List of landmark court decisions in the United States

The following is a partial list of landmark court decisions in the United States. Landmark decisions substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:

  • establishing a significant new legal principle or concept;
  • overturning prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning;
  • distinguishing a new principle that refines a prior principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
  • establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
For other landmark cases lists, see Lists of landmark court decisions.

In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. United States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court, such as in Smith v. Collin. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.

Individual rights

Discrimination based on race and ethnicity

Discrimination based on sex

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

Birth control and abortion

End of life

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights

Other areas
  • Corfield v. Coryell, 6 Fed. Cas. 546 (C.C.E.D. Pa. 1823) Some of the rights protected by the Privileges and Immunities Clause include the freedom of movement through the states, the right of access to the courts, the right to purchase and hold property, an exemption from higher taxes than those paid by state residents, and the right to vote. Strictly speaking, not an opinion issued by the Supreme Court, but a case decided by Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington while riding circuit, in the Circuit Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Notable for Washington asserting the existence of cognizable rights within the ambit of the Privileges and Immunities clause (Art. IV, Sec. 2, cl.1) that are nowhere within the Constitution's text. Frequently cited today by those urging the Supreme Court to create new, nontextual extra-Constitutional rights through the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which has remained dormant since the Slaughter-House Cases (but see McDonald v. City of Chicago, Thomas, J., concurring, incorporating the Second Amendment as applicable against the states through the Privileges or Immunities clause rather than that amendment's Due Process Clause).
  • Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2 (1866) Trying citizens in military courts is unconstitutional when civilian courts are still operating. Trial by military tribunal is constitutional only when there is no power left but the military, and the military may validly try criminals only as long as is absolutely necessary.
  • Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) Freedom of movement between states is a fundamental right; a state cannot inhibit people from leaving it by imposing a tax on doing so.
  • United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) With only a few narrow exceptions, every person born in the United States acquires United States citizenship at birth via the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • United States v. Wheeler, 254 U.S. 281 (1920) The Constitution grants to the states the power to prosecute individuals for wrongful interference with the right to travel.
  • Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) A state cannot prohibit indigent people from moving into it.
  • Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954) Under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause private property can be taken for a public purpose with just compensation.
  • Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957) United States citizens abroad, even when associated with the military, cannot be deprived of the protections of the Constitution and cannot be made subject to military jurisdiction.
  • Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958) The right to travel is a part of the "liberty" of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment.
  • Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U.S. 500 (1964) First case in which the US Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of personal restrictions on the right to travel abroad and passport restrictions as they relate to Fifth Amendment due process rights and First Amendment free speech, freedom of assembly and freedom of association rights.
  • United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966) There is a constitutional right to travel from state to state, and the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment extend to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy.
  • Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) The right of citizenship is protected by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress has no power under the Constitution to revoke a person's United States citizenship unless he or she voluntarily relinquishes it.
  • Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969) The fundamental right to travel and the Equal protection clause forbid a state from reserving welfare benefits only for persons that have resided in the state for at least a year. The decision helped to establish a fundamental "right to travel" in U.S. law.
  • Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), a U.S. state violates due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.
  • Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Circuit 1974) A variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners constituted cruel and unusual punishment and a violation of Eighth Amendment rights thus ending the Trusty system and the flagrant inmate abuse that accompanied it in states using the trusty system as a replacement for the convict lease system.
  • O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) The states cannot involuntarily commit individuals if they are not a danger to themselves or others and are capable of living by themselves or with the aid of responsible family members or friends.
  • Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979), a "clear and convincing" standard of proof is required by the Fourteenth Amendment in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital.
  • Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999), a 12-month residency requirement for welfare applicants new to a state is a violation of the constitutional right to travel. The decision reaffirmed the principle that citizens select states and that states do not select citizens.

Criminal law

Fourth Amendment Rights: Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures

Right to an attorney

Other rights regarding counsel
  • Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) To obtain relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
  • Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010) Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction. Second, where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear or uncertain, attorneys must advise that deportation "may" result. Finally, attorneys must give their clients some advice about deportation—counsel cannot remain silent about immigration consequences.

Right to remain silent

Competence

Detainment of terrorism suspects

Capital punishment
Main article: Capital punishment in the United States
  • Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) The arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. This decision initiates a nationwide de facto moratorium on executions that lasts until the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia (1976).
  • Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Georgia's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it adequately narrows the class of defendants eligible for the death penalty. This case and the next four cases were consolidated and decided simultaneously. By evaluating the new death penalty statutes that had been passed by the states, the Supreme Court ended the moratorium on executions that began with its decision in Furman v. Georgia (1972).
  • Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) Florida's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it requires the comparison of aggravating factors to mitigating factors in order to impose a death sentence.
  • Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976) Texas's new death penalty statute is constitutional because it uses a three-part test to determine if a death sentence should be imposed.
  • Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) North Carolina's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence to be imposed.
  • Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976) Louisiana's new death penalty statute is unconstitutional because it calls for a mandatory death sentence for a large range of crimes.
  • Coker v. Georgia, 433 U.S. 584 (1977) A death sentence may not be imposed for the crime of rape.
  • Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982) A death sentence may not be imposed on offenders who are involved in a felony during which a murder is committed but who do not actually kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place.
  • Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399 (1986) A death sentence may not be imposed on the insane.
  • Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 173 (1987) The death penalty is an appropriate punishment for a felony murderer who was a major participant in the underlying felony and exhibited a reckless indifference to human life.
  • McCleskey v. Kemp, 481 U.S. 279 (1987) Evidence of a "racially-disproportionate impact" in the application of the dealth penalty indicated by a comprehensive scientific study is not enough to invalidate an individual's death sentence without showing a "racially discriminatory purpose."
  • Breard v. Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998) The International Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction in capital punishment cases that involve foreign nationals.
  • Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002) A death sentence may not be imposed on mentally retarded offenders, but the states can define what it means to be mentally retarded.
  • Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) A death sentence may not be imposed on juvenile offenders.
  • Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35 (2008) The three-drug cocktail used for performing executions by lethal injection in Kentucky (as well as virtually all of the states using lethal injection at the time) is constitutional under the Eighth Amendment.
  • Kennedy v. Louisiana, 554 U.S. 407 (2008) The death penalty is unconstitutional in all cases that do not involve homicide or crimes against the state such as treason.
  • Glossip v. Gross, 576 U.S. ___ (2015) The Eighth Amendment requires prisoners to show 1.) there is a known and available alternative method of execution and 2.) the challenged method of execution poses a demonstrated risk of severe pain, with the burden of proof resting on the prisoners, not the state.

Other criminal sentences
  • Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) The Supreme Court extended Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to the parole revocation process, hold that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a parole board to give an evidentiary hearing prior to revoking the parole of a defendant and spelled out the minimum due process requirements for the revocation hearing.
  • Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) The Supreme Court issued a substantive ruling regarding the rights of individuals in violation of a probation or parole sentence. It held that a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked. More specifically the Supreme Court held that a preliminary and final revocation of probation hearings are required by Due Process; the judicial body overseeing the revocation hearings shall determine if the probationer or parolee requires counsel; denying representation of counsel must be documented in the record of the Court.
  • Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) Mandatory state sentencing guidelines are the statutory maximum for purposes of applying the Apprendi rule.
  • Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
  • Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.
  • Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. ___ (2020) The Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial requires a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense.

Other areas

Federalism
Main article: Federalism in the United States

Federal Indian law
Main articles: Outline of United States federal Indian law and policy and List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes

First Amendment rights
Main article: First Amendment to the United States Constitution

General aspects
  • National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, 432 U.S. 43 (1977) If a state seeks to impose an injunction in the face of a substantial claim of First Amendment rights, it must provide strict procedural safeguards, including immediate appellate review. Absent such immediate review, the appellate court must grant a stay of any lower court order restricting the exercise of speech and assembly rights.

Freedom of speech and of the press
Main articles: Freedom of speech in the United States and Freedom of the press in the United States

Freedom of religion
Main article: Freedom of religion in the United States

Freedom of association

Freedom of petition
Main article: Right to petition in the United States

Second Amendment rights
Main article: Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

Third Amendment rights
Main article: Third Amendment to the United States Constitution
  • Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982) Members of the National Guard qualify as "soldiers" under the Third Amendment. The Third Amendment is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. And the protection of the Third Amendment applies to anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises. This case is notable for being the only case based on Third Amendment claims that has been decided by a federal appeals court.

Executive power

Domestic

Foreign

Other areas

References
  1. Savage, Charlie (June 26, 2018). "Korematsu, Notorious Supreme Court Ruling on Japanese Internment, Is Finally Tossed Out". The New York Times. Retrieved June 26, 2018. But on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld President Trump’s ban on travel into the United States by citizens of several predominantly Muslim countries, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. also seized the moment to finally overrule Korematsu.
  2. de Vogue, Ariane (June 26, 2018). "Supreme Court finally rejects infamous Korematsu decision on Japanese-American internment". CNN. Retrieved June 26, 2018. Roberts was troubled enough with the comparison, however, that he did something that no party involved in the travel ban case had expressly asked for: He announced that the Supreme Court was overruling Korematsu.
  3. Hartman, G. R., Mersky, R. M., & Tate, C. L. (2004). Landmark Supreme Court cases: The most influential decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. New York: Facts on File. pp. 92–93. ISBN 978-0-8160-2452-0.CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  4. Selya, Bruce M. (August 22, 2008). "United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review Case No. 08-01 In Re Directives [redacted text] Pursuant to Section 105B of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act" (PDF). United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Retrieved July 15, 2013.
  5. Brossard, Dominique; Shanahan, James; Clint Nesbitt, T. (2007). The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology. ISBN 9781845932039.
  6. "Diamond v. Chakrabarty: A Retrospective on 25 Years of Biotech Patents" (PDF).
  7. Supreme Court Decision on Justia
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.