-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
5th Amendment
In "Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago," the Supreme Court upheld a tax imposed by the city on the railroad's property within its limits, ruling it constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The tax applied equally to all railroads and did not unduly burden interstate commerce. -
Gitlow v. New York
1st Amendment
In "Gitlow v. New York," the Supreme Court ruled that states are bound by the First Amendment's free speech protections through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Gitlow's conviction for distributing socialist literature was upheld, but the case established that certain freedoms are applicable to the states. -
Near v. Minnesota
1st Amendment
In "Near v. Minnesota," the Supreme Court struck down a Minnesota law targeting "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers as unconstitutional prior restraint. The ruling established strong protection for freedom of the press, limiting government censorship. -
Powell v. Alabama
6th Amendment
In "Powell v. Alabama," the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of nine black youths sentenced to death in Alabama without adequate legal representation. The ruling established the right to counsel in capital cases, ensuring fair trials and due process -
De Jonge v. Oregon
1st Amendment
In "De Jonge v. Oregon," the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a Communist Party member for attending a public meeting, affirming the right to assemble. The ruling extended protection to peaceful political gatherings, safeguarding freedom of association. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
1st Amendment
In "Cantwell v. Connecticut," the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of Jehovah's Witnesses for inciting a breach of the peace while distributing religious literature. The ruling extended the First Amendment's free exercise clause to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, protecting religious expression from state interference. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
1st Amendment
In "Everson v. Board of Education," the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey law reimbursing parents for the cost of transportation to religious schools. The ruling established the "wall of separation" principle, allowing state aid to religious institutions as long as it didn't promote or inhibit religion, a precedent for church-state relations. -
In re Oliver
6th Amendment
In "In re Oliver," the Supreme Court held that due process requires a public trial before a fair and impartial judge. The case involved contempt charges where the defendant was denied a jury trial, violating his Sixth Amendment rights. The ruling affirmed the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings. -
Mapp v. Ohio
4th Amendment
In "Mapp v. Ohio," the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure, is inadmissible in state courts. This decision extended the exclusionary rule to state proceedings, safeguarding against unlawful government intrusion. -
Robinson v. California
8th Amendment
In "Robinson v. California," the Supreme Court ruled that punishing individuals for mere status, such as addiction, violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The decision limited the state's power to criminalize addiction without addressing the underlying conduct. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
6th Amendment
In "Gideon v. Wainwright," the Supreme Court ruled that state courts are required to provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford an attorney, extending the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to state criminal proceedings. The decision established the principle that fair trials necessitate adequate legal representation, ensuring due process for all defendants. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
1st Amendment
In "Edwards v. South Carolina," the Supreme Court protected the rights of peaceful assembly and protest, overturning the convictions of African American demonstrators arrested for protesting racial segregation. The ruling affirmed the First Amendment's protection of free speech and assembly, even in the face of public disapproval or hostility. -
Ker v. California
4th Amendment
In "Ker v. California," the Supreme Court ruled that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections, even if discovered by a private citizen, cannot be used in criminal proceedings. This decision extended the exclusionary rule to cover evidence seized unlawfully by private individuals acting on behalf of the government. -
Malloy v. Hogan
5th Amendment
In "Malloy v. Hogan," the Supreme Court extended the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to state criminal proceedings via the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision ensured that individuals in state courts had the same rights as those in federal courts, reinforcing fundamental constitutional safeguards. -
Pointer v. Texas
6th Amendment
In "Pointer v. Texas," the Supreme Court ruled that admitting a co-defendant's confession as evidence, without the opportunity for cross-examination, violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. This decision affirmed the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them, ensuring fair trials. -
Parker v. Gladden
6th Amendment
In "Parker v. Gladden," the Supreme Court held that the defendant's right to a fair trial was violated when a bailiff made prejudicial comments about the case to the jury. This emphasized the importance of impartiality in court proceedings and reaffirmed the right to a fair trial under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
6th Amendment
In "Klopfer v. North Carolina," the Supreme Court ruled that indefinite postponement of a criminal trial violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. This decision emphasized the importance of timely legal proceedings and safeguarded defendants against unjust delays. -
Washington v. Texas
6th Amendment
In "Washington v. Texas," the Supreme Court held that denying a defendant's request to have a witness testify on their behalf violated the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause. This reinforced the right of defendants to present witnesses in their defense, ensuring fair trials and due process. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
6th Amendment
In "Duncan v. Louisiana," the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to a trial by jury in criminal cases applied to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision extended the right to a jury trial to defendants in state criminal prosecutions, enhancing procedural fairness. -
Benton v. Maryland
5th Amendment
In "Benton v. Maryland," the Supreme Court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision prohibited states from trying defendants twice for the same offense, reinforcing constitutional protections against double jeopardy. -
Schlib v. Kuebel
8th Amendment
In "Schilb v. Kuebel," the Supreme Court held that an Illinois statute allowing for the involuntary commitment of individuals as sexually dangerous violated due process. The decision emphasized the need for clear and specific procedural safeguards when depriving individuals of liberty. -
Rabe v. Washington
6th Amendment
In "Rabe v. Washington," the Supreme Court ruled that a state's practice of shackling defendants in court without a demonstrated need violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision emphasized the importance of preserving defendants' dignity and fair trial rights. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
6th Amendment
In "Argersinger v. Hamlin," the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applied to misdemeanor cases where imprisonment was a possible penalty. This decision extended the right to counsel to all criminal defendants facing the risk of incarceration, ensuring fair legal representation. -
McDonald v. Chicago
2nd Amendment
In "McDonald v. Chicago," the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision invalidated Chicago's handgun ban, affirming individual gun ownership rights nationwide. -
Timbs v. Indiana
8th Amendment
In "Timbs v. Indiana," the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This decision limited states' ability to impose excessive fines, safeguarding against financial penalties disproportionate to the offense.