Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 9

Weeks v.

United States (1914)

Const: Amendment 4, Search and Seizure

The warrantless seizure of documents from a
private home violated the Fourth Amendment
prohibition against unreasonable searches and
seizures, and evidence obtained in this manner
is excluded from use in federal criminal
prosecutions. Western District of Missouri
reversed and remanded.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

Const: Amendment 4, 14, Incorporation of the
Bill of Rights onto states

The Fourth Amendment prohibition against
unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied
to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes
unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use
in criminal prosecutions. Ohio Supreme Court

Escobedo v. Illinois (1964)

Const: Amendment 6, 14, Incorporation, Right
to cancel

Where a police investigation begins to focus
on a particular suspect who has been refused
counsel, his statements to police are excluded.

Furman v. Georgia (1972)

Const: Amendment 5, 14, Due Process, Self-
The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination requires law enforcement
officials to advise a suspect interrogated in
custody of his rights to remain silent and to
obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court
reversed and remanded.

Powell v. Alabama (1932)

Const: Amendment 14, due process clause

Defendants' conviction was unconstitutional
because they were denied the assistance of
counsel from the time of their arraignment
until the beginning of their trial, in violation of
the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.
Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th
Amendment, counsel must be guaranteed to
anyone facing the possibility of a death
sentence, whether in state or federal courts

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

Const: Amendment 6, 14, Right to Counsel,
Incorporation of the Bill of Rights onto states

The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a
fundamental right applied to the states via
the Fourteenth Amendment to the United
States Constitution's due process clause, and
requires that indigent criminal defendants be
provided counsel at trial. Supreme Court of
Florida reversed.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Const: Amendment 5, 14

The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-
incrimination requires law enforcement
officials to advise a suspect interrogated in
custody of his rights to remain silent and to
obtain an attorney. Arizona Supreme Court
reversed and remanded.

Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Const: Amendment 8, Cruel and Unusual

The imposition of the death penalty does not,
automatically, violate the Eighth and
Fourteenth Amendment. If the jury is
furnished with standards to direct and limit the
sentencing discretion, and the jury's decision is
subjected to meaningful appellate review, the
death sentence may be constitutional. If,
however, the death penalty is mandatory, such
that there is no provision for mercy based on
the characteristics of the offender, then it is

New Jersey v. TLO (1985)

Const: Amendment 4, Search and Seizure

(1) Fourth Amendment's prohibition on
unreasonable searches and seizures applies to
searches conducted by public school officials
(Administrators) , and (2) search of student's
purse was reasonable.

Kelo v. City of New London

Const: 5th amendment eminent domain

The governmental taking of property from one
private owner to give to another in furtherance
of economic development constitutes a
permissible "public use" under the Fifth
Amendment. Supreme Court of Connecticut
decision affirmed.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Const: 14

The "separate but equal" provision of private
services mandated by state government is
constitutional under the Equal Protection
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka (1971)

Const: 14th Amendment- Equal Protection

Segregation of students in public schools
violates the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment, because separate
facilities are inherently unequal. District Court
of Kansas reversed.

Vernonia School District v.
Acton (1995)

Const: Amendment 4- Search and Seizure

The Fourth Amendment allows random drug
testing of high school students involved in
athletic programs.

Civil Rights Cases (1883)

Const: 13
, 14
amendment- Equal Protection

The Equal Protection Clause applies only to
state action, not segregation by privately
owned businesses.

Korematsu v. United States

Const: 5

The exclusion order leading to Japanese
American Internment was constitutional.
Regents of the University of
California v. Bakke (1978)

Const: 14
amendment- Affirmative Action

The Court held that while affirmative action
systems are constitutional, a quota system
based on race is unconstitutional.

Adarand Constructors v. Pena

Const: Amendments 5,14- Due Process Clause

All racial classifications, imposed by whatever
federal, state, or local government actor, must
be analyzed by a reviewing court under a
standard of "strict scrutiny," the highest level
of Supreme Court review (such classifications
are constitutional only if they are narrowly
tailored measures that further compelling
governmental interests).
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Const: Amendment 14- Affirmative Action

University of Michigan Law School
admissions program that gave special
consideration for being a certain racial
minority did not violate the Fourteenth

Griswold v. Connecticut

Const: Amendment 1,3,4,5,9,14- Right to

A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of
contraceptives violated the right to marital
privacy. Connecticut Supreme Court reversed.
Roe v Wade (1973)

Const: Amendment 14

Texas law making it a crime to assist a woman
to get an abortion violated her due process
rights. U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas affirmed in part, reversed in
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

Const: Amendments 14- due process

A Texas law classifying consensual, adult
homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy
violated the privacy and liberty of adults to
engage in private intimate conduct under the
14th Amendment. Texas state courts reversed
and charges dismissed.
Gratz v. Bollinger (2003)

Const: Amendment 14- Equal Protection
A state university's admission policy violated
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment because its ranking system gave
an automatic point increase to all racial
minorities rather than making individual
determinations. Eastern District of Michigan
affirmed in part, reversed and remanded.

Reed v. Reed (1971)

Const: Amendment 14- Equal Protection

Administrators of estates cannot be named in a
way that discriminates between sexes.

Webster v. Reproductive
Health Services (1989)

Const: Amendment 14

The Court approved a Missouri law that
imposed restrictions on the use of state funds,
facilities and employees in performing,
assisting with, or counseling on abortions. The
Supreme Court thus allowed for states to
legislate in an area that had previously been
thought to be forbidden under Roe, reversing
the Eighth Circuit.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Const: Amendment 1, 14- Due Process Clause

A Pennsylvania law that required spousal
awareness prior to obtaining an abortion was
invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment
because it created an undue burden on married
women seeking an abortion. Requirements for
parental consent, informed consent, and 24-
hour waiting period were constitutionally valid
regulations. Third Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Pollock v. Farmers Loan and
Trust Co. (1895)

Const: Direct Taxing
The unapportioned income taxes on interest,
dividends and rents imposed by the Income
Tax Act of 1894 were, in effect, direct taxes,
and were unconstitutional because they
violated the rule that direct taxes be

Powell v. McCormack (1969)

Const: Congressional Qualifications

Congress may not in any way alter the
qualifications of its members from the
exclusive list given in the Constitution (age,
length of citizenship, and inhabitant of state
where elected). Therefore, "excluding" a
Congressman by a two-thirds majority vote is
not allowed although the Constitution allows
expulsion by a two-thirds vote.
National Federation of
Independent Businesses v.
Sebelius (2012)

The Individual mandate was acceptable if
construed as a tax, and the majority of the
Affordable Care Act was constitutional

Cruzan v. Missouri (1990)

Const: Amendments 9,14- Due Process
Clause, Right to Privacy

acceptable to require "clear and convincing
evidence" of a patient's wishes for removal
of life support.

National Labor Relations
Board v. Jones & Laughlin
Steel (1937)

Const: Amendment 5- due process, article1-
commerce clause
Congress had the power, under the Commerce
Clause, to regulate labor relations.

US Term Limits, Inc. V.
Thorton (1995)

Const: Amendment 17 congressional

States cannot impose qualifications for
prospective members of Congress stricter than
those in the Constitution