-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
Was a ruling that incorporated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by requiring states to provide just compensation for seizing private property. -
Gitlow v. New York
Was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states. The Supreme Court voted 7-2 to uphold the constitutionality of New York's Criminal Anarchy Statute of 1902, which prohibited advocating violent overthrow of the government. -
Near v. Minnesota
Was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence.In the landmark decision, the Supreme Court fashioned the First Amendment doctrine opposing prior restraint and reaffirmed the emerging view that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the First Amendment to the states. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
The Supreme Court ruled that state governments may not violate the constitutional right of peaceable assembly. The decision contributed to the development of “symbolic speech” and “speech plus” categories, concepts relating to speech combined with conduct or action. Was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to freedom of assembly. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
Is a decision by the 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. They found that Cantwell was protected by the amendments. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
Was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law. The Supreme Court ruled as constitutional a New Jersey statute allocating taxpayer funds to bus children to religious schools because it did not breach the “wall of separation” between church and state and held that the establishment clause of the First Amendment applied to state and local governments as well as to the federal government. -
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. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant "... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation...and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney -
Mapp v. Ohio
Was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained by violating the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies not only to the U.S. federal government. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. -
Robinson v. California
Is the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime. It is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to criminalize drug addiction because it is a disease, status, or condition rather than a specific act. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
Was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a statehouse. 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
Is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorneys. The Court agreed to hear the case to resolve the question of whether the right to counsel guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution applies to defendants in state court. -
Ker v. California
Was a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The case was decided on June 10, 1963, by a vote of 5–4. 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. -
Malloy v. Hogan
Was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be witnesses against themselves was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts, overruling the decision in Twining v. New Jersey (1908). -
Pointer v. Texas
Was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right of confrontation required Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through counsel. -
Miranda v. Arizona
Was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which ruled that American law enforcement officers cannot interrogate suspects without first informing them of their rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against self-incrimination. -
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. 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 the Sixth Amendment to the states. -
Washington v. Texas
Is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts Washington was denied that right in this case. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
Was a significant United States Supreme Court decision which incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states a 7-to-2 decision, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment 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
Is a 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. Benton v. Maryland represents an extension of Fifth Amendment rights, particularly strengthening the position of the individual faced by state prosecution. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Appellant Schilb, charged with two traffic offenses, secured pretrial release after depositing 10% of the bail fixed. He was convicted of one offense and acquitted of the other. After he paid his fine, all but 1% of the bail (amounting to $7.50) was refunded. In this class action, he thereafter challenged the Illinois system on due process and equal protection grounds. The trial court dismissed Schilb's complaint, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
Is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. -
Rabe v. Washington
Was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states 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. -
McDonald v. Chicago
City of Chicago, case in which on June 28, 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (5–4) that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” applies to state and local governments as well as to the federal government -
Timbs v. Indiana
Was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture. An Indiana trial court ruled that forfeiting the vehicle would be “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of Timbs's offense and therefore unconstitutional under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and an Indiana intermediate court agreed.
