List of landmark court decisions in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The following is a partial list of landmark court decisions in the United States. Landmark decisions establish a significant new legal principle or concept or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:

  • 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.

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. 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[edit]

Discrimination based on race[edit]

Discrimination based on sex[edit]

Discrimination based on sexual orientation[edit]

Birth control and abortion[edit]

End of life[edit]

Restrictions on involuntary commitment[edit]

  • 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.

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights[edit]

Other areas[edit]

Criminal law[edit]

Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures[edit]

Right to an attorney[edit]

Other rights regarding counsel[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. ___ (2010) The right to remain silent does not exist unless a suspect invokes it unambiguously.
  • Salinas v. Texas, 570 U.S. ___ (2013) The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he or she has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness cannot invoke the privilege by simply standing mute; he or she must expressly invoke it.

Competence[edit]

Detainment of terrorism suspects[edit]

Capital punishment[edit]

Other criminal sentences[edit]

  • Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. ___ (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. ___ (2012) A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.

Federalism[edit]

First Amendment rights[edit]

Freedom of speech and of the press[edit]

Freedom of religion[edit]

Freedom of association[edit]

Freedom of petition[edit]

Second Amendment rights[edit]

Other areas[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ 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". United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (via the Federation of American Scientists). Retrieved July 15, 2013.