel. New York: Benchmark Books, 2006.
      Friedman, Leon. Abortion. New York: Facts On File, 1995.
      Gold, Susan Dudley. Brown v. Board of Education: Separate But Equal?. New York: Benchmark Books, 2004.
      Friedman, Leon. Loving v. Virginia: Lifting the Ban Against Interracial Marriage. New York: Benchmark Books, 2007.
      Friedman, Leon. McCulloch v. Maryland: State v. Federal Power. New York: Benchmark Books, 2007.
      Graham, Gene S.One Man, One Vote: Baker v. Carr and the American Levellers. New York: Little Brown, 1972.
      Head, Tom. Freedom of Religion. New York: Facts On File, 2005.
      Herbert, David L., ed. The Bill of Rights—Freedom of the Press. Farmington Hills, Mich.: Greenhaven Press, 2005.
      Herda, D.J.The Dred Scott Case: Slavery and Citizenship. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1994.
      Herda, D.J.. Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Question. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1994.
      Herda, D.J.. United States v. Nixon: Watergate and the President. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1996.
      Herring, George. The Pentagon Papers. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1993.
      Hudson, David L.The Rehnquist Court: Understanding Its Impact and Legacy. New York: Praeger Press, 2006.
      Icenoggle, Jodi. Schenk v. United States and the Freedom of Speech Debate. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2005.
      Jantzen, Steven. The Presidency, Congress, and the Supreme Court. New York: Scholastic, 1989.
      Kelly-Gangi, Carol. Miranda v. Arizona and the Rights of the Accused: Debating Supreme Court Decisions. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2006.
      Keursten, Ashlyn. Decisions on the U.S. Courts of Appeals. London: Routledge, 2001.
      Kowalski, Kathiann M.Affirmative Action (Open for Debate). New York: Benchmark Books, 2006.
      Leinwand, Gerald. Freedom of Speech. New York: Facts On File, 1990.
      Levinson, Isabel Simone. Gibbons v. Ogden: Controlling Trade Between States. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 1999.
      Lewis, Anthony. Gideon's Trumpet. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.
      Littlefield, Sophie, and William M.Wiecek. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: The Supreme Court and American Legal Thought. New York: PowerPlus Books, 2005.
      Martin, Waldo. Brown v. Board of Education: A Brief History with Documents. New York: St. Martin's Press, 2007.
      McNeese, Tim. Plessy v. Ferguson: Separate but Equal. New York: Chelsea House Publications, 2006.
      McPherson, Stephanie. The Bakke Case and the Affirmative Action Debate: Supreme Court Decisions. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2005.
      Medley, Keith Weldon. We As Freemen: Plessy v. Ferguson. Gretna, La.: Pelican Publishing Company, 2003.
      Meter, Larry A.United States v. Nixon: The Question of Executive Privilege. New York: Chelsea House Publications, 2007.
      Neubauer, David W., and Stephen S.Meinhold. Battle Supreme: The Confirmation of Chief Justice John Roberts and the Future of the Supreme Court. New York: Wadsworth, 2005.
      Patrick, John J.The Supreme Court of the United States: A Student Companion. New York: Oxford University Press USA, 2006.
      Perl, Lila. Cruzan v. Missouri: The Right to Die. Tarrytown, N.Y.: Marshall Cavendish, 2007.
      Phillips, Tracy A.Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier And the School Newspaper Censorship Debate: Debating Supreme Court Decisions. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2006.
      Pickering, Charles W.Supreme Chaos: The Politics of Judicial Confirmation & the Culture War. Macon, Ga.: Stroud and Hall, 2006.
      Powers, Stephen P., and Rothmann, Stanley. The Least Dangerous Branch? Consequences of Judicial Activism. New York: Praeger, 2002.
      Quirk, William. Courts and Congress: America's Unwritten Constitution. Piscataway, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2008.
      Romaine, Deborah. Famous Trials—Roe v. Wade. San Diego, Calif.: Lucent Books, 1998.
      Rubin, Eva R., ed. The Abortion Controversy. New York: Praeger, 1993.
      Savage, David G.The Supreme Court and Individual Rights. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2009.
      Sergis, Diana G.Bush v. Gore: Controversial Presidential Election Case. Berkeley Heights, N.J.: Enslow Publishers, 2003.
      Silverstein, Mark. Judicious Choices: The Politics of Supreme Court Confirmations, Second Edition. New York: W.W. Norton, 2007.
      Simon, James. F. What Kind of Nation: Thomas Jefferson, John Marshall, and the Epic Struggle to Create a United States. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2003.
      Smith, Jean Edward. John Marshall: Definer of a Nation. New York: Henry Holt, 1996.
      Steffoff, Rebecca. Furman V. Georgia: Debating the Death Penalty. New York: Benchmark Books, 2007.
      Stefoff, Rebecca. The Bakke Case: Challenge to Affirmative Action. New York: Benchmark Books, 2006.
      Supreme Court of the United States. http://www.supremecourt.gov.
      Thomas (Library of Congress). http://thomas.loc.gov/.
      Thomas, Brooks. Plessy v. Ferguson. New York: Bedford/St. Martin's, 1996.
      Toobin, Jeffrey. Too Close to Call: The Thirty-Six Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election. New York: Random House, 2002.
      United States Government Manual. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/gmanual/.
      U.S. Supreme Court Building. http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/dc78.htm.
      Vanmeter, Larry A.Miranda v. Arizona. New York: Chelsea House Publications, 2006.
      Waldman, Steven. Founding Faith: How Our Founding Fathers Forged a Radical New Approach to Religious Liberty. New York: Random House, 2009.
      Warren, Charles. Congress, the Constitution, & the Supreme Court. Buffalo, N.Y.: William S. Hein, 1994.
      Wice, Paul B.Miranda v. Arizona: “You Have the Right to Remain Silent …”London, UK: Franklin Watts, 1996.

      Case Index

      Page numbers in italics indicate illustrations.

      • A
      • Abrams v. United States (1919), 152
      • Adair v. United States (1908), 86
      • Adarand v. Pena (1995), 14
      • Adler v. Board of Education, City of New York (1952), 170
      • AFL v. Swing (1941), 124
      • Agostini v. Felton (1997), 127
      • Albermarle Paper Co. v. Moody (1975), 75
      • Alberts v. California (1957), 185
      • Albertson v. Subversive Activities Control Board (1965), 126, 222
      • Allgeyer v. Louisiana (1897), 103
      • American Communications Association v. Douds (1950), 170
      • Apodaca v. Oregon (1972), 205
      • Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), 49
      • Arizona v. Evans (1995), 113
      • Atkins v. Virginia (2002), 229
      • Avent v. North Carolina (1963), 224
      • B
      • Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co. (1922), 69–70, 86
      • Baker v. Carr (1962), 45, 46, 47, 53, 294–295
      • Barker v. Wingo (1972), 206
      • Barnes v. Glen Theatre (1991), 250
      • Barron v. Baltimore (1833), 48, 234
      • Baze v. Rees (2008), 97
      • Beauharnais v. Illinois (1952), 183
      • Benton v. Maryland (1969), 49, 99, 177
      • Betts v. Brady (1942), 139, 141, 296–297
      • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents (1971), 172
      • BMW v. Gore (1996), 15
      • Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 122
      • Board of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), 60, 254–255
      • Board of the Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett (2001), 188
      • Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), 208–209, 210, 318, 319, 321
      • Bradwell v. Illinois (1873), 222
      • Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), 129
      • Branzburg v. Hayes, in re Pappas, United States v. Caldwell (1972), 134
      • Breed v. Jones (1975), 163
      • Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Howard (1952), 108
      • Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 695 v. Vogt (1957), 124
      • Brown v. Board of Education (1954), 11, 23, 55–59, 77, 78, 110, 177, 193, 236, 259, 284–285, 290–291, 307, 324–325
      • Brown v. Glines (1980), 135
      • Buchanan v. Warley (1917), 114
      • Bullington v. Missouri (1981), 99
      • Burdeau v. McDowell (1921), 221
      • Bush v. Gore (2000), 61–64, 164, 190, 236, 315–318, 332
      • C
      • Calder v. Bull (1798), 113
      • California Democratic Party v. Jones (2000), 126
      • Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), 49, 127, 129
      • Carlson v. Landon (1952), 45
      • Carroll v. United States (1925), 43
      • Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Service Commission of New York (1980), 109
      • Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942), 132
      • Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837), 105, 248
      • Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago (1897), 49
      • Chicago V. Morales (1999), 123
      • Chisholm v. Georgia (1793), 4, 67, 233
      • City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), 128
      • Civil Rights Cases (1883), 78, 149
      • Clinton v. City of New York (1998), 168, 169, 198
      • Cohen v. California (1971), 146
      • Cole v. Arkansas (1948), 49
      • Coleman v. Miller (1939), 50
      • Colorado Anti-Discrimination Commission v. Continental Airlines (1963), 108
      • Communist Party of Indiana v. Whitcomb (1974), 170
      • Coolidge v. New Hampshire (1971), 221
      • Corrigan v. Buckley (1926), 114
      • Cox v. New Hampshire (1941), 123
      • Craig v. Boren (1976), 109
      • Cramer v. United States (1945), 61
      • Crist v. Bretz (1978), 49
      • Cruzan v. Missouri Department of Health (1990), 92–93, 207
      • Cummings v. Missouri (1867), 170
      • D
      • Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), 94–95, 269–273
      • DeFunis v. Odegaard (1974), 157
      • DeJonge v. Oregon (1937), 49, 122, 124
      • Dillon v. Gloss (1921), 50
      • Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), 73, 85, 87, 99, 100–102, 157, 225, 234, 246–248
      • Duncan v. Louisiana (1968), 49, 204–205
      • E
      • Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), 53
      • Elfbrandt v. Russell (1966), 170
      • Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of
      • Oregon v. Smith (1990), 127–128
      • Engle v. Vitale (1962), 105–107, 219
      • Escobedo v. Illinois (1964), 12, 79, 110, 111, 112, 297–298
      • Everson v. Board of Education (1947), 49, 126–127
      • Ex parte Garland (1866), 50, 85, 113, 199
      • Ex parte McCardle (1868), 162
      • Ex parte Milligan (1866), 6, 113
      • Ex parte Quirin (1942), 10
      • F
      • Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), 223
      • Faretta v. California (1975), 139
      • Florida v. J.L. (2000), 230
      • Frank v. Mangum (1915), 260
      • Franks v. Bowman Transportation Co. Inc. (1976), 75
      • Furman v. Georgia (1972), 92, 96
      • Furnco Construction Corp. v. Waters (1978), 75
      • G
      • Gannett Co. Inc. v. DePasquale (1979), 134, 205
      • Gardner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles (1951), 170
      • Garner v. Louisiana (1961), 243
      • Garrity v. New Jersey (1967), 222
      • Gerende v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1951), 170
      • Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc. (1974), 168
      • Gibbons v. Ogden (1824), 83, 116, 136–138, 174, 175, 176, 232, 234, 279–280
      • Giboney v. Empire Storage and Ice Co. (1949), 124
      • Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), 11, 23, 49, 111, 139, 140, 141, 259, 295–297, 298
      • Gitlow v. New York (1925), 11, 48, 49, 77, 104, 234
      • Gober v. City of Birmingham (1963), 224
      • Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), 201
      • Gompers v. Buck's Stove and Range Co. (1911), 91
      • Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), 36
      • Grady v. Corbin (1990), 99
      • Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), 37
      • Gray v. Sanders (1963), 189
      • Gregg v. Georgia (1976), 92, 97
      • Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971), 75
      • Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), 34, 49, 53, 143–144, 210, 213
      • Grosjean v. American Press Co. (1936), 65
      • Grovey v. Townsend (1933), 259–260
      • Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), 37, 188
      • Guinn v. United States (1915), 143
      • H
      • Hague v. CIO (1939), 49
      • Hale v. Henkel (1906), 222
      • Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006), 206
      • Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), 69–70, 86
      • Haupt v. United States (1947), 61
      • Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988), 146–147, 251, 313–315
      • Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964), 147–149
      • Helvering v. Davis (1937), 86
      • Hepburn v. Griswold (1870), 85, 119
      • Herbert v. Lando (1979), 184
      • Herring v. United States (2009), 30–32
      • Hills v. Gautreaux (1976), 115
      • Hirabayahsi v. United States (1943), 166
      • Holder v. Hall (1994), 250
      • Hudgens v. National Labor Relations Board (1976), 131
      • I
      • Illinois v. Wardlow (2002), 230
      • Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Chadha (1983), 167
      • In re Burrus (1971), 103, 163
      • In re Gault (1967), 163
      • In re Oliver (1948), 49
      • In re Winship (1970), 103, 163
      • J
      • Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), 185, 186
      • Jenkins v. Georgia (1974), 186
      • Johnson v. Louisiana (1972), 205
      • Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), 207
      • Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co. (1968), 115
      • Jurek v. Texas (1976), 97
      • K
      • Katz v. United States (1967), 104
      • Kawakita v. United States (1952), 61
      • Kelo v. City of New London (2005), 105
      • Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the State University of New York (1967), 170
      • Kimel v. Florida (2000), 188
      • Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967), 49, 206
      • Knox v. Lee (1871), 85, 119
      • Korematsu v. United States (1944), 10, 109, 122, 164–166, 288–289
      • Kotch v. Board of River Port Pilot Commissioners (1947), 109
      • L
      • Lawrence v. Texas (2003), 144, 164, 208–209, 210, 219, 236, 318–321
      • Lee v. Weisman (1992), 14, 164, 220
      • Legal Tender Cases, Hepburn v. Griswold (1870), 22
      • Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co. (1911), 109
      • Linkletter v. Walker (1965), 172
      • Lloyd Corporation Ltd. v. Tanner (1972), 130, 131
      • Lochner v. New York (1905), 103, 143, 151
      • Lombard v. Louisiana (1963), 224
      • Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber (1947), 49
      • Lovell v. Griffin (1938), 127
      • Loving v. Virginia (1967), 23, 109, 169–170, 259, 303–304
      • Luther v. Borden (1849), 46
      • M
      • Malloy v. Hogan (1964), 49, 110–111
      • Manual Enterprises v. Day (1962), 185
      • Mapp v. Ohio (1961), 11, 30–31, 49, 112, 171–172, 221
      • Marbury v. Madison (1803), 4, 5, 27, 67, 83, 86, 157–159, 161, 172–174, 175, 176, 178, 233, 261, 264–269, 294, 331, 332
      • Marsh v. Alabama (1946), 130
      • Martin v. Hunter's Lessee (1816), 231
      • Massiah v. United States (1964), 79, 110
      • Maxwell v. Dow (1900), 204
      • McClesky v. Kemp (1987), 97
      • McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), 5, 116, 154, 175, 176, 177–178, 234, 273–275
      • McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green (1973), 75
      • McGowan v. Maryland (1961), 109
      • McKeiver v. Pennsylvania (1971), 103, 163
      • McNabb v. United States (1943), 79
      • Milk Wagon Drivers Union v. Meadowmoor Dairies Inc. (1941), 124
      • Miller v. California (1973), 186, 187
      • Minnesota v. Dickerson (1993), 230
      • Miranda v. Arizona (1966), 12, 23, 79, 179–180, 259, 301–303
      • Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan (1982), 109
      • Missouri v. Jenkins (1995), 14
      • Moore v. Dempsey (1923), 260
      • Moose Lodge 107 v. Irvis (1972), 125
      • Morehead v. New York ex rel. Tipaldo (1936), 9
      • Morse v. Frederick (2007), 251
      • Mulford v. Smith (1939), 86
      • Murray v. Curlett (1963), 219
      • N
      • NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson (1958), 146
      • Nathanson v. United States (1933), 200
      • Near v. Minnesota (1931), 65, 133, 152
      • Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart (1976), 134, 136
      • New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), 53, 134, 168, 182–184, 293, 299–301
      • New York Times v. United States (1971), 66
      • Nix v. Hedden (1893), 118
      • Nixon v. Herndon (1927), 259
      • O
      • Okanogan Indians et al. v. United States (1929), 198
      • Olmstead v. Unites States (1928), 104
      • P
      • Palko v. Connecticut (1937), 77
      • Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (1935), 9, 86
      • Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville (1972), 123
      • Patton v. United States (1930), 204
      • Pennsylvania v. Wheeling and Belmont Bridge Co. (1852), 174–175
      • Pentagon Papers Case (New York Times v. United States (1971), 66 Peterson v. City of Greenville (1963), 224
      • Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), 14, 35, 143, 164, 321
      • Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), 8, 11, 55, 56, 76, 77, 144, 145, 193–195, 234, 282–283, 284–286, 290–291
      • Plyler v. Dow (1982), 109
      • Pointer v. Texas (1965), 49
      • Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co. (1895), 8, 85, 118, 155
      • Pope v. Illinois (1987), 186, 187
      • Powell v. Alabama (1932), 195, 196–197, 207
      • Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (1986), 205
      • Proffitt v. Florida (1976), 97
      • R
      • Railroad Retirement Board v. Alton Railway Co. (1935), 9
      • Rakas v. Illinois (1978), 44
      • R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul (1992), 132
      • Reed v. Reed (1971), 223
      • Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), 37
      • Reitman v. Mulkey (1967), 115
      • Reynolds v. Sims (1964), 189
      • Ricci v. DeStefano (2009), 203–204
      • Richmond Newspapers Inc. v. Commonwealth of Virginia (1980), 134, 205
      • Robinson v. California (1962), 11
      • Robinson v. Memphis and Charleston Railroad Co. (1883), 78
      • Roe v. Wade (1973), 12–14, 34–36, 60, 143, 188, 210, 213–214, 236, 310–313
      • Rosenberger v. University of Virginia (1995), 15
      • Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966), 168
      • Rosenbloom v. Metromedia Inc. (1971), 168
      • Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), 223, 258
      • Roth v. United States (1957), 184 185, 186, 187
      • S
      • Sante Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), 220
      • Schacht v. United States (1970), 250
      • Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States (1935), 9, 86
      • Schenck v. United States (1919), 150, 151, 228, 286
      • Schneckloth v. Bustamonte (1973), 200
      • School District of Abington Township v. Schempp (1963), 219
      • Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), 14
      • Shaw v. Reno (1993), 201
      • Shelley v. Kraemer (1948), 114–115
      • Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham (1965), 123, 224
      • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States (1920), 112
      • Simon & Schuster Inc. v. Members of New York State Crime Victims Board (1991), 65
      • Sit-In Cases (1962), 224
      • Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942), 109
      • Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), 224–225
      • Smith v. Allwright (1944), 260
      • Smith v. Goguen (1974), 120
      • Spence v. Washington (1974), 120
      • Stack v. Boyle (1951), 45
      • Stanley v. Georgia (1969), 177
      • Steele v. Louisville and Nashville Railroad Co. (1944), 108
      • Stengberg v. Carhart (2000), 36, 236
      • Steward Machine Co. v. Davis (1937), 86
      • Street v. New York (1969), 120
      • Stromberg v. California (1931), 243
      • Sturges v. Crowninshield (1819), 231–232, 276–277
      • Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Board of Education (1971), 242–243, 307–309
      • T
      • Terry v. Adams (1953), 260
      • Terry v. Ohio (1968), 30, 230
      • Texas v. Johnson (1990), 120
      • Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), 201
      • Thornhill v. Alabama (1940), 123, 124
      • Tillman v. Wheaton-Haven Recreation Association
      • (1973), 115, 125
      • Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), 251, 305–306, 313
      • U
      • Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza (1968), 130, 131
      • United Sates v. Salerno (1987), 45
      • United States v. Appalachian Electric Power Co. (1940), 175
      • United States v. Brown (1965), 51
      • United States v. Butler (1936), 86, 118
      • United States v. Calandra (1974), 30
      • United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), 77, 109
      • United States v. Claimants of the Schooner Amistad (1841), 226
      • United States v. Darby (1941), 70, 86
      • United States v. Harriss (1954), 135
      • United States v. Klein (1872), 199
      • United States v. Lopez (1995), 14, 116
      • United States v. Lovasco (1977), 206
      • United States v. MacDonald (1982), 206
      • United States v. Matlock (1974), 201
      • United States v. Morrison (2000), 188
      • United States v. Mosely (1915), 143
      • United States v. Nichols (1883), 78
      • United States v. Nixon (1974), 22, 200, 236, 252–254
      • United States v. O'Brien (1968), 243, 250
      • United States v. Ryan (1883), 78
      • United States v. Singleton (1883), 78
      • United States v. Sokolow (1989), 230
      • United States v. Stanley (1883), 78
      • United States v. Virginia (1996), 109, 142
      • United States v. Vuitch (1971), 35
      • United States v. Whren (1996), 44
      • United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), 73
      • University of California Regents v. Bakke (1978), 60, 254–255
      • U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton (1995), 164
      • V
      • Veazie Bank v. Fenno (1869), 119
      • Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977), 115
      • Virginia v. Black (2003), 244
      • W
      • Walker v. Sauvinet (1876), 204
      • Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), 126, 220, 256–257
      • Waller v. Georgia (1984), 205
      • Walters v. National Association of Radiation
      • Survivors (1995), 135
      • Washington v. Texas (1967), 49
      • Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York v. Village of Stratton (2002), 127
      • Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989), 13, 35
      • Weeks v. United States (1914), 30–31, 112
      • Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), 189
      • West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish (1937), 10, 216–217
      • West River Bridge Company v. Dix (1848), 105
      • West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1943), 127, 243
      • Whitney v. California (1927), 124
      • Williams v. Florida (1970), 205
      • Williams v. Mississippi (1898), 8
      • Williamson v. Lee Optica of Oklahoma (1955), 109
      • Wilson v. United States (1911), 222
      • Wolf v. Colorado (1949), 49
      • Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education (1986), 109
      • Y
      • Yates v. United States (1957), 125–126, 228
      • Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886), 38
      • Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952), 323
      • Z
      • Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002), 127
      • Zurcher v. The Stanford Daily (1978), 134
      • Zwickler v. Koota (1967), 98
    Back to Top