-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
Did Chicago's condemnation of and compensation for Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad's land violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? The City of Chicago wanted to connect two disjoint sections of Rockwell Street between 18th and 19th Streets, over private property. No. In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that the Due Process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use.
eminent domain -
Gitlow v. New York
Does the First Amendment prevent a state from punishing political speech that directly advocates the government's violent overthrow? Gitlow, a socialist, was arrested in 1919 for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto" that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action of any form. Gitlow was convicted under New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law, which punished advocating the overthrow of the government by force. 7–2 DECISION FOR NEW YORK MAJORITY OPINION. freedom of speech -
Near v. Minnesota
Does the Minnesota "gag law" violate the free press provision of the First Amendment? In a Minneapolis newspaper called The Saturday Press, Jay Near and Howard Guilford accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. 5–4 DECISION FOR NEAR
MAJORITY OPINION freedom of the press -
Powell v. Alabama
Did the trials violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Nine black youths -- described as, "young, ignorant, and illiterate" -- were accused of raping two white women. 7–2 DECISION FOR POWELL ET AL.
MAJORITY OPINION right to an attorney in state capital cases. -
De Jonge v. Oregon
Does Oregon's criminal syndicalism statute violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? On July 27, 1934, at a meeting held by the Communist Party, Dirk De Jonge addressed the audience regarding jail conditions in the county and a maritime strike in progress in Portland. Yes. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes, the Court held that the Oregon statute, as applied, violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. right to peaceful assembly -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Did the Cantwells’ convictions violate the First Amendment?
Newton Cantwell and his sons, Jehovah's Witnesses, were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR CANTWELLS
MAJORITY OPINION free exercise of religion -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Did the New Jersey statute violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment? A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 5–4 DECISION FOR BOARD OF EDUCATION
MAJORITY OPINION establishment of religion -
In re Oliver
Did the defendant have his constitutional right to a public trial violated? The decision in this case was responsible for incorporating the right to a public trial to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Michigan Supreme Court and held that the right to a public trial applies to state criminal proceedings. public trial -
Mapp v. Ohio
Were the confiscated materials protected from seizure by the Fourth Amendment? 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. 6–3 DECISION FOR DOLLREE MAPP MAJORITY OPINION
exclusionary rule (illegally obtained evidence cannot be used against someone in court, 4th Amendment) -
Robinson v. California
Was defendant’s conviction for addiction to narcotics under the California law cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment? A jury found defendant guilty under a California statute that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. His conviction was affirmed on appeal. Defendant sought further review from the United States Supreme Court. 6–2 DECISION FOR ROBINSON
MAJORITY OPINION protection from cruel and unusual punishment -
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? 187 black students were convicted in a magistrate's court of breach of the peace for peacefully assembling at the South Carolina State Government. 8–1 DECISION FOR EDWARDS MAJORITY OPINION right to petition -
Gideon v. Wainwright
Does the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel in criminal cases extend to felony defendants in state courts? Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR CLARENCE EARL GIDEON
MAJORITY OPINION right to an attorney in felony cases -
Ker v. California
Did the warrantless entry by the deputies, without a warrant and without knocking and announcing their intent to enter, for the purpose of making a narcotics arrest, make the evidence inadmissible? They discovered marijuana and seeds in the glove compartment and under the seat. Both Ker and his wife claim the entry and arrest without a warrant violated the Fourth Amendment. UNANIMOUS DECISION
MAJORITY OPINION protection from unreasonable search and seizure -
Malloy v. Hogan
Does the Fourteenth Amendment protect a state witness's Fifth Amendment guarantee against self-incrimination in a criminal proceeding? after William Malloy was pleading guilty to pool selling, a misdemeanor, he was sentenced to one year in jail and fined $500, but the sentence was suspended after 90 days and Malloy was placed on two years probation. 5–4 DECISION FOR MALLOY MAJORITY OPINION protection against self-incrimination -
Pointer v. Texas
Did Texas violate Pointer's Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by admitting evidence drawn from a preliminary hearing where Pointer was not represented by counsel? On the night of June 16, 1962, a man later identified by a witness as Bob Granville Pointer entered a 7-11 Food Store and robbed the manager, Kenneth W. Phillips, of more than $300. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR POINTER MAJORITY OPINION right to confront witnesses -
Parker v. Gladden
Was Parker’s right to due process violated when a bailiff told two jurors, “Oh, that wicked fellow, he is guilty”, and “If you find him guilty and there is anything wrong, the Supreme Court will correct it”? On May 19, 1961, the Multnomah County Circuit Court convicted Lee E. A. Parker of second-degree murder and sentenced him to the Oregon State Penitentiary for a potential maximum of the remainder of his life. DECISION FOR PARKER PER CURIAM OPINION right to impartial jury -
Washington v. Texas
Is the Sixth Amendment compulsory process clause applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment? Following a jury trial, Jackie Washington was convicted of murder and sentenced to 50 years in prison. At trial, Washington alleged that Charles Fuller, already convicted for the same murder, actually shot the victim while Washington attempted to stop the shooting. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR WASHINGTON MAJORITY OPINION right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses for defense -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
Does the nolle prosequi deny Klopfer his constitutional right to a speedy trial? The State of North Carolina charged Peter Klopfer with criminal trespass when he participated in a civil rights demonstration at a restaurant. At trial, the jury could not reach a verdict. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR KLOPFER MAJORITY OPINION right to a speedy trial -
Duncan v. Louisiana
Was the State of Louisiana obligated to provide a trial by jury in criminal cases such as Duncan's? Gary Duncan, a black teenager in Louisiana, was found guilty of assaulting a white youth by allegedly slapping him on the elbow. Duncan was sentenced to 60 days in prison and fined $150. Duncan's request for a jury trial was denied. 7–2 DECISION FOR DUNCAN MAJORITY OPINION right to criminal trial by jury for serious crimes -
Benton v. Maryland
Did Benton's second indictment, trial, and conviction for larceny violate the Fifth Amendment provision against double jeopardy? Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of larceny but guilty of burglary. 6–2 DECISION FOR BENTON MAJORITY OPINION protection against double jeopardy -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Do the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee a right to counsel to defendants who are accused of committing misdemeanors? Jon Argersinger was an indigent charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor in the State of Florida. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR ARGERSINGER MAJORITY OPINION right to an attorney for misdemeanors that could be punishable by jail time. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
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. 4–3 DECISION MAJORITY OPINION protection from excessive bail -
Rabe v. Washington
Petitioner was convicted of violating Washington's obscenity statute for showing a sexually frank motion picture at a drive-in theater. DECISION FOR RABE PER CURIAM OPINION right to be informed of the nature of accusations -
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? Several suits were filed against Chicago and Oak Park in Illinois challenging their gun bans after the Supreme Court issued its opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller. 5–4 DECISION FOR OTIS MCDONALD, ET AL. MAJORITY OPINION right to keep and bear arms -
Timbs v. Indiana
Has the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause been incorporated against the states under the Fourteenth Amendment? Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover for approximately $42,000 in January 2013 using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. UNANIMOUS DECISION FOR TIMBS MAJORITY OPINION protection from excessive fines