-
Period: to
Impacting Supreme Court Decisions
-
Mapp v. Ohio 1961
Was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents a prosecutor from using evidence that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to states as well as the federal government.The question brought to the court was,"Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment?,". -
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires U.S. states to provide attorneys to criminal defendants who are unable to afford their own.The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court. -
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that law enforcement in the United States must warn a person of their constitutional rights before interrogating them, or else the person's statements cannot be used as evidence at their trial.Question to the court was,Does the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination extend to the police interrogation of a suspect?,". -
Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
The Supreme Court found that the law infringed on Brandenburg's First Amendment rights, and created the imminent lawless action test. In order for speech to fall out of First Amendment protection, it must 1) be directed at producing imminent lawless action and 2) it is likely to produce such action.Question to court,Did prohibiting public speech that advocates various illegal activities, violate Brandenburg's right to free speech by the First and Fourteenth Amendments? -
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1971)
The Court ruled that the Amish parents' fundamental right to free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in educating their children. The question to the court,Did Wisconsin's requirement that all parents send their children to school at least until age 16 violate the First Amendment by criminalizing the conduct of parents who refused to send their children to school for religious reasons? -
New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
In what became known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," the Nixon Administration attempted to prevent the New York Times and Washington Post from publishing materials belonging to a classified Defense Department study regarding the history of United States activities in Vietnam. Question to court,Did the Nixon administration's efforts to prevent the publication of what it termed "classified information" violate the First Amendment?,". -
United States v. Nixon (1973)
It is considered a crucial precedent limiting the power of any U.S. president to claim executive privilege.It had argued that the concept of executive privilege gave him the power to withhold sensitive information, such as the tapes, from other government branches in order to maintain confidential communications within the executive branch and to secure the national interest. -
Bartnicki v. Vopper (2000)
An unidentified person intercepted and recorded a phone call between the chief union negotiator and the union president during collective-bargaining negotiations involving a teachers' union and the local school board. After a teacher-favorable proposal was accepted, a radio commentator played a tape of the intercepted conversation.The question brought onto the court was,"Does the First Amendment provide protection to speech that discloses the contents of an illegally intercepted communication?," -
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Held (5–4) that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess firearms independent of service in a state militia and to use firearms for traditionally lawful purposes, including self-defense within the home.Question to court, was whether the D.C. laws being challenged violated “violated the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes.” -
Citizens United v. Federal Elections (2010)
The resolving the question of whether the ban in §441b specifically applied to the film based on the narrow grounds would have the overall effect of chilling political speech central to the First Amendment. Instead, the Court found that, in exercise of its judicial responsibility, it was required to consider the facial validity of the Act’s ban on corporate expenditures and reconsider the continuing effect of the type of speech prohibition which the Court previously upheld in Austin.