-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
The Court held that the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to provide just compensation for seizing private property. The Court warned of the danger of a government that did not have any restraints in exercising eminent domain, fair compensation could address that danger. -
Gitlow v. New York
The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of New York's Criminal Anarchy Statute of 1902, which prohibited advocating the violent overthrow of the government. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protection of free speech. -
Near v. Minnesota
In this case, the Supreme Court held that prior restraint on publication violated the First Amendment. This holding had a broader impact on free speech generally. Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory content. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
In De Jonge v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies freedom of assembly against the states. The decision contributed to the development of “symbolic speech” and “speech plus” categories, concepts relating to speech combined with conduct or action. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Connecticut ruled unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that required individuals making door-to-door religious solicitations to obtain a state license. The Court held the Cantwells' actions were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Everson, a taxpayer in Ewing Township, filed a lawsuit alleging that this indirect aid to religion violated both the New Jersey state constitution and the First Amendment. After losing in state courts, Everson appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court on purely federal constitutional grounds. -
In re Oliver
In re Oliver was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. It established that the right to a public trial of the Sixth Amendment applies to state court criminal proceedings. The decision, in this case, was responsible for incorporating the right to a public trial to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Mapp v. Ohio
In Mapp, police officers entered Dollree Mapp's home without a search warrant and found obscene materials there. Mapp was convicted of possessing these materials but challenged her conviction. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. This violated the Fourth Amendment. -
Robinson v. California
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. It is unconstitutional for a state to punish a defendant for drug addiction, which is a status rather than an act when the defendant has not engaged in any illegal conduct involving drugs in the state. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
In Edwards v. South Carolina, the Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina had violated students' First Amendment rights of peaceable assembly, speech, and petition when the police dispersed a peaceful protest against segregation. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges. The Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial guaranteed all defendants facing imprisonment a right to an attorney, not just those in death penalty cases. -
Ker v. California
Ker v. California was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. Petitioners contend that the search was unreasonable in that the officers could practicably have obtained a search warrant. -
Malloy v. Hogan
Malloy pleaded guilty to taking part in an unlawful gambling operation. The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by a state. -
Pointer v. Texas
Pointer and Dillard were arrested for the robbery of Kenneth Phillips. The court held that state criminal proceedings that do not allow a defendant to cross-examine a witness violate the right to confrontation outlined in the Sixth Amendment. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Ruled that an arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-discrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution. The rights of Ernesto Arturo Miranda had been violated during his arrest and trial for armed robbery, kidnapping, and rape of a young woman. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant's right to a speedy trial. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to the Sixth Amendment to the states. -
Washington v. Texas
Texas is a case decided by the United States Supreme Court holding a Texas statute prohibiting persons charged together in the same crime from testifying for each other, violating the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
The Supreme Court argued that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton was charged with burglary and larceny in a Maryland court. A jury found him not guilty of larceny but guilty of burglary. Supreme Court incorporated the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to states. He won his appeal on the grounds that the grand jury that indicted him and the petit jury that convicted him was selected unconstitutionally. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Appellant Schilb, charged with two traffic offenses, secured pretrial release after depositing 10% of the bail fixed. 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. Eighth Amendment protects against excessive bail. -
Rabe v. Washington
A State may not criminally punish the exhibition of a motion picture film at a drive-in theater where the statute assertedly violated has not given fair notice that the location of the exhibition was a vital element of the offense. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the citizens of Washington State had no notice under the Sixth Amendment that the place where a film was shown was an element of the offense. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Hamlin is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. -
McDonald v. Chicago
McDonald v. Chicago involved a 2nd Amendment challenge to a Chicago ordinance that essentially banned private handgun ownership in the city. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms to the states, at least for traditional, lawful purposes such as self-defense. -
Timbs v. Indiana
The Supreme Court considered whether state governments must comply with the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against “excessive fines.” The state charged Timbs with two charges of felony dealing and one charge of conspiracy to commit theft.
