-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago (1897)
This case covers eminent domain of the 14A. The city of Chicago wanted to build a road over private property. The city condemned and then compensated the owner for the land but not the railroad. They appealed the judgment, saying that the condemnation deprived it of its property in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court held that the Due Process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. -
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
This case covers freedom of speech from 1A. 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. The Court concluded that New York could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law. -
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
This case covers freedom of the press in 1A. A newspaper called The Saturday Press accused local officials of being implicated with gangsters. The law provided that any person "engaged in the business" of regularly publishing or circulating a "malicious, scandalous and defamatory" newspaper or periodical was guilty of a nuisance, and could be enjoined from further committing or maintaining the nuisance. The Court held that the statute authorizing this was unconstitutional. -
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
This case covers the right to an attorney from 6A. Nine black youths were accused of raping two white women. A total of three trials took one day and all nine were sentenced to death. Alabama law required the appointment of counsel in capital cases, but the attorneys did not consult with their clients and had done little more than appear to represent them at the trial. The Court said that the trials denied due process because they were not given time to secure counsel in their defense. -
De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)
This case covers the right to assemble from 1A. De Jonge was arrested and charged with violating the State's criminal syndicalism statute. He argued that the evidence was not enough arrest him. The State SC said they charged him with assisting in conducting an assemblage of groups called by the Communist Party. The Court said that to preserve peaceable assembly that the purpose of the meeting and the speakers' remarks must be looked at, which had not occurred in this case. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
This case covers freedom of religion from 1A. Jehovah's Witnesses were proselytizing a predominantly Catholic neighborhood in Connecticut. 2 people reacted angrily to an anti-Catholic message. Cantwell and his sons were arrested and charged with violation of a Connecticut statute requiring solicitors to obtain a certificate before soliciting funds from the public and a common-law breach of the peace. the Court held the Cantwells’ actions were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (1947)
This case covers establishment of religion from 1A. A New Jersey law authorized reimbursement by local school boards of the costs of transportation to and from schools, including private schools. 96% of the private schools who benefitted from this law were religious. filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the 1A. A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. -
In re Oliver (1948)
This case shows the right to a public trial of the 6A. A witness was asked to appear before a court judge to provide testimony for an investigation. The judge, acting as a oneman grand jury, believed that the witness' testimony was false. The individual was charged with contempt and sentenced to serve in jail and was denied the opportunity to seek counsel or prepare a defense. The Supreme Court reversed the decision and held that the right to a public trial applies to state criminal proceedings. -
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
This case is based on passing the exclusionary rule of 4A for states. Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. The court declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court. -
Robinson v. California (1962)
This case deals with cruel and unusual punishment from 8A. A jury found the defendant guilty under a California statute that criminalized being addicted to narcotics. The Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. -
Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
This case covered the right to petition from 1A. 187 students were convicted in a court of breach of peace for peacefully assembling at the South Carolina State Gov. Their purpose was to submit a protest of grievances to the citizens of South Carolina. The Court reversed the criminal convictions of the black students. It was clear to the Court that in arresting the students under the circumstances, the state infringed the students' rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition. -
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
This case deals with right to an attorney in felony cases from 6A. Gideon requested that the court appoint a lawyer for him but according to Florida state law, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. the Court held that it was consistent with the Constitution to require state courts to appoint attorneys for defendants who could not afford to retain counsel on their own. -
Ker v. California (1963)
This case covered protection from unreasonable search and seizure from 4A. A couple was arrested after officers saw Ker meeting someone suspected of selling drugs. The officers went to Ker's apartment and entered without consent or a warrant using a pass key supplied by the building manager. An officer observed a “package of green leafy substance” on the kitchen table and arrested them. The Court said that the standards are the same under the 4th and 14th As applying in Fed. and State courts. -
Malloy v. Hogan (1964)
The case covers protection against self-incrimination from 5A. When Malloy refused to testify, "on grounds it may tend to incriminate him" he was imprisoned for contempt and held until willing to answer questions. the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. -
Pointer v. Texas (1965)
The case covers right to confront witness from 6A. A man was robbed at work and the suspect denied it. The state offered a transcript of Phillips' testimony as evidence because he had since moved out of Texas. The defense objected to the transcript as a denial of Pointer's right to confront a witness. The judge overruled because Pointer was present at the preliminary hearing. The Court held that the 6A right of confrontation required them to allow Pointer to confront Dillard through counsel. -
Parker v. Gladden (1966)
The case covers the right to an impartial jury from 6A. The case concerned a bailiff attempting to influence a jury's opinion of the defendant in a case. the Court held that the bailiff's statements violated Parker’s right under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to trial by an impartial jury. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
The case covers right to speedy trial from 6A. The Superior Court judge continued the case twice when the state moved for a nolle prosequi with leave. This would allow the state to suspend their prosecution indefinitely and return the case to the docket in the future. Klopfer objected, arguing that this violated his 6A right to a speedy trial, but the judge granted the state’s request. The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. -
Washington v. Texas (1967)
The case covers the subpoena process from 6A. Jackie W. was convicted of murder. At trial, she alleged that Charles Fuller was already convicted of the same murder and that Washington attempted to stop Fuller. She claimed that Fuller would testify to these facts, but the prosecution objected based on a state statute not allowing him to testify for her. The Supreme Court held that the 6A right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the 14A. -
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
The case covers right to criminal trial by jury for serious crimes from 6A. Gary Duncan 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. the Court held that the 6A guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials. -
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
The case covers double jeopardy from 5A. Benton was charged with burglary and theft in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of theft but guilty of burglary. He was sentenced. He won his appeal because the juries in his case were selected unconstitutionally. The case was remanded and Benton chose to confront a new grand jury. He was re-indicted. The Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5A was applied to the states is an element of liberty protected by Due Process of the 14A. -
Schilb v. Kuebel (1971)
The case covers protection from excessive bail from 8A. John Schilb was charged with leaving the scene of a car accident and obstructing traffic. He paid 10% of his bail, by state law, to the clerk of the courts. After his trial, the amount he had deposited was returned to him with $7.50 less than the amount paid. The court clerk kept some of the money as a bail bond cost. The S.C. agreed with the Illinois S.C. and held that the bail system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. -
Rabe v. Washington (1972)
The case covers right to be informed of the nature of accusations from 6A. William Rabe, was arrested on obscenity charges for showing the film Carmen, Baby. Due to 1A concerns, the local court convicted Rabe not on the basis that the film was obscene, but that exhibiting it in a theater was. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the citizens of Washington had no notice under the Sixth Amendment that the place where a film was shown was an element of the offense. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
This case covers right to an attorney for misdemeanors that could be punishable by jail time from 6A. Jon Richard Argersinger was sentenced under Florida law to 90 days in jail for carrying a concealed weapon but was never represented by counsel. The Florida court claimed that since jury trials were not required for misdemeanors, then neither was counsel. The Supreme Court held that a criminal defendant may not be actually imprisoned unless provided with counsel. -
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
The case covers right to keep and bear arms from 2A. As an experienced hunter, McDonald legally owned shotguns but believed them to be too unwieldy in the event of a robbery and so he wanted to purchase a handgun for personal home defense. When a citywide handgun ban was passed, made him unable to own a handgun legally. The Supreme Court reversed the 7th Circuit, holding that the 14A makes the 2A right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states. -
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
The case covers protection from excessive fines from 8A. Tyson Timbs purchased a Land Rover using the proceeds from his father’s life insurance policy. Timbs used the vehicle for multiple trips within Indiana to transport heroin. After a series of controlled purchases involving a confidential informant, Timbs was arrested at a traffic stop. The state sought to forfeit Timbs’ Land Rover. the Court found that the Excessive Fines Clause is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty."