-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago (1897) - eminent domain
In 1897, the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company challenged a city ordinance requiring safety measures on trains within city limits. The Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, stating it was within the city's power to protect public safety. While the case did not significantly advance incorporation, it highlighted early interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment's impact on state laws. -
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
In Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago (1897), the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the railroad, holding that municipal taxation of railroad property must not be arbitrary or discriminatory. The case established principles regarding limitations on municipal taxation and the protection of interstate commerce from discriminatory practices. -
Gitlow v. New York
In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Despite this, Benjamin Gitlow's conviction for advocating the violent overthrow of the government was upheld because it posed a clear and present danger. This case established the incorporation doctrine, extending the reach of the Bill of Rights to state actions. -
Near v. Minnesota
Near v. Minnesota (1931) involved Jay Near's challenge to a Minnesota statute allowing courts to shut down newspapers deemed malicious or scandalous. The Supreme Court ruled in Near's favor, holding that the statute violated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press. This decision established that prior restraints on publication are presumptively unconstitutional and affirmed the vital role of a free press in democracy. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
In DeJonge v. Oregon (1937), Dirk DeJonge, a Communist Party member, was convicted under Oregon's criminal syndicalism law for organizing a meeting to discuss labor issues. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that this violated DeJonge's First Amendment rights, affirming the constitutional protection of peaceful assembly and association, even for controversial causes. This case established that states cannot suppress lawful advocacy or assembly based on disagreement with the ideas expressed. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
In Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a Connecticut law requiring a permit for soliciting religious or charitable contributions violated the First Amendment's protections of freedom of religion and speech. The decision affirmed that state laws must not infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights and established that these protections apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
In Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law providing transportation reimbursements to parents of parochial school students. The Court ruled that this did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, establishing the principle of "separation of church and state" and setting limits on government support for religious activities. -
In re Oliver
In re Oliver (1948) dealt with Jack Oliver's contempt of court conviction without a jury trial. The Supreme Court ruled that due process required defendants in contempt proceedings to have the same procedural rights as in other criminal cases, including the right to a jury trial for serious offenses. This decision emphasized the importance of fundamental procedural protections for individuals facing contempt charges. -
Mapp v. Ohio
In Mapp v. Ohio (1961), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure by state officials is inadmissible in state criminal proceedings. This decision extended the exclusionary rule to state courts through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, strengthening Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures and affirming that rights protected by the Bill of Rights apply to state actions. -
Robinson v. California
Robinson v. California (1962) involved Lawrence Robinson's challenge to California's law criminalizing addiction to narcotics. The Supreme Court ruled in Robinson's favor, holding that punishing individuals solely for their addiction status constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. This decision established that the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishing individuals for their mere status or condition, such as addiction. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
involved Clarence Earl Gideon, who was denied counsel during his trial for breaking and entering. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This landmark decision ensured that indigent defendants facing serious criminal charges have the right to legal representation, enhancing fairness and due process in the criminal justice system. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
African American students peacefully protested against racial segregation at the South Carolina State House and were arrested. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the protesters, affirming their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly. This landmark decision strengthened constitutional protections for peaceful protests, emphasizing the importance of dissenting voices and preventing government suppression of such expression. -
Ker v. California
The Court held that the surreptitious entry into the apartment was justified because the deputies were investigating narcotics, which was an exigent circumstance, and held that the arrests of the Kers were lawful. -
Malloy v. Hogan
a Supreme Court case where Paul Malloy contested his conviction for refusing to testify before a state legislative committee, claiming it violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled in Malloy's favor, extending Fifth Amendment protections to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision ensured consistent constitutional rights for individuals accused of crimes in both state and federal courts -
Washington v. Texas
In Washington v. Texas (1967), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, guaranteeing the right to confront witnesses, applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The case reaffirmed the incorporation doctrine, ensuring that fundamental constitutional protections extend to state criminal proceedings. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
concerned Fred Klopfer's extended wait for trial on a robbery charge in North Carolina. Despite repeated requests for a speedy trial, he faced delays. The Supreme Court ruled in Klopfer's favor, affirming that the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision highlighted the significance of timely and fair criminal proceedings in upholding defendants' rights. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
concerned Gary Duncan's conviction for simple battery in a Louisiana court without a jury, as state law only allowed juries for certain offenses. The Supreme Court ruled in Duncan's favor, holding that the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury is fundamental and applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision extended the right to a jury trial to state courts, ensuring consistency in defendants' rights. -
Benton v. Maryland
In Benton v. Maryland (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of the right to counsel applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The decision prohibited the use of prior uncounseled misdemeanor convictions to enhance punishment for subsequent offenses. This case further established the incorporation doctrine, ensuring that fundamental constitutional protections extend to state criminal proceedings. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Schilb v. Kuebel (1971) involved a dispute over the constitutionality of an Illinois state law requiring certain public employees to resign before seeking political office. The court upheld the law, stating that it did not violate the plaintiffs' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. This case illustrates the balance between governmental interests and individual rights in matters of political participation and employment. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
In Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, requires the appointment of counsel for any offense that could lead to imprisonment, regardless of whether it is classified as a misdemeanor or felony. This decision expanded the right to counsel for indigent defendants, emphasizing the importance of legal representation to ensure fair trials. -
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) involved Otis McDonald challenging Chicago's handgun ban, arguing it violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in McDonald's favor, extending Second Amendment protections to state and local governments via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision clarified that the right to bear arms is fundamental and applies nationwide, limiting the scope of state and local gun control measures. -
Timbs v. Indiana
In Timbs v. Indiana (2019), the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's protection against excessive fines applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision limits the ability of states to impose disproportionately severe financial penalties, with significant implications for civil asset forfeiture cases and similar proceedings.