-
Gitlow v. New York
In the landmark 1925 case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment's protections of free speech and press apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a process known as incorporation. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
Due Process Clause; Fourteenth Amendment
Court determined De Jonge's offense was assisting in a public meeting held under the auspices of the Communist Party. They reasoned that to preserve the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly not the auspices under which a meeting is held, but the purpose of the meeting and whether the speakers' remarks transcend the bounds of freedom of speech must be examined, which had not occurred in De Jonge's case -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?
In the landmark case Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, specifically the Free Exercise Clause, applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. Justice Black reasoned that the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was rather enacted to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school. Justices Jackson, Frankfurter, Rutledge, and Burton dissented. -
Ker v. California
The case addressed whether the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures applied to state actions, and whether the entry into the Kers' apartment and the subsequent search were lawful.
This case involved a husband and wife, George and Dorothy Ker, who were arrested and their apartment searched without a warrant, leading to the discovery of marijuana -
Mapp v. Ohio
In the landmark 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that illegally obtained evidence is inadmissible in state courts, extending the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures to state actions.
Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. -
Robinson v. California
Was defendant’s conviction for addiction to narcotics under the California law cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment?
In Robinson v. California (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment prevents states from criminalizing the status of being a drug addict. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
Did the arrests and convictions of the marchers violate their freedom of speech, assembly, and petition for redress of their grievances as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments?
In Edwards v. South Carolina 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot criminalize peaceful expression of unpopular views, overturning the convictions of civil rights protesters who were arrested for breach of the peace after refusing to disperse from a peaceful protest at the South Carolina State House -
Malloy v. Hogan
In the landmark case Malloy v. Hogan (1964), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, which previously only applied in federal court, is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state action. -
Pointer v. Texas
Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment
the Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation required Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through counsel. Justice Black described the history of the Sixth Amendment in the Court, writing that the Fourteenth Amendment imposed the right to counsel on the states. He emphasized the importance of a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him and described it as a fundamental right. -
Washington v. Texas
Is the Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment?
Does a state statute prohibiting persons charged together in the same crime from testifying for each other violate the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process?
Yes, The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Benton v. Maryland
In the landmark case of Benton v. Maryland (1969), the Supreme Court decided that the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively overruling Palko v. Connecticut. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
The Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. The charge carried with it a maximum penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. During the bench trial in which he was convicted and sentenced to serve ninety days in jail, Argersinger was not represented by an attorney -
In re Oliver
Does the open field doctrine apply when police officers knowingly enter privately owned fields without a warrant?
"In re Oliver" refers to a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case (333 U.S. 257) that established the Sixth Amendment's right to a public trial as applicable to state criminal proceedings, overturning a Michigan "one-man grand jury" conviction due to lack of due process. -
McDonald v. Chicago
Does the Second Amendment apply to the states because it is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Privileges and Immunities or Due Process clauses and thereby made applicable to the states?
In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms, as recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller, is applicable to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. -
Timbs v. Indiana
Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause been incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment?
The Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause, which prohibits excessive fines, applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.