Landmark Cases Timeline

  • Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago

    Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co. v. City of Chicago
    U.S. 226 (1897), was a ruling that determined the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to provide just compensation for seizing private property.[1]
  • gitlow v. new york

    gitlow v. new york
    In the landmark 1925 case Gitlow v. New York, the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment's protection of free speech applies to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, a principle known as selective incorporation.
  • near v. minnesota

    near v. minnesota
    In the landmark 1931 case Near v. Minnesota, the Supreme Court established that prior restraint (government censorship of speech before publication) is unconstitutional, a key principle of freedom of the press protected by the First Amendment.
  • cantwell v. conneticut

    cantwell v. conneticut
    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.
  • in re oliver

    in re oliver
    In In re Oliver, a 1948 U.S. Supreme Court case, the court ruled that the right to a public trial, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, applies to state criminal proceedings, overturning a Michigan court's decision that found a witness guilty of contempt in a one-man grand jury proceeding.
  • mapp v. ohio

    mapp v. ohio
    In the landmark 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure by state authorities is inadmissible in state court, extending the exclusionary rule to state criminal trials.
  • mapp vs ohio

    The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.
  • robinson v. california

    In Robinson v. California (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that a state law criminalizing drug addiction violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment, as addiction is a status, not a crime.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Who can ultimately decide what the law is?
    result- It is explicitly the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is."
  • edwards v. south carolina

    edwards v. south carolina
    In the 1963 Supreme Court case Edwards v. South Carolina, the court ruled that South Carolina violated students' First and Fourteenth Amendment rights by arresting them for a peaceful protest against segregation, establishing that states cannot criminalize the peaceful expression of unpopular views.
  • gideon v. wainwright

    gideon v. wainwright
    In the landmark 1963 case Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies to state courts, meaning states must provide attorneys to indigent defendants facing criminal charges. This ruling overturned the previous precedent in Betts v. Brady and ensured a fundamental right to legal representation for all, regardless of their ability to pay.
  • kerv v. california

    kerv v. california
    The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4. The Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable search and seizure and the exclusionary rule for evidence obtained from unreasonable search and seizure apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • malloy v. hogan

    malloy v. hogan
    In the landmark 1964 Supreme Court case Malloy v. Hogan, the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, which previously only applied to federal proceedings, is also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against state action.
  • Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

    Are police constitutionally required to inform people in custody of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney?
  • washington v. texas court

    Washington v. Texas incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process against the states through the Due Process Clause outlined in the Fourteenth Amendment. The case established the precedent that state courts cannot deny persons charged together in the same crime from testifying for each other
  • klopfer v. north carolina

    klopfer v. north carolina
    In Klopfer v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court decided on March 13, 1967, that the Sixth Amendment's right to a speedy trial applies to state criminal proceedings, effectively incorporating it against the states.
  • duncan v. louisiana

    duncan v. louisiana
    In the landmark 1968 case Duncan v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial applies to state court proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, meaning states must also provide jury trials for serious criminal offenses.
  • benton v. maryland

    benton v. maryland
    In the landmark case of Benton v. Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively incorporating this fundamental right into state law
  • schilb v. kuebel

    schilb v. kuebel
    Kuebel is a case decided on December 20, 1971, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Illinois bail system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of an Illinois bail statute.
  • rabe v. washington

    rabe v. washington
    In Rabe v. Washington (1972), the U.S. Supreme Court reversed an obscenity conviction of a drive-in theater manager, finding that Washington's obscenity law was impermissibly vague because it failed to provide fair notice that criminal liability depended on the location of the exhibition.
  • bush vs gore

    Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court on December 12, 2000, that settled a recount dispute in Florida's 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore.
  • mcdonald v. chicago

    mcdonald v. chicago
    In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment 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

    timbs v. indiana
    In the 2019 case Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's ban on excessive fines applies to state and local governments, incorporating it against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.