List of landmark court decisions in the United States

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

Landmark court decisions in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the United States Supreme Court. United States Courts of Appeal may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. 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.

Contents

Individual rights [edit]

Discrimination based on race [edit]

Discrimination based on sex [edit]

Discrimination based on sexual orientation [edit]

  • Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) A state may declare the private practice in one's bedroom of certain sex acts to be a crime; this statute was later struck down by the Georgia State Supreme Court as a violation of the Georgia State Constitution in the case of Powell v. Georgia (actually Powell v. State). Overruled by Lawrence v. Texas.
  • Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) A law cannot prohibit anti-discrimination protected class laws for sexual orientation. (specifically for homosexuals and bisexuals in this instance) (decision founded on the Equal Protection Clause).
  • Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Texas law criminalizing same-sex adults who engage in consensual sexual conduct furthers no legitimate state interest and violates their right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. (effectively bans all sodomy laws in the United States)

Birth control and abortion [edit]

End of life [edit]

Restrictions on involuntary commitment [edit]

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights [edit]

  • Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964) Interstate commerce, and hence the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 (prohibiting discrimination against blacks) applies to places of public accommodation patronized by interstate travelers.
  • Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), 379 U.S. 802 (1964) The power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, section 8) extends to a restaurant not patronized by interstate travelers, but which serves food that has moved in interstate commerce. This ruling makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to virtually all businesses.
  • City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). The enforcement clause of the 14th Amendment does not permit Congress to substantially increase the scope of the rights determined by the Judiciary. (here, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), but can only enact legislation that remedies or prevents actual violations of existing Court-determined rights.

Other areas [edit]

Criminal law [edit]

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure [edit]

Right to an attorney [edit]

  • Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) Anyone charged with a serious criminal offense has the right to an attorney and the state must provide one if they are unable to afford legal counsel.
  • Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478 (1964) A person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney.
  • Miranda v. Arizona (and Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart) 384 U.S. 436 (1966) Police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer and to have one appointed if the suspect is indigent. The interrogation must stop if the suspect states he or she wishes to remain silent.
  • In re Gault 387 U.S. 1 (1967) Juveniles accused with a crime are protected under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Montejo v. Louisiana, 556 U.S. 07-1529 (2009) A defendant may waive his right to counsel for police interrogation, even if police initiate the interrogation after the defendant's assertion of his right to counsel at an arraignment or similar proceeding. This decision overruled Michigan v. Jackson.

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. Commonwealth of Kentucky 253 U.S. 482 (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]

Right to competency evaluation [edit]

Other competency rights [edit]

  • Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) A defendant competent to stand trial is automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.

Right to refuse treatment [edit]

  • Rogers v. Okin, 478 F.Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979) The competency of committed patients is presumed until a patient is adjudicated incompetent.

Capital punishment [edit]

Other criminal sentences [edit]

  • Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 08-7412 (2010) A sentence of life imprisonment, without the possibility of parole, may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
  • Miller v. Alabama, (2012) 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]

Right to assemble and petition the government [edit]

  • Hurley v. Irish American Gay Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) Private parade organizers have a right to exclude groups with whose message they disagree from participating.
  • Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) Private organizations' First Amendment right of expressive association allows them to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations.

Second Amendment rights [edit]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms [edit]

  • District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S. 570 (2008) Ruled that "The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."
  • McDonald v. Chicago (2010) Ruled that The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Legality of targeted firearms prohibition [edit]

  • United States v. Miller 307 U.S. 174 (1939) Held that a sawed-off shotgun did not constitute a weapon suitable for militia use, and therefore verified the constitutional integrity of the National Firearms Act. Prior to Heller, Miller was the primary legislation covering the individual right to bear arms, and its more conservative interpretation of individual rights (in the context of the militia) was the primary jurisprudential basis for subsequent legislation outlawing specific weapon types. The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act 1994, especially, was dependent on Miller, and the future of such legislation in the context of Heller is yet to be determined.

Other areas [edit]