-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
In order to connect two separated sections of Rockwell Street, Chicago planned to cross private property. Even though the land was declared condemned, the railroad only got $1. Railroad pleaded. After reviewing the case, the Supreme Court decided not to hear the petition. They came to the opinion that the due process clause requires the states to offer just compensation when taking private property for public use. The Fifth Amendment's right to take private property is being used. -
Gitlow v. New York
Gitlow was detained for disseminating a "left-wing manifesto" that urged class struggle in all its forms and the creation of socialism. Gitlow was found guilty in accordance with a rule that penalizes those who support using force to overthrow the government. This case was considered by the Supreme Court. The Court held that Gitlow is not protected from the New York law by the Free Speech Clause. The first amendment's guarantee of free speech is being adopted. -
Near v. Minnesota
Near claimed that local leaders were connected to gangsters in a Minneapolis newspaper. Because the newspaper was malicious, scandalous, and defamatory, Minnesota authorities sought a permanent injunction against it on the basis that it broke the Public Nuisance Law. The Supreme Court heard the case and ruled that, in accordance with the First Amendment's Free Press Clause, the government may not forbid a publication in preparation. The first amendment's press freedom is being integrated. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
DeJonge spoke to a crowd at a Communist Party gathering about the conditions in jail and the strike going on in Portland. The gathering was searched by police. De Jonge was taken into custody and accused of breaking the State's illegal syndicalism law. After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the Oregon law as it was being applied was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due process.
It incorporates the first amendment's guarantee of the right to assemble. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
As Jehovah's Witnesses, Cantwell and his boys were attempting to convert a neighborhood in Connecticut that was largely made up of Catholics. To an anti-Catholic message, two pedestrians reacted furiously. They detained Cantwell and his boys. After hearing the case, the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause was violated by the local law requiring a permit to solicit. It incorporates the first amendment's guarantee of religious freedom. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
A rule allows local school boards to cover students' travel expenses to and from schools, including private ones. Everson complained, claiming that this tacit support for faith was against both the First Amendment and the New Jersey state constitution. The New Jersey statute that covers parents for travel expenses to parochial schools was upheld by the Supreme Court as not violating the Establishment Clause. The first provision includes the government's right to impose religious restrictions. -
In re Oliver
In this ruling, the Supreme Court addressed how to apply the due process clause to cases handled in state courts. It incorporates the right to a public hearing under the sixth amendment. -
Mapp v. Ohio
Mapp was found guilty of having explicit material after a police search of her home—clearly conducted illegally—for a person on the run. According to the Supreme Court's decision in this case, which ignored First Amendment arguments, all evidence obtained through unlawful searches and seizures is inadmissible in state courts. The fourth amendment's exclusionary provision is being applied. -
Robinson v. California
According to a California law that made drug addiction a crime, a jury deemed the defendant guilty. In this case, the Supreme Court heard arguments and ruled that laws that sentence people to jail for having the "illness" of narcotic addiction constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment is being implemented. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
In court, 187 black students who had gathered calmly outside the South Carolina State Government were found guilty. The students were detained by the authorities for disobeying an order to disperse. The black student's criminal convictions were overturned by the Supreme Court. The right to petition under the first amendment is being implemented. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
In court, Gideon was accused of breaking and entering, a felony. Gideon asked the judge to appoint a lawyer for him because he didn't have one. They failed to do so. Gideon lost after defending himself. He received a five-year jail term. The Supreme Court ruled that requiring state courts to designate lawyers for defendants who couldn't afford to hire counsel on their own was consistent with the Constitution. The sixth amendment's right to counsel in felony cases is being incorporated. -
Ker v. California
Marijuana was purchased by George Ker from a person who had been observed. Despite their efforts, the officers were unable to capture Ker. Ker and his wife were both arrested for marijuana possession by the police after they checked Ker's license plates and proceeded to his house. The fourth amendment's prohibition on unwarranted search and seizure was incorporated. -
Malloy v. Hogan
Following a gambling probe, Malloy was placed under arrest. Malloy had to give a testimony about his role in gambling and crime by the judge. He made the choice to keep quiet because he didn't want to be exposed. Until he provided a reply, he was held. According to the Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment shields the Fifth Amendment's prohibition against being forced to speak against oneself in court from state abridgment. The Fifth Amendment's prohibition against self-incrimination was included. -
Pointer v. Texas
A shop was robbed by Pointer. He was apprehended by authorities after being located. Does Texas' admission of testimony from a preliminary hearing where Pointer was not represented by counsel violate Pointer's rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? The Sixth Amendment's right to confrontation, according to the Supreme Court, mandates that Texas give Pointer the chance to face Dillard while represented by counsel. The sixth amendment's freedom to confront witnesses was incorporated. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
As a result of his involvement in a civil rights protest at a restaurant, Klopfer was accused of criminal trespass. The jury was unable to render a decision. When the state requested an injunction with leave, the Superior Court judge continued the matter twice. In response to Klopfer's objection, the Supreme Court ruled that an indefinite trial suspension violates the defendant's right to a speedy prosecution. The sixth amendment's guarantee of a speedy trial is being incorporated. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Miranda was detained inside his residence and taken to the police station, where he was interrogated by officers about abduction and rape. The Fifth Amendment rights of Miranda were not explained to him before he admitted. During inquiries while in police custody, suspects must be informed of their right to stay silent and to consult a counsel, the Supreme Court ruled, in accordance with the Fifth Amendment. It incorporates the Fifth Amendment's right to rights disclosure while in custody. -
Washington v. Texas
Washington was sentenced to 50 years in prison after being proven guilty of murder. Washington stated that the victim was truly shot by Fuller, who was prior judged guilty of the crime. Washington assured everyone that Fuller would show up, but the prosecution raised concerns due to a state statute. The Supreme Court has ruled that because the right to mandated process is so fundamental, it is included in the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The 6th Amendment is applied in this case. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
Duncan, a black teen who was later found guilty of the offense, allegedly elbowed a white teen. Duncan was fined $150 and ordered to 60 days in prison. Duncan's request for a jury hearing was rejected. According to the Supreme Court, the Sixth Amendment's mandate for jury trials in criminal cases is "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and the states are required to offer them under the Fourteenth Amendment. It includes the requirement of a jury trial from the sixth amendment. -
Benton v. Maryland
Benton was charged with robbery and larceny in court. Jurors found him guilty of burglary and theft but not larceny. He was confined to ten years in prison. He won his appeal by saying that an unfair selection procedure resulted in the grand jury indicting him and the petit jury convicting him. The new court found both accusations to be true. The Supreme Court ruled that the double jeopardy clause applies to state charges. The ban against double jeopardy in the Fifth Amendment is being enforced. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
After paying 10% of the set bond, Schilb, who was charged with two traffic violations, was granted pretrial release. He proved guilty of one crime but cleared of another. All except 1% of the bail was given back once he paid his fine. Despite the administrative charge being levied on both those who were found guilty and those who were ruled innocent, the court ruled that it did not violate due process. The 8th Amendment's ban on excessive bail is being enforced. -
Rabe v. Washington
The proprietor of a drive-in theater in Richland, Washington, was found guilty of obscenity, but the Supreme Court overturned the decision. The drive-in proprietor claimed that the First Amendment protected a movie with explicit content. The sixth amendment's right to information about the charges against one is being incorporated. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Argersinger was charged with violating Florida law by carrying a concealed weapon. Argersinger was judged guilty and sentenced to 90 days in prison during a bench trial without the aid of a lawyer. Based on the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, states must offer indigent defendants counsel in cases involving serious crimes, the Supreme Court stated. For crimes carrying a prison term, the right to counsel granted by the sixth amendment is currently in effect. -
McDonald v. Chicago
Numerous lawsuits were launched against Chicago and Oak Park for their firearms bans following the SCOTUS ruling in another case. Since numerous provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment contain the second amendment, the question of whether it applies to states arises. The Fourteenth Amendment, according to the Supreme Court, makes the Second Amendment applies to states. It incorporates the freedom to bear arms guaranteed by the second amendment. -
Timbs v. Indiana
According to the Supreme Court, the Magna Carta, the venerable English Bill of Rights, and state constitutions dating back to colonial times, all contain references to the excessive fines provision. The 8th Amendment's protection from excessive fines is being implemented.