supreme court case study 37 quizlet

Supreme Court Cases Quiz

Our free Supreme Court cases quiz will test your knowledge on 30 landmark Supreme Court cases. It is important for every government and politics student to be familiar with each of these important Supreme Court cases. These cases involve individual rights, criminal law, federalism, first amendment rights, and more. This Supreme Court quiz will help you review and memorize these important decisions.

Which Supreme Court case held that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate any aspect of commerce that crosses state lines, including modes of transportation?

Which supreme court case held that state courts are required by the fourteenth amendment to provide counsel to defendants in criminal cases, extending this sixth amendment federal requirement to the states, which supreme court case held that the first amendment right to free speech doesn't protect speech that presents a “clear and present danger”, which supreme court case protects an individual’s right to possess a functioning handgun in their home, which supreme court case held that the constitution does not provide a right to abortion, which supreme court case established that a public official suing for defamation must prove that the statement was made with “actual malice”, which supreme court case held that religious duty is not a legitimate defense to a criminal indictment, which supreme court case held that a search warrant is needed to track an automobile with a gps tracking device, which supreme court case held that the president cannot use executive privilege to withhold evidence that is relevant in a criminal trial, which supreme court case held that the act of burning a flag is protected “speech” under the first amendment, which supreme court case invalidated a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives on the grounds that the law violated the right to marital privacy, which supreme court case held that abortion is a fundamental right under the united states constitution, which supreme court case prohibits race-based admission decisions to institutions of higher education, which supreme court case held that state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students were unconstitutional, which supreme court case reaffirmed that obscene material is not protected by the first amendment, and also redefined the constitutional test for determining what constitutes obscene material, which supreme court case struck down state funding for religious schools, which supreme court case established that the constitution grants implied powers to congress which can be used to implement the constitution's express powers, which supreme court case held that people of african descent who were brought to the u.s. and held as slaves (and their descendants) were not u.s. citizens and were not protected by the constitution, which supreme court case defined the first amendment rights of public school students, which supreme court case invalidated laws prohibiting interracial marriage, which supreme court case held that the right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples, which supreme court case held that it is unconstitutional for state officials to write an official school prayer and to encourage students to recite it, which supreme court case held that the government, through the use of eminent domain, can claim and pass on privately owned land to another private owner if doing so results in economic development, which supreme court case established the basis for the exercise of judicial review under article iii of the constitution, which supreme court case established that evidence obtained through unreasonable searches and seizures, in violation of the fourth amendment, may not be used in state courts for state law criminal prosecutions, which supreme court case upheld state laws requiring racial segregation at public facilities under the “separate but equal” doctrine, which supreme court case upheld the individual health insurance mandate included in the affordable care act, which supreme court case established that police must advise criminal suspects of their constitutional rights before questioning them, which supreme court case upheld the constitutionality of executive order 9066, which ordered japanese americans into internment camps during world war ii, which supreme court case held that the government cannot restrict independent political expenditures by corporations.

AP® US Government

Key supreme court cases: ap® us government crash course.

• The Albert Team
• Last Updated On: March 1, 2022

The Supreme Court has issued thousands of opinions, but some of its decisions have either had a profound impact on  American history  or continue to influence American government today.

The following is a comprehensive list of these cases. You are certain to be asked about some of them on the AP® US Government & Politics exam.

It is important that you know the bare-bones facts of these cases. It’s not a bad idea to make flashcards with the names and dates of the cases on the front, and the holdings on back, to help you memorize the information.

There’s a decent chance you will be asked to discuss a few cases in more detail, particularly the cases pertaining to the Bill of Rights and civil liberties.

So, let’s take a closer look at a select few of these cases.

Freedom of Religion Cases

In  Engle v. Vitale , the Court struck down a New York state nondenominational prayer that began with the words “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence on thee…”

Lemon v. Kurtzman  set guidelines to help determine whether government action crosses the church-state line. These guidelines are: the purpose of the legislation must be secular, not religious; its primary affect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion; and it must avoid an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

Freedom of Speech Cases

In  Schenck v. United States , the majority ruled that Schenck did not have the right to print, speak or distribute materials against US efforts in World War I because a “clear and present danger” existed.

New York Times v. US , famously known as the Pentagon Papers case, held that the government did not have the right to prohibit the New York Times from publishing information about the history of US involvement in the Vietnam War.

Citizens United v. FEC  held that corporate funding of political advertisements that did not specifically endorse a candidate was constitutional under the First Amendment and could not be limited.

Right to Privacy Cases

Griswold v. Connecticut  held that Americans had a right to privacy that was implied by other constitutional protections and that this meant the state could not prohibit the use of contraceptives.

Roe v. Wade  used the concept of being “secure in their persons” to hold that abortions are constitutionally protected.

The federal judiciary provides some more summaries of important cases  here .

A Practice AP® US Government Free-Response Question

Now let’s look at part of a sample  free-response question and figure out how to answer it .

The First Amendment includes two clauses relating to the freedom of religion. 1. Select one of the following cases and identify the First Amendment clause upon which the United States Supreme Court based its decision.

2. Engle v. Vitale  (school prayer)

3. Lemon v. Kurtzman  (state funding for private religious schools) 4. Describe the Supreme Court’s opinion in the decision you selected in (a).

OK, this shouldn’t be too difficult. For (a), let’s pick  Lemon v. Kurtzman .

We know that the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Kurtzman  deals with the Establishment Clause, because it aims to allow for government funding of the secular aims of parochial (religious) schools without funding religion itself.

For part (b), the answer is simple. All we have to do is write down how the case was decided. The Court allowed government funding for parochial schools, as long as three guidelines were met:

1. The purpose of the legislation must be secular, not religious

2. Its primary affect must neither enhance nor inhibit religion

3. it must avoid an “excessive entanglement of government with religion.”

Remember the Most Salient Facts of Cases

The key for doing well on questions about  Supreme Court cases  on the AP® US Government & Politics exam is to memorize the most salient facts about the important cases. Use flashcards, or do drills with a classmate to commit these cases to memory.

Looking for AP® US Government practice?

Kickstart your AP® US Government prep with Albert. Start your AP® exam prep today .

Interested in a school license?​

Popular posts.

AP® Score Calculators

Simulate how different MCQ and FRQ scores translate into AP® scores

AP® Review Guides

The ultimate review guides for AP® subjects to help you plan and structure your prep.

Core Subject Review Guides

Review the most important topics in Physics and Algebra 1 .

SAT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall SAT® score

ACT® Score Calculator

See how scores on each section impacts your overall ACT® score

Grammar Review Hub

Comprehensive review of grammar skills

AP® Posters

Download updated posters summarizing the main topics and structure for each AP® exam.

Explore the Constitution

• The Constitution
• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table
• Supreme Court Cases Library
• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment, module 9: the judicial system and current cases.

Article III of the Constitution establishes the judicial branch of the national government, which is responsible for interpreting the laws. At the highest level, the judicial branch is led by the U.S. Supreme Court, which consists of nine Justices. In the federal system, the lower courts consist of the district courts and the courts of appeals. Federal courts—including the Supreme Court—exercise the power of judicial review. This power gives courts the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws passed (and actions taken) by the elected branches. The Constitution also promotes the principle of judicial independence—granting federal judges life tenure (meaning that they serve until they die, resign, or are impeached and removed from office).

Download all materials for this module as a PDF

Learning Objectives

• Describe judicial review and explain it is a key component of the American constitutional system.
• Describe judicial independence and explain why the Founding generation viewed it as an important feature of the federal judiciary.
• Examine primary source writings on the Supreme Court in Federalist, No. 78.
• Describe how a case gets to the Supreme Court.
• Identify how the judicial nomination process works and how a justice ends up on the Supreme Court.

9.1 Activity: Supreme Court “Class Photo”

• Student Instructions
• Teacher Notes

Purpose Article III of the Constitution establishes the national government’s judicial branch: the federal judiciary, headed by a single Supreme Court. In this activity, you will examine the current justices of the Supreme Court and learn how a Supreme Court nominee gets appointed to the Supreme Court.

Process As a class, discuss what you know about the Supreme Court and what you want to know by the end of this module.

• What do you know about the Supreme Court justices?  
• What do you want to know about them?

Next, review and discuss the Info Brief: SCOTUS Class Photos presentation. Finally, read the Info Brief: Supreme Court document and complete the Activity Guide: Supreme Court worksheet.

Launch Display the image of the Supreme Court for students to view. As a large group, review a simple K- W- L activity to start student discussion based on the following questions:

Next, review the presentation with students and have them complete the worksheet. Ask students to compare and contrast the images of the court over time.

Finally, have students read the Info Brief: Supreme Court document and complete the Activity Guide: Supreme Court worksheet. Have students share highlights with the class.

Activity Synthesis Ask students to write three facts they learned about the Supreme Court and at least one question that they still have. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the nominating process, students may research the nomination and Senate hearings process for a recent Supreme Court justice. 

9.1 Visual Info Brief: SCOTUS Class Photos

9.1 info brief: supreme court, 9.1 activity guide: supreme court, 9.2 activity: key terms.

Purpose It is important to remember that Article III is a very short provision and doesn’t lay out many details about the Supreme Court and how it works—or even what the federal judiciary as a whole should look like. For example, it doesn’t set the number of Supreme Court justices, how many lower-court judges there should be in the federal judiciary, or when we should have any lower federal courts below the Supreme Court at all.

Furthermore, Article III can be a bit hard to understand without some background first. The basic ideas are simple enough, but the language is a bit more technical than other parts of the Constitution. In this activity, you will review the key terms of the module to help deepen your understanding of Article III.

Process Complete the Activity Guide: Key Terms - Judicial System and Current Cases  worksheet.

After your worksheet is complete, your teacher will guide you through a bingo game using the key terms and definitions of Module 9.

Launch Begin the activity with key terms activity with the students. Have them review the definitions and answer questions. As a review, have students share their answers in the worksheet for all of the key terms. Finally, engage students in a fun, lighthearted activity of word bingo by reading the definitions of the terms. Have students build bingo sheets by placing the key terms on a bingo card or hand out premade cards. If your class needs more words for the bingo card, use a sampling of facts from the Info Brief: Supreme Court document. Don’t forget the FREE spot! If the students have the correct word, they’ll color, cover, or electronically mark in the box on their cards where the answer appears. 

Activity Synthesis Have students apply their knowledge of the terms. Read and mark up a current news article that uses the terms. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of key terms about the judiciary, ask the following questions:

• What is the primary role of the courts in our constitutional system?
• Why is it important for the judiciary to be independent of the other branches of government?
• How do the courts play a key role in our system of checks and balances?
• What part of the process did you learn about today that was new to you?
• What other questions do you have about the courts and their process for hearing cases?

9.2 Activity Guide: Key Terms - Judicial System and Current Cases

9.3 activity: the federalist no. 78 (hamilton).

Purpose The founders’ vision of judicial independence grew out of the colonists’ own experience under the British system. Judges were not independent within this system. Instead, colonial judges were seen as officers of the crown, who carried out the orders of the king and could be removed at his whim.

In this activity, you will learn more about the Founding generation’s original vision for the Supreme Court and the federal court system.

Process Read Federalist No. 78 by Alexander Hamilton and complete the Activity Guide: The Federalist No. 78 worksheet.

Launch The key arguments will fall under these big ideas:

• The judiciary is the weakest of the three branches of government.
• Judges have a duty to exercise judicial review to declare laws that are inconsistent with the Constitution unconstitutional.
• The power of judicial review is rooted in the principles of popular sovereignty—the idea that the powers of the government (and the authority of the Constitution) is derived from “We the People.” That authority is greater than the powers of elected officials.
• Judicial independence is a key component of the constitutional system—protecting judges from the influence of the other branches of government and leaving them free to exercise their independent judgment in a given case.

Each argument must be summarized and at least one quote has to be used to cite as evidence.

Activity Synthesis Have students discuss whether or not they agree with each argument Hamilton discusses in Federalist No. 78. Why, or why not?

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the Founding generation's original vision of the judiciary, ask the following questions:

• What recent cases have been in the news about the Supreme Court?
• Poll your family, friends, or community members to ask them their thoughts on the Supreme Court and its role in the government. 
• Use this information to develop a graphic or one-page fact sheet on the history and role of the court, cite evidence from your readings, and share with people in your community.  

9.3 Primary Source: Federalist No. 78

9.3 activity guide: federalist no. 78, 9.4 video activity: history of the supreme court.

Purpose In this activity, you will learn about the history of the Supreme Court.

Process Watch the following video about the history of the Supreme Court.

Then, complete the Video Reflection: History of the Supreme Court worksheet.

Identify any areas that are unclear to you or where you would like further explanation. Be prepared to discuss your answers in a group and to ask your teacher any remaining questions.

Launch Give students time to watch the video and answer the questions. 

Activity Synthesis Have students share their responses in small groups and then discuss as a class.

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of the history of the Supreme Court, ask the following questions:

• What era of the Supreme Court history do you find most interesting and why?

9.4 Video Reflection: History of the Supreme Court

9.5 activity: how does a case get to the supreme court.

Purpose So, how does a constitutional case get to the Supreme Court? Someone—often a single person—goes to court and argues that a law, an arrest, or a regulation is in conflict with the Constitution. When this happens, they may eventually be able to petition the Supreme Court to hear their case. However, the Supreme Court has broad discretion to choose which cases it decides each year. The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions per year, and only agrees to hear about 65 of them. That’s not a lot! In this activity, you will study a real case and analyze how it got to the Supreme Court.

Process Begin by reading the Common Interpretation: Article III, Section 1 and the Info Brief: How Does a Case Get to the Supreme Court document for background information about Article III and the federal court system. Summarize by writing a paragraph how the judicial branch works today. 

Next, work as a group to chart the path of a case to the Supreme Court. Your group will choose a historical case from the list of choices provided. Read about the case and work with your group to build a simple road map graphic to show the progression of this case to the Supreme Court. Be creative in your design. You can draw the path, sketch it out in a Word document, or use tools such as Piktochart .

Select a case from the historical case list.

Compare your roadmap to the one provided on how the typical case gets to the Supreme Court today .

Launch Have students read Common Interpretation: Article III, Section 1 and Info Brief: How Does a Case Get to the Supreme Court. Then, discuss with students how the judicial branch works and how the cases start with We the People and get to the Supreme Court. 

Activity Synthesis As a final activity, have students select a historical court case to build their path to the Supreme Court infographic. Students should identify the typical path, short-cuts, and areas where cases get blocked by exploring data on how many cases are heard at each level of the court system and analyzing what are the criteria for cases to get past certain checkpoints. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of how a case gets to the Supreme Court, ask the following questions:

• What is one thing you learned about cases that reach the Supreme Court?
• What surprised you about these cases?
• Were there any similarities?
• If you were to write a letter to the people in these cases before they took up the fight, what would you tell them?

9.5 Primary Source: Marbury v. Madison (1803)

9.5 primary source: mcculloch v. maryland (1819), 9.5 primary source: dred scott v. sandford (1857), 9.5 primary source: plessy v. ferguson (1896), 9.5 primary source: west virginia board of education v. barnette (1943), 9.5 primary source: korematsu v. united states (1944), 9.5 primary source: brown v. board of education (1954), 9.5 primary source: tinker v. des moines independent community school district (1969), 9.5 info brief: how does a case get to the supreme court, 9.5 info brief: how does a case get to the supreme court graphic, 9.6 activity: supreme court in review.

Purpose The Supreme Court’s term typically lasts from the first Monday of October to the end of June.

Opinions are released throughout the term, with the last of the opinions (often on the most important and controversial cases) coming out at the end of June—although there’s no deadline because the justices set their own schedule.

In this activity, you will explore some of the most significant cases that the Supreme Court heard last term. 

Cases for 2021–2022 Term: 

• Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022)
• Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022)
• New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)

Process After you review these three cases of the last term, use the information from the NCC website and SCOTUSblog to complete the Activity Guide: Supreme Court in Review worksheet. 

Be prepared to share your briefs (explainers) you have developed in small groups.

Launch Give students time to review three of the high-profile cases of the last term and write short briefs (explainers) for each case. 

Activity Synthesis Have students share their briefs with one another in small groups. 

Activity Extension (optional) Now that students have a better understanding of current Supreme Court cases, ask students to write a short opinion for the Supreme Court for one case based on the facts presented and the constitutional issues in question. 

9.6 Activity Guide: Supreme Court in Review

9.7 test your knowledge.

Congratulations for completing the activities in this module! Now it’s time to apply what you have learned about the basic ideas and concepts covered.

Complete the questions to test your knowledge.

This activity will help students determine their overall understanding of module concepts. It is recommended that questions are completed electronically so immediate feedback is provided, but a downloadable copy of the questions (with answer key) is also available.

9.7 Interactive Knowledge Check: The Judicial System and Current Cases

9.7 printable knowledge check: the judicial system and current cases, 9.8 extended activity: building consensus.

Purpose The Supreme Court can offer a model for how to offer arguments in a constructive, cooperative way so that people with opposing views can meaningfully listen to one another, consider different viewpoints, learn from one another, and possibly change positions or reach a compromise. 

In this activity, you will explore the process for building consensus and the value of listening to arguments from other perspectives. 

Process Watch the Supreme Court Spotlight video from the National Constitution Center where U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Ret.) provides an insider perspective on what happens behind closed doors at the Supreme Court.

As you watch the video, record the following information:

• Three interesting facts about the Supreme Court presented in the clip.
• Two rules for discussion in the Supreme Court.
• One word that is repeated by Justice Breyer.

Launch Before you begin, have students think about an argument they’ve had recently and write down a few notes about it. Who was involved? What was the issue? Were you able to come to a resolution? Why? Why not? Share with the class if time permits.

Activity Synthesis After viewing the video clip, students can share their 3-2-1 notes in their small group. Ask students to circle any ideas that are shared by more than one person. Have each group choose a representative to share out to the whole class. The teacher may choose to have different groups give their responses for only one aspect of the 3-2-1 notes. However, ask each group to share the one word that was repeated. This is powerful because the same word may be repeated many times signifying its importance. Encourage this because some students may be upset that another group already said their answer.

Activity Extension (optional) Looking for more tools on civil dialogue practice in your classroom? Check out the civil dialogue toolkit and corresponding lessons. 

Previous Module

Module 8: the presidency and executive power, next module, module 10: the first amendment.

The First Amendment protects some of our most cherished rights, including religious liberty, free speech, a free press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances. Together, these essential rights are connected to the freedom of conscience—protecting our ability to think as we will and speak as we think. As we examine the First Amendment’s text and history, we will explore debates over the First Amendment’s five freedoms, analyze landmark Supreme Court cases, and examine how the First Amendment has been used by ...

Go to the Next Module

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Under the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, a police officer may stop a suspect on the street and frisk him or her without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous."

U.S. Supreme Court

Terry v. Ohio

Argued December 12, 1967

Decided June 10, 1968

A Cleveland detective (McFadden), on a downtown beat which he had been patrolling for many years, observed two strangers (petitioner and another man, Chilton) on a street corner. He saw them proceed alternately back and forth along an identical route, pausing to stare in the same store window, which they did for a total of about 24 times. Each completion of the route was followed by a conference between the two on a corner, at one of which they were joined by a third man (Katz) who left swiftly. Suspecting the two men of "casing a job, a stick-up," the officer followed them and saw them rejoin the third man a couple of blocks away in front of a store. The officer approached the three, identified himself as a policeman, and asked their names. The men "mumbled something," whereupon McFadden spun petitioner around, patted down his outside clothing, and found in his overcoat pocket, but was unable to remove, a pistol. The officer ordered the three into the store. He removed petitioner's overcoat, took out a revolver, and ordered the three to face the wall with their hands raised. He patted down the outer clothing of Chilton and Katz and seized a revolver from Chilton's outside overcoat pocket. He did not put his hands under the outer garments of Katz (since he discovered nothing in his pat-down which might have been a weapon), or under petitioner's or Chilton's outer garments until he felt the guns. The three were taken to the police station. Petitioner and Chilton were charged with carrying

Page 392 U. S. 2

concealed weapons. The defense moved to suppress the weapons. Though the trial court rejected the prosecution theory that the guns had been seized during a search incident to a lawful arrest, the court denied the motion to suppress and admitted the weapons into evidence on the ground that the officer had cause to believe that petitioner and Chilton were acting suspiciously, that their interrogation was warranted, and that the officer, for his own protection, had the right to pat down their outer clothing having reasonable cause to believe that they might be armed. The court distinguished between an investigatory "stop" and an arrest, and between a "frisk" of the outer clothing for weapons and a full-blown search for evidence of crime. Petitioner and Chilton were found guilty, an intermediate appellate court affirmed, and the State Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that "no substantial constitutional question" was involved.

1. The Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, "protects people, not places," and therefore applies as much to the citizen on the streets as well as at home or elsewhere. Pp. 392 U. S. 8 -9.

2. The issue in this case is not the abstract propriety of the police conduct, but the admissibility against petitioner of the evidence uncovered by the search and seizure. P. 392 U. S. 12 .

3. The exclusionary rule cannot properly be invoked to exclude the products of legitimate and restrained police investigative techniques, and this Court's approval of such techniques should not discourage remedies other than the exclusionary rule to curtail police abuses for which that is not an effective sanction. Pp. 392 U.S. 13 -15.

4. The Fourth Amendment applies to "stop and frisk" procedures such as those followed here. Pp. 392 U. S. 16 -20.

(a) Whenever a police officer accosts an individual and restrains his freedom to walk away, he has "seized" that person within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. P. 392 U. S. 16 .

(b) A careful exploration of the outer surfaces of a person's clothing in an attempt to find weapons is a "search" under that Amendment. P. 392 U. S. 16 .

5. Where a reasonably prudent officer is warranted in the circumstances of a given case in believing that his safety or that of others is endangered, he may make a reasonable search for weapons of the person believed by him to be armed and dangerous

Page 392 U. S. 3

regardless of whether he has probable cause to arrest that individual for crime or the absolute certainty that the individual is armed. Pp. 392 U. S. 20 -27.

(a) Though the police must, whenever practicable, secure a warrant to make a search and seizure, that procedure cannot be followed where swift action based upon on-the-spot observations of the officer on the beat is required. P. 392 U. S. 20 .

(b) The reasonableness of any particular search and seizure must be assessed in light of the particular circumstances against the standard of whether a man of reasonable caution is warranted in believing that the action taken was appropriate. Pp. 392 U. S. 21 -22.

(c) The officer here was performing a legitimate function of investigating suspicious conduct when he decided to approach petitioner and his companions. P. 392 U. S. 22 .

(d) An officer justified in believing that an individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed may, to neutralize the threat of physical harm, take necessary measures to determine whether that person is carrying a weapon. P. 392 U. S. 24 .

(e) A search for weapons in the absence of probable cause to arrest must be strictly circumscribed by the exigencies of the situation. Pp. 392 U. S. 25 -26.

(f) An officer may make an intrusion short of arrest where he has reasonable apprehension of danger before being possessed of information justifying arrest. Pp. 392 U. S. 26 -27.

6. The officer's protective seizure of petitioner and his companions and the limited search which he made were reasonable, both at their inception and as conducted. Pp. 392 U. S. 27 -30.

(a) The actions of petitioner and his companions were consistent with the officer's hypothesis that they were contemplating a daylight robbery and were armed. P. 392 U. S. 28 .

(b) The officer's search was confined to what was minimally necessary to determine whether the men were armed, and the intrusion, which was made for the sole purpose of protecting himself and others nearby, was confined to ascertaining the presence of weapons. Pp. 392 U. S. 29 -30.

7. The revolver seized from petitioner was properly admitted into evidence against him, since the search which led to its seizure was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 392 U. S. 30 -31.

Page 392 U. S. 4

• Opinions & Dissents

"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, by the common law than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law." Union Pac. R. Co. v. Botsford , 141 U. S. 250 , 251 (1891).

"The requirement of probable cause has roots that are deep in our history. The general warrant, in which the name of the person to be arrested was left blank, and the writs of assistance, against which James Otis inveighed, both perpetuated the oppressive practice of allowing the police to arrest and search on suspicion. Police control took the place of judicial control, since no showing of 'probable cause' before a magistrate was required." " * * * *" "That philosophy [rebelling against these practices] later was reflected in the Fourth Amendment. And as the early American decisions both before and immediately after its adoption show, common rumor or report, suspicion, or even 'strong reason to suspect' was not adequate to support a warrant

for arrest. And that principle has survived to this day. . . ." ". . . It is important, we think, that this requirement [of probable cause] be strictly enforced, for the standard set by the Constitution protects both the officer and the citizen. If the officer acts with probable cause, he is protected even though it turns out that the citizen is innocent. . . . And while a search without a warrant is, within limits, permissible if incident to a lawful arrest, if an arrest without a warrant is to support an incidental search, it must be made with probable cause. . . . This immunity of officers cannot fairly be enlarged without jeopardizing the privacy or security of the citizen."

"[T]he evidence needed to make the inquiry is not of the same degree of conclusiveness as that required for an arrest. The stopping of the individual to inquire is not an arrest and the ground upon which the police may make the inquiry may be less incriminating than the ground for an arrest for a crime known to have been committed. . . ." " * * * *" "And as the right to stop and inquire is to be justified for a cause less conclusive than that which would sustain an arrest, so the right to frisk may be justified as an incident to inquiry upon grounds of elemental safety and precaution which might not initially sustain a search. Ultimately, the validity of the frisk narrows down to whether there is or is not a right by the police to touch the person questioned. The sense of exterior touch here involved is not very far different from the sense of sight or hearing -- senses upon which police customarily act." People v. Rivera , 14 N.Y.2d 441, 445, 447, 201 N.E.2d 32, 34, 35, 252 N.Y.S.2d 458, 461, 463 (1964), cert. denied , 379 U.S. 978 (1965).

• Oral Arguments
• Copy Citation

Get free summaries of new US Supreme Court opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Margurite J. Perez

Total Price

Check your email for notifications. Once your essay is complete, double-check it to see if it falls under your expectations and if satisfied-release the funds to your writer. Keep in mind that our essay writing service has a free revisions policy.

How safe will my data be with you?

47 landmark Supreme Court cases that changed American life as we knew it

• The US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.
• Some of its decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed the right to expression.
• Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.

The US Supreme Court, the court of last resort, has undeniably changed the country.

It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year that have sweeping effects on American life.

Some have changed race relations for the better, empowered women, given the press freedom to operate, guaranteed a person's right to expression, or reiterated that the president is not above the law.

Not every decision has aged well. Other decisions have enforced slavery or created uneven schooling in the US. Last year, the court overturned a landmark case that legalized abortion in 1973.

Just before the nation's highest court entered summer recess at the end of June this year, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court issued two highly-anticipated rulings — one ending affirmative action at colleges and universities and another striking down President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan .

Here are 47 of the most important cases the Supreme Court has decided.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The case: Before President Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, lame duck John Adams and Congress created new courts and appointed dozens of judges , including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. But the new administration's Secretary of State James Madison wouldn't validate the appointment. So Marbury sued.

The decision: The justices ruled unanimously that Madison's refusal was illegal, and that the law Marbury had sued under was also unconstitutional. More importantly, this ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of "judicial review" to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional. This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The case : In 1808, New York state gave Aaron Ogden a 20-year license to operate his steamboats on waters within the state . Thomas Gibson, another steam boat operator and Ogden's former business partner, was also working in the area, with a license from the federal government. Ogden claimed Gibbons was undercutting his business by unfairly competing. He wanted Gibbons to stop operating, and argued his license was enforceable, even though it was on interstate waters. Gibbons argued that the US Constitution gave Congress power over interstate commerce.

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress's ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress, so the court ruled in Gibbon's favor . It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

The case : In 1828, Georgia passed laws prohibiting anyone except Native Americans from living on Native American land. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was living on Native American land and refused to apply for a license. He was arrested and appealed, arguing his removal was a violation of his constitutional rights, as Georgia had no jurisdiction on Native American land.

The decision : The Supreme Court held, 5-1 , that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign "distinct community." It struck down the Georgia law prohibiting white people living on Native American land. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government. It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty when interacting  with the US government.

But it wasn't always enforced. Then-President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has issued his decision. Let him enforce it ."

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

The case : In 1785, Massachusetts gave the Charles River Bridge Company a charter to build a bridge between Boston and Cambridge . In exchange for covering the costs of building and maintaining it, the company could collect tolls until the charter ended.

But in 1828, a second company was authorized to build a competing bridge that would be free to the public, Charles River Bridge sought an injunction to prevent the second bridge from being built.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-2 that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The case : This case arose from a suit brought by a slave in Missouri named Dred Scott . Scott had lived for a time in the free state of Illinois. When his master died in 1849, he sued the widow, arguing his time in the slave-free state made him a free man .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that since Scott's ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn't a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts.  The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional.

The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War.

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

The case : In 1871, Illinois passed legislation that set the maximum rate private companies could charge for storing and transporting agricultural goods. Munn, a grain warehouse, charged too much and was found guilty of violating the law . It appealed, arguing the regulation was an unconstitutional removal of property.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public. Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The case : Homer Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law of the time, boarded a train and sat in a car that was reserved for white passengers . When he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act, which required all railroads to provide equal but separate accommodation, was violating his rights under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-1  that "separate but equal" accommodations for whites and blacks did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, known as the " great dissenter ," wrote that the Constitution was color-blind, and the US had no class system. "T here is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens; there is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," he wrote. Despite his dissent, the decision solidified the "separate but equal" doctrine for the next six decades.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

The case : In 1897, New York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours. Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the New York law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.

This decision was widely condemned . For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.

Abrams v. United States (1919)

The case : In New York, five Russian anti-war activists were arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for printing and distributing 5,000 leaflets that criticized the US's role in World War I. They also advocated for a general strike, and had put out a call to arms if the US intervened in Russia. They were sentenced to prison for up to 20 years. They appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish " disloyal " language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people's expression when it was required to save the country.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)

The case : The 1921 Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes .

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because the injury was too small and indeterminable. It led to the legal concept of a "particularized" injury , which needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

The case : A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with "feeble mindedness," and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act , she was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck's appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 8-1 that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized.

In his opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes … Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the 1960s, and more than 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

The case : The 1925 Public Nuisance Bill, also known as the "Minnesota gag law," allowed judges to close down newspapers that were deemed obscene or slanderous . In 1927, the Saturday Press, a newspaper based in Minneapolis, began to publish articles attacking several public officials. One of them accused a politician named Floyd B. Olson of being a pawn to a conspiracy. Olson filed a complaint. A judge, using the 1925 law, issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper. The newspaper appealed under the First Amendment's right to a free press.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Public Nuisance law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "This statute ... raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action."

The case stopped journalists from being censored , and enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

The case : The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, enacted to stabilize agricultural prices after the Great Depression, restricted how much wheat could be grown , to avoid another recession. The Department of Agriculture fined Roscoe Filburn, a wheat farmer in Ohio, for growing too much. He sued, arguing Congress didn't have the authority, since he'd never planned to sell all of the wheat. The issue was whether Congress had the authority to regulate local wheat production.

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce. So, even though Filburn's wheat wasn't all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market .

This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economy , and also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights. Not everyone has been in favor of this case. Notably, the late Justice Antonia Scalia used to laugh at it .

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The case: In the 1950s, Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school, because the only school that was closer was for white students . Her father, Oliver Brown, believed this was a breach of the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown, along with a dozen other parents, challenged the segregation policy on behalf of their 20 children.

The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. This decision knocked down the doctrine of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson, which had allowed mixed race schools, transportation, and facilities to exist as long as they were "equal."

The Atlantic described Chief Justice Earl Warren's "ringing opinion" as "the belated mid course correction that began America's transformation into a truly multiracial world nation."

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The case : When Ohio police thought a suspected bomber was hiding out in Dollree Mapp's house, they forced their way in without a warrant. When Mapp asked where the warrant was, they held up a piece of paper. In their search of her house, they found pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and later convicted her for being in possession of obscene materials. She appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 6-3 that any violation of the Fourth Amendment's right against unlawful searches and seizures made evidence inadmissible in court. Justice Clark wrote in his majority opinion that " the exclusionary rule ," which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was essential.

This case has led to the redefining of the rights of people being accused and limits how police can obtain evidence.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The case: In New York, schools  adopted a daily prayer after it was required by state law. Some parents argued it was a violation of individuals' rights, but the school board said it wasn't, since students could opt out. Five families led by parent Steven Engel disagreed, and sued on the basis that it violated the religion clause of the First Amendment.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-1 that reading an official prayer at school violated the constitution, because it was an " establishment of religion ." Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority: "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

The case meant any state-enforced prayer, or reading of the bible in a public school would be suspected . It also was a key case showing the enforcement of separation between church and state.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The case : Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a pool hall. He requested a lawyer to defend him, but Florida's state court rejected him. After defending himself poorly Gideon went to prison. Giddeon appealed, and the issue was whether the right to counsel extended to felony defendants in state courts.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that state courts were required to appoint attorneys for those who could not afford their own counsel.

The US justice system would not be what it is today without this decision. The decision affirms that " lawyers in criminals courts are necessities, not luxuries ." However, the quality of criminal defense services varies across the country.

Reynold v. Sims (1964)

The case: This case stemmed from the apportionment scheme in Alabama . Under the 14th Amendment, each voter's intentions are meant to have equal weight, but in Alabama, legislative districts were no longer accurately representing the amount of people who lived in them, especially in the cities, where populations had grown rapidly. The issue was whether this breached the "equal protection clause" in the 14th Amendment.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that Alabama's apportionment scheme had breached the 14th Amendment . The justices ruled that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and equal participation is crucial. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the majority: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres."

This decision made the government more democratic .

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

The case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Georgia refused to provide accommodation for black people, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the practice . Two hours after the act was passed, the motel asked the court to stop the enforcement of a clause in Title II, which forbid racist discrimination by public accommodation providers. The motel argued it exceeded Congress's power.

The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the act was not exceeding Congress's power. It reasoned that discrimination by businesses had a big impact on black people traveling, even when it was a small business, since negative effects could be far-reaching when added up. It was especially the case here, since 75% of the guests staying at the motel came from out of state.

This was the first case to challenge the Civil Rights Act, and by upholding it, the act was legitimatized and strengthened. The law would go on to be used to dismantle many other forms of racist discrimination .

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

The case: This case was about an advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that was published in The New York Times in 1960. The ad was looking for donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr. and criticized the Montgomery police. The ad had factual errors, and L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, sued The Times for defamation, though he wasn't mentioned. In Alabama, Sullivan won and The Times was ordered to pay $500,000. The paper appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that while regular defamation requires that a defendant knows a statement is false or reckless, when it's a public figure, the defendant must act with "actual malice" — meaning they must know it was false or have a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

This decision strengthens the freedom of the American press, which has the strongest protections in the world , ensuring debate on public issues is robust and open .

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The case: In 1963, police obtained a written confession from Ernesto Miranda that said he had kidnapped and raped a woman. However, they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda appealed on the basis that his confession had been gained unconstitutionally .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that law enforcement must advise suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Evidence could not be used in a trial unless the warnings had been given and knowingly waived.

Police work, and the well-known "you have the right to remain silent" would not be so firmly entrenched into society (or TV shows and movies) without this decision . People know their rights, and police know they have to read them to suspects.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

The case : Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were from Virginia, where inter-racial marriage was illegal. In 1958, they got married in D.C. and then returned home. On their return, they were charged with breaking the law and sentenced to one year in prison. A judge suspended their sentence as long as they didn't return to the state together for 25 years. Loving wrote to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy and asked for his help, and he referred them to the ACLU, which helped them sue.

The decision : In a unanimous decision , the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Under our constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."

In a watershed moment for civil rights, the case found that people of any race, anywhere in the US, can get married, striking down laws banning inter-racial marriage in 16 states. The case was later cited in same-sex marriage cases .

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

The case : In 1963, three men were suspiciously walking back and forth in a block in Cleveland, Ohio, and a detective thought they were preparing to rob a store . He approached them, identified himself, then frisked them and found two concealed guns. One of the men was convicted for having the gun. The man appealed. The issue was whether police frisking violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the search was reasonable since the men were acting suspiciously, warranting inquiry. If circumstances justify a belief that an individual is armed and dangerous, the justices ruled, the officer may pat down the outside of an individual's clothing.

Justice William O. Douglas, the lone dissenter, did not think the standard for search and seizures should have been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." He wrote : " Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country."

This case opened up the police's ability to investigate activity they deem suspicious.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The case : Clarence Brandenburg was arrested after making racist remarks and claiming the government was suppressing the "Caucasian race" to a gathering of Ku Klux Klan members in a field in Ohio. He also mentioned action might need to be taken, and was filmed by media he had invited to the gathering. The state law criminalized advocating violence as a means of accomplishing political reform, and he was sentenced to up to 10 years prison . The issue was whether speech advocating for violence was protected by the First Amendment.

The decision : The Supreme Court held per curiam , which means in the name of the court rather than the judges, that his freedom of speech had been violated. It found that speech may only be outlawed when it is directly inciting " imminent lawless action ." It also found that abstract discussions are not the same as actual preparation to engage in violence. This case broadened protections for political dissent.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)

The case: Ida Phillips applied for a job at the Martin Marietta Corporation, a missile plant in Orlando. She had seven children, and the business had a hiring policy excluding mothers with pre-school children, believing them to be unreliable. Phillips alleged she'd been denied employment because of her sex. The issue was whether this was discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was complicated , because the company hired women for the job, just not women with young children.

The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that it was discriminatory, since it was based on the sex of the applicant, even if it was about motherhood.

However, it did send the case back to lower courts to give the corporation a chance to present evidence about the impeded ability of mothers with young children. And the judges were uneasy about the idea that both sexes were equally equipped to do all jobs. Justice Hugo Black asked Phillips' lawyer , "Does the law require that the employer give the woman a job of digging ditches and things of that kind?"

All nine justices at the time were men.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The case : In Wisconsin, children were required by law to attend school until they were 16. But three Amish families refused to send their children to school after eighth grade, when most children are 14, resulting in $5 fines from the state. (Amish families think the content of secondary and higher education conflicts with their life of austerity .) They argued the compulsory attendance violated their rights under the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Amish families' right to religious freedom was not overridden by the state's interest in education. It held that sending the children to high school would threaten the Amish way of life. Freedom of religion was seen as more important than the state's interest in education, and this case created an exception for Amish people, and others in similar situations .

The justices agreed overall on the ruling, but Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent arguing that the children's viewpoint wasn't being considered, worried that they may miss out on an education if they're not asked whether they want to go to high school.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The case : This case stemmed from a Texas law that said abortion was illegal unless, by doctor's orders, it was to save a woman's life. An anonymous plaintiff called Jane Roe (who was later identified as Norma McCorvey) filed against the Dallas County district attorney, arguing the law was unconstitutional .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that overly restrictive legislation around abortion was unconstitutional. Based on a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, the state was not allowed to regulate a woman's decision.

This case overruled any laws that made abortion illegal before a fetus was viable, giving women more power when it comes to their bodies and having children. It made access to abortion a constitutional right .

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

The case: In the late 1960s, schools in Texas could use local property taxes to boost revenue. So schools that were based in poorer areas had less revenue, because the property taxes were lower. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of children living in poorer areas. The issue here was whether the system violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is no constitutional right to an equal education. The opinion said it should not be unconstitutional, because " burdens or benefits " fall unevenly, depending on the wealth of the areas in which citizens live.

In Time Magazine's list of the worst Supreme Court cases since 1960 , the editors concluded this case enforced the idea that discrimination against the poor did not violate the Constitution, and education wasn't a fundamental right.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

The case : This case was triggered by the Watergate scandal , when a special prosecutor asked for tapes that President Richard Nixon had recorded in the White House. He refused, saying he had "executive privilege" that allowed him to withhold sensitive information in order to maintain confidential communications and to maintain national security. Nixon released edited versions, but not the complete tapes, leading to Nixon and the prosecutor both filing petitions to be heard in the Supreme Court.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that while there was limited executive privilege for military or diplomacy reasons, it wasn't enough in this case. Nixon had to hand over the tapes. The case led to Nixon's resignation, and also ensures that the president does not have unlimited privilege to withhold information from other branches of government. " Not even the president is above the law ," Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe said.

O'Conner v. Donaldson (1975)

The case: After Kenneth Donaldson told his parents he thought his neighbor was poisoning his food, he was examined and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . Against his will, he was committed to a state hospital for the next 15 years. During that time, two different people volunteered to be responsible for him, but the hospital refused to release him. He sued, saying the hospital staff had " intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his right to liberty."

The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that mental patients could not be confined in institutions against their will, if they weren't dangerous and were capable of surviving in society. In the opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "May the state fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the state, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric."

The decision established the legal threshold for people posing a danger to themselves or others.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

The case : This was a case about freedom of speech, in particular about spending limits by, or for, candidates running for office. Sen. James L. Buckley, and a coalition of groups, filed a suit arguing that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limited spending and required spending disclosures, weren't constitutional.

The decision : The court held per curiam that independent spending was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it also concluded that contributions could be capped. This is an important decision for campaign spending. It helped lead the way to the rising of political action committees, or PACs. It also led to the enforcement of reporting campaign spending.

First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti (1978)

The case : Several plaintiffs, including the First National Bank of Boston, wanted to challenge a proposed increase on personal income taxes for high-wage earners in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs wanted to pay for advertising to criticize it, but they could only spend money if they were "materially affected," based on a Massachusetts law, which restricted what corporations could spend in politics. Attorney General Francis Bellotti said the bank wasn't materially affected. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provision.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional . The court concluded that the First Amendment protected corporations , since they were made up of shareholders who decided their corporation should engage on public issues. This case opened the door to Citizens United .

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

The case: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old Vietnam war veteran, was rejected from medical school at the University of California twice. Every year, the school accepted 100 people, and 16 of those accepted were from "minority groups." He argued his rejections were due to "reverse racism", since his grades were better than the 16 people who got in on minority seats.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that Bakke should be admitted. However, it also said race could be taken into account to promote diversity on campuses.

Six different justices wrote opinions. In one opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

Since this case, despite affirming that race could be taken into account, the percentage of black freshman in the US has not changed . A 2017 analysis found they make up 6% of freshmen, but are 15% of college-age Americans.

Strickland v. Washington (1984)

The case: David Washington was sentenced to death after he pleaded guilty to murder . But this case arose out of what his lawyer didn't do during the trial. His lawyer failed to call any character witnesses or get a psychiatric evaluation. Washington appealed, arguing his counsel's assistance was constitutionally ineffective.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that ineffective counsel only violated the Sixth Amendment when the performance was deficient. For this, counsel assistance had to fall below an objective reasonableness standard, and there needed to be a "reasonable probability" the result would have been different had counsel not failed.

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent: "My objection to the performance standard adopted by the Court is that it is so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation ... To tell lawyers and the lower courts that counsel for a criminal defendant must behave 'reasonably' and must act like 'a reasonably competent attorney' is to tell them almost nothing."

This case makes it difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance claims , since they need to show that it's outside the range of professional competence and that the client was prejudiced by it.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)

The case : In 1977, Congress added an amendment to the Clean Air Act, requiring states to establish programs to reduce power plant pollution. In the amendment, entire power plants were treated as a single unit within a "bubble", even if they had multiple smoke stacks. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) thought the bubble interpretation dulled the law, and sued the EPA.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bubble policy was valid. It found that if the law is clear then agencies must follow it, and when a a law does not have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation of the law.

This is one of the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time, and this standard became known as the " Chevron Defense ."

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

The case : During a protest in 1984 against then-President Ronald Reagan and local corporations in Dallas, Gregory Johnson covered the American flag in kerosene then lit it on fire , offending witnesses. He was arrested and charged with desecrating a venerated object, which was banned under Texas law. He was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay $2,000. He appealed, on the basis that the law was in breach of his First Amendment rights.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable ... We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

Despite former President George H. Bush proposing to add an anti flag burning amendment to the constitution, this case still protects unpopular political expression in the US today.

Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989)

The case : A man, for the purposes of the case named Michael , had an affair with a woman who later had a child. Blood tests indicated he was the father. He wanted visitation rights, but under California law, the child is presumed to be from the marriage, and another person can only challenge that within the child's first two years of life. Michael was too late, and sued. The issue was whether the California law violated the man's chance to establish paternity.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights, after the presumed father had acted in a responsible way for the child. A woman's husband is to be presumed father of her children, regardless of anyone else's claim.

Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (1990)

The case : In 1983, Nancy Cruzan, a 25-year-old woman, was in a car crash that resulted in her falling into a vegetative state. She was on life support for five years, and had no chance of recovery, but doctors estimated she could have lived on life support for another 30 years. Her parents asked for her to be disconnected, but the hospital refused without a court order. Before the car crash, Nancy had said she would not want to live if she were sick or injured and could not live "at least halfway normally." Her parents asked for a court order to remove her from life support.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there was a right to die, but the state had the right to stop the family, unless there was "clear and convincing" evidence that it was her wish to die.

This was the first time the court had ruled on a right-to-die case. It didn't set national guidelines, and left it to be decided on a state-by-state basis. In the month after the case, 300,000 requests were made for advance-directive forms , so people could make it known in advance what should happen to them if they became incapacitated.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

The case : Police entered a private residence on a false report about a weapons disturbance, and found Lawrence and Garner engaging in a consensual sexual act. They were arrested and convicted under Texas law, which forbid two people of the same sex to have sex. The issue for this case was whether the 14th Amendment protected them.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Texas law violated their right to liberty, under the " Due Process Clause ," which allowed them to engage in their conduct without government intervention.

This was seen as a victory for LGBT rights, removing what one law professor called " the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority ," and overturning 14 state laws across the US.

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

The case : After a fight at home between a separated couple, a woman called the police and told them to come in , then showed them cocaine she said her husband was using. The husband was later charged with possession, even though he had told the police they couldn't come in. The issue was whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one person gives consent, but the other refuses.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-3 that in at least a few circumstances the right to search and enter is not valid if one of the occupants says they can't, ruling in the husband's favor .

This case narrows the scope for when police can enter and search homes without warrants. They can still enter to protect someone from harm or to chase a fleeing suspect, for example.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

The case : This case came about in 1999, when Massachusetts, 11 other states, and several environmental organizations petitioned for the EPA to start regulating carbon dioxide coming out of new motor vehicles, since it was a pollutant. The EPA denied the petition, saying it did not have the legal authority to regulate it.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the EPA had the right to regulate heat-trapping gases coming from automobiles, and that the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant had been written with sweeping language so that it would not become obsolete.

According to James Salzman , a professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, the majority's acknowledgement of climate change science put this case on the legal map. And since it made it almost impossible for the EPA not to regulate, the decision sent a message to other agencies that they also had to deal with climate change.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The case: Richard Heller, a security guard who lived in D.C. and carried a gun for work, was not allowed to have a gun at home , due to the city's laws. He thought the laws were too restricting and made it impossible to defend himself. Heller, along with five others, sued, arguing it was a violation of the Second Amendment. They were funded by Robert Levy , a libertarian lawyer from the Cato Institute.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. It was the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment.

In 2019, former-Justice John Paul Stevens said it was the worst decision during his 34-year tenure, representing "the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court's history." He said an amendment should be added to the Constitution to overrule the case, to stop gun massacres like what had happened in Las Vegas or  Sandy Hook .

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

The case : A non-profit organization called Citizens United made a disparaging film about Hilary Clinton and they wanted to run an advertisement for it during the 2008 election. But the Federal Election Campaign Act banned corporations and unions from spending money to advocate during elections. So Citizens United couldn't show the film since it mentioned Clinton, who was a presidential candidate at the time. Citizens United argued the ban was unconstitutional.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that corporations and unions can spend as much as they like to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. The ruling gave corporations protections under the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent of the ruling, that it was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people," and a threat to democracy.

The decision changed how politics works in the US. In the 2014 senate elections, outside spending had more than doubled to $486 million since 2010.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

The case : President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, and to decrease the cost of healthcare. Twenty-six states, several people, and the National Federation of Independent Business sued to overturn the law. The first issue was whether it was legal to require people to purchase health insurance with an individual mandate. The second was whether a provision forcing states to cover more people or lose federal funding was unconstitutionally coercive.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax , and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.

It wasn't without dissent, though. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the decision was a " vast judicial overreaching ," which would create a "debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

The case : James Obergefell and John Arthur, a couple from Ohio, got married in Maryland. In Ohio, same-sex marriage was not allowed on death certificates. Arthur was chronically ill and wanted to have Obergefell on his death certificate. Along with three couples from Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, they sued their states, claiming they were in breach of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment , which says, "no state shall ... deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry , including same-sex marriages. Every state in the US now legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Before this case, 13 states still had a ban on gay marriage.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

The case:  In March 2018, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic since 2006, sued the state for enacting a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lawsuit argued that the rule was unconstitutional due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Dobbs refers to Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs, the state's Department of Health officer, but he had little to do with the overall case.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law. However, on top of the ruling, five of the justices in the majority opinion also ruled to overturn Roe, repealing a landmark case that made abortion legal in the US for nearly five decades. Chief Justice John Roberts was the only member of the court's conservative majority who believed the court should not have outright overruled Roe.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (2023)

The case:  Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit led by conservative activist Edward Blum, accused the University of North Carolina of discriminating against Asian and white applicants and violating the Constitution's equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions. SFFA also sued Harvard University, claiming the university discriminated against Asian applicants and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nonprofit brought the cases to the Supreme Court in October 2022 , urging the court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which upheld affirmative action.

The decision: On June 29, the Supreme ruled 6-3 against the admissions processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, deeming it unconstitutional to consider race in college applications. Chief Justice John Roberts said universities have "concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

• Main content

When you write an essay for me, how can I use it?

How do essay writing services work.

In the modern world, any company is trying to modernize its services. And services for writing scientific papers are no exception. Therefore, now it is very easy to order work and does not take time:

• First, you need to choose a good site that you can trust. Read their privacy policies, guarantees, payment methods and of course reviews. It will be a big plus that examples of work are presented on the online platform.
• Next, you need to contact a manager who will answer all the necessary questions and advise on the terms of cooperation. He will tell you about the acceptable writing deadlines, provide information about the author, and calculate the price of the essay.
• After that, you sign the contract and during the indicated days stay in touch with the employee of the company.
• Then you receive the file, read it attentively and transfer a certain amount to the company's bank card. After payment, the client downloads the document to his computer and can write a review and suggestions.

On the site Essayswriting, you get guarantees, thanks to which you will be confident and get rid of the excitement. The client can ask any questions about the writing and express special preferences.

We do not tolerate any form of plagiarism and use modern software to detect any form of it

Customer Reviews

Finished Papers

Will You Write Me an Essay?

Students turn to us not only with the request, "Please, write my essay for me." From the moment we hear your call, homework is no longer an issue. You can count on our instant assistance with all essay writing stages. Just to let you know, our essay writers do all the work related to writing, starting with researching a topic and ending with formatting and editing the completed paper. We can help you choose the right topic, do in-depth research, choose the best up-to-date sources, and finally compose a brilliant piece to your instructions. Choose the formatting style for your paper (MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, or Harvard), and we will make all of your footnotes, running heads, and quotations shine.

Our professional essay writer can help you with any type of assignment, whether it is an essay, research paper, term paper, biography, dissertation, review, course work, or any other kind of writing. Besides, there is an option to get help with your homework assignments. We help complete tasks on Biology, Chemistry, Engineering, Geography, Maths, Physics, and other disciplines. Our authors produce all types of papers for all degree levels.

Finished Papers

Artikel & Berita

Write my essay for me, is buying essays online safe.

Shopping through online platforms is a highly controversial issue. Naturally, you cannot be completely sure when placing an order through an unfamiliar site, with which you have never cooperated. That is why we recommend that people contact trusted companies that have hundreds of positive reviews.

As for buying essays through sites, then you need to be as careful as possible and carefully check every detail. Read company reviews on third-party sources or ask a question on the forum. Check out the guarantees given by the specialists and discuss cooperation with the company manager. Do not transfer money to someone else's account until they send you a document with an essay for review.

Good online platforms provide certificates and some personal data so that the client can have the necessary information about the service manual. Service employees should immediately calculate the cost of the order for you and in the process of work are not entitled to add a percentage to this amount, if you do not make additional edits and preferences.

Finished Papers

How It Works

How do essay writing services work.

In the modern world, any company is trying to modernize its services. And services for writing scientific papers are no exception. Therefore, now it is very easy to order work and does not take time:

• First, you need to choose a good site that you can trust. Read their privacy policies, guarantees, payment methods and of course reviews. It will be a big plus that examples of work are presented on the online platform.
• Next, you need to contact a manager who will answer all the necessary questions and advise on the terms of cooperation. He will tell you about the acceptable writing deadlines, provide information about the author, and calculate the price of the essay.
• After that, you sign the contract and during the indicated days stay in touch with the employee of the company.
• Then you receive the file, read it attentively and transfer a certain amount to the company's bank card. After payment, the client downloads the document to his computer and can write a review and suggestions.

On the site Essayswriting, you get guarantees, thanks to which you will be confident and get rid of the excitement. The client can ask any questions about the writing and express special preferences.

If you can’t write your essay, then the best solution is to hire an essay helper. Since you need a 100% original paper to hand in without a hitch, then a copy-pasted stuff from the internet won’t cut it. To get a top score and avoid trouble, it’s necessary to submit a fully authentic essay. Can you do it on your own? No, I don’t have time and intention to write my essay now! In such a case, step on a straight road of becoming a customer of our academic helping platform where every student can count on efficient, timely, and cheap assistance with your research papers, namely the essays.

• Dissertations
• Business Plans
• PowerPoint Presentations
• Editing and Proofreading
• Annotated Bibliography
• Book Review/Movie Review
• Reflective Paper
• Company/Industry Analysis
• Article Analysis
• Custom Writing Service
• Assignment Help
• Write My Essay
• Paper Writing Help
• Write Papers For Me
• College Paper Writing Service

Dr.Jeffrey (PhD)

offers a great selection of professional essay writing services. Take advantage of original, plagiarism-free essay writing. Also, separate editing and proofreading services are available, designed for those students who did an essay and seek professional help with polishing it to perfection. In addition, a number of additional essay writing services are available to boost your customer experience to the maximum!

Advanced writer

Add more quality to your essay or be able to obtain a new paper within a day by requesting a top or premium writer to work on your order. The option will increase the price of your order but the final result will be totally worth it.

Top order status

Every day, we receive dozens of orders. To process every order, we need time. If you’re in a great hurry or seek premium service, then choose this additional service. As a result, we’ll process your order and assign a great writer as soon as it’s placed. Maximize your time by giving your order a top status!

SMS updates

Have you already started to write my essay? When it will be finished? If you have occasional questions like that, then opt-in for SMS order status updates to be informed regarding every stage of the writing process. If you’re pressed for time, then we recommend adding this extra to your order.

Plagiarism report

Is my essay original? How do I know it’s Turnitin-ready? Very simple – order us to attach a detailed plagiarism report when work is done so you could rest assured the paper is authentic and can be uploaded to Turnitin without hesitating.

1-page summary

World’s peace isn’t riding on essay writing. If you don’t have any intent on reading the entire 2000-word essay that we did for you, add a 1-page summary to your order, which will be a short overview of your essay one paragraph long, just to be in the loop.