-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
This case was in violation of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A city in Chicago wanted to disconnect two streets that were owned by various others and a right-of-way owned by Quincy Railroad Incorporation. -
Gitlow v. New York (1925)
In an opinion authored by Justice Edward Sanford, the Court concluded that New York could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law. Freedom of Speech -
Near v. Minnesota (1931)
Prior restraints on speech are generally unconstitutional, such as when they forbid the publication of malicious, scandalous, and defamatory content. -
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
Right to an attorney in state capitol cases.Powell v. Alabama, was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court reversed the convictions of nine young black men for allegedly raping two white women on a freight train near Scottsboro, Alabama. -
De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)
U.S. Supreme Court that held that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects freedom of assembly from state statutes. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940)
United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and so applies to state governments too. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing (1947)
A divided Court held that the law did not violate the Constitution. Justice Black reasoned that the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway. It was rather enacted to assist parents of all religions with getting their children to school. -
In re Oliver (1948)
In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. -
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that evidence acquired through illegal search and seizure was not admissible evidence, and therefore officially applied the exclusionary rule to the states. -
Malloy v. Hogan (1964)
In a 5-to-4 opinion, the Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgement by a state. -
Edwards v. South Carolina (1963)
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows the Free Petition Clause to extend to the states as well as the federal government. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court reversed the criminal convictions of the black students. -
Robinson v. California (1962)
It was decided that it was 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. -
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
The right to the assistance of counsel in felony criminal cases is a fundamental right essential to fair trial. Therefore this protection from the 6th Amendment applied to state courts as well as federal. -
Ker v. California (1963)
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. -
Pointer v. Texas (1965)
In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Hugo Black, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation required Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through counsel. -
Washington v. Texas (1967)
United States Supreme Court holding a Texas statute prohibiting persons charged together in the same crime from testifying for each other violated the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. -
Parker v. Gladden (1966)
The Supreme Court incorporated the right to an impartial jury of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to states. The case concerned a bailiff attempting to influence a jury's opinion of the defendant in a case. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. -
Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
If Duncan were tried in federal court, he would have had a Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial. Duncan was convicted and subsequently appealed his case to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed Duncan's conviction, concluding that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial was fundamental. -
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut. -
Schilb v. Kuebel (1971)
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 (1972)
Decision made by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972)
In Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) the Court found that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments required states to provide an attorney to indigent defendants in cases involving serious crimes. -
McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
The court reached the holding with the idea that self defense is a significant right so the 2nd Amendment applies to the states. Through the 14th Amendment, the 2nd Amendment, the right to bear arms, is connected and ruled with in the individual states. -
Timbs v. Indiana (2019)
The Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states. In an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court found that the Excessive Fines Clause finds its origins in the Magna Carta, the historic English Bill of Rights, and state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day.