How Would These Cases Be Decided Today?

The Supreme Court held that racial segregation in public facilities was constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause so long as the separate facilities were equal in quality. Justice Brown wrote for the 7-1 majority that the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to enforce social equality or commingling of the races. Justice Harlan's lone dissent famously declared that the Constitution is 'color-blind.'

Korematsu v. United States

1944

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Executive Order 9066, which authorized the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. The 6-3 majority, led by Justice Black, held that the government's wartime security concerns justified the racial classification, applying a form of heightened scrutiny but ultimately deferring to military judgment. Justices Murphy, Jackson, and Roberts dissented.

Lochner v. New York

1905

The Supreme Court struck down a New York law limiting bakery employees to a 60-hour work week, holding that the statute violated the liberty of contract protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The 5-4 majority ruled that the regulation was not a valid exercise of the state's police power because it interfered with the freedom of employer and employee to negotiate working conditions. Justices Harlan and Holmes wrote notable dissents.

Roe v. Wade

1973

The Supreme Court held that the Constitution protects a woman's right to choose to have an abortion prior to viability, grounding this right in the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Blackmun's majority opinion established a trimester framework balancing the woman's interest against the state's interests in maternal health and potential life. The decision invalidated abortion bans across the country.

Marbury v. Madison

1803

Chief Justice Marshall established the principle of judicial review, holding that the Supreme Court has the power to review acts of Congress and declare them unconstitutional. While finding that Marbury had a right to his commission and that the law afforded him a remedy, Marshall concluded that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 granting the Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus was unconstitutional because it expanded the Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III permits.

Wickard v. Filburn

1942

The Supreme Court upheld federal regulation of wheat grown for personal consumption under the Commerce Clause, holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated by Congress if, in the aggregate, it substantially affected interstate commerce. Justice Jackson wrote that Filburn's home-grown wheat, though never entering the market, reduced demand for wheat sold in interstate commerce and therefore fell within Congress's regulatory power.

Citizens United v. FEC

2010

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political communications by corporations, labor unions, and other associations. Justice Kennedy's 5-4 majority opinion struck down provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) that prohibited corporations and unions from using general treasury funds for electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

District of Columbia v. Heller

2008

The Supreme Court held for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms independent of service in a militia. Justice Scalia's 5-4 majority opinion struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement, concluding that the Second Amendment's prefatory clause referring to a 'well regulated Militia' does not limit the operative clause's protection of 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.' The Court emphasized that the right is not unlimited and is subject to certain longstanding regulatory measures.

Brown v. Board of Education

1954

The Supreme Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chief Justice Warren's opinion declared that 'separate educational facilities are inherently unequal,' overruling the 'separate but equal' doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson as applied to public education. The decision applied to cases from Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware, establishing a nationwide prohibition on de jure school segregation.

Obergefell v. Hodges

2015

The Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant and recognize same-sex marriages. Justice Kennedy's 5-4 majority opinion grounded the right in both the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses, identifying four principles supporting the conclusion that marriage is a fundamental right that cannot be denied to same-sex couples: individual autonomy, the importance of the two-person union, safeguarding children, and marriage as a keystone of social order.

New York Times Co. v. Sullivan

1964

The Supreme Court held that the First Amendment requires public officials suing for defamation to prove that the defendant acted with 'actual malice'—knowledge that the statement was false or reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. Justice Brennan's unanimous opinion recognized that robust debate on public issues inevitably includes some erroneous statements, and that breathing space must be given to protect free expression on matters of public concern.

Griswold v. Connecticut

1965

The Supreme Court struck down a Connecticut statute prohibiting the use of contraceptives, holding that the Constitution protects a right to marital privacy. Justice Douglas's majority opinion located this right in the 'penumbras' and 'emanations' of the Bill of Rights, particularly the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments. Concurring opinions offered alternative constitutional foundations, including the Ninth Amendment (Justice Goldberg) and the Due Process Clause (Justice Harlan).

Brandenburg v. Ohio

1969

The Supreme Court held per curiam that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is 'directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.' The decision overruled Whitney v. California (1927) and established a highly speech-protective test that replaced the 'clear and present danger' standard with a more rigorous requirement of both intent and likelihood of imminent harm. The case arose from the prosecution of a Ku Klux Klan leader under an Ohio criminal syndicalism statute.

Tinker v. Des Moines

1969

The Supreme Court held that students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' The Court ruled that a school's prohibition on wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War violated the First Amendment because the students' conduct was not disruptive and did not interfere with the school's educational mission. Justice Fortas's majority opinion established that student speech can only be restricted if school officials can demonstrate that the speech would 'materially and substantially interfere' with the operation of the school.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

1978

In a fractured decision with no majority opinion, Justice Powell's controlling opinion held that racial quotas in university admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause, but that race may be considered as one factor among many in a holistic admissions process. Powell endorsed the view that diversity in higher education constitutes a compelling governmental interest sufficient to justify the limited consideration of race, citing Harvard's admissions program as a model. The medical school's special admissions program reserving 16 seats for minority applicants was struck down.

Civil Procedure

Pennoyer v. Neff

1877

The Supreme Court held that a state court's exercise of jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant required either personal service of process within the state's borders or the attachment of the defendant's property within the state at the commencement of the action. Justice Field's opinion established a territorial theory of jurisdiction rooted in state sovereignty, holding that a state's jurisdiction extends only to persons and property within its borders and that judgments rendered without proper jurisdictional basis violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

1938

The Supreme Court overruled Swift v. Tyson (1842) and held that there is no federal general common law. Justice Brandeis's opinion concluded that federal courts exercising diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the state in which they sit, including state common law as declared by state courts. The decision was grounded in both constitutional concerns—that the Rules of Decision Act required application of state law—and practical concerns about forum shopping and the inequitable administration of law under the Swift regime.

International Shoe Co. v. Washington

1945

The Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause requires that a defendant have 'minimum contacts' with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' Chief Justice Stone's opinion replaced Pennoyer v. Neff's rigid territorial framework with a flexible, contacts-based approach to personal jurisdiction, holding that International Shoe's systematic activities in Washington—employing salesmen and soliciting orders—constituted sufficient contacts to support the state's exercise of jurisdiction.

Contracts

Williams v. Walker-Thomas Furniture Co.

1965

The D.C. Circuit held that courts may refuse to enforce contracts or contract clauses that are unconscionable. Judge Skelly Wright's opinion recognized that the doctrine of unconscionability could invalidate a cross-collateral clause in a retail installment contract that allowed the furniture company to retain a security interest in all previously purchased items until the balance on every item was paid. The court held that where there is an absence of meaningful choice on the part of one party combined with contract terms unreasonably favorable to the other, a contract may be unconscionable.

Torts

MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co.

1916

Justice Cardozo, writing for the New York Court of Appeals, held that a manufacturer owes a duty of care not only to the immediate purchaser but to all persons who might foreseeably use the product. The decision abolished the 'privity of contract' requirement in products liability cases, ruling that Buick owed a duty of care to MacPherson even though MacPherson had purchased the car from a dealer, not directly from Buick. Cardozo reasoned that when a manufacturer knows a product is likely to be used by persons other than the purchaser, the manufacturer is under a duty to make it carefully.

Rylands v. Fletcher

1868

The House of Lords upheld a rule of strict liability for damage caused by the escape of something brought onto land that constitutes a 'non-natural use' of the land. The defendants built a reservoir on their land, and water escaped through abandoned mine shafts into the plaintiff's adjoining coal mine. The court held that a person who brings something onto their land which is likely to do mischief if it escapes is strictly liable for all damage which is the natural consequence of its escape, regardless of whether the defendant was negligent.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants

1994

A New Mexico state court jury found McDonald's liable for burns suffered by Stella Liebeck when she spilled coffee purchased at a drive-through. The jury found that McDonald's coffee was defectively dangerous because it was served at approximately 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, significantly hotter than coffee served at other restaurants. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages (reduced by 20 percent for Liebeck's comparative fault) and $2.7 million in punitive damages (later reduced by the trial judge to $480,000). The case was ultimately settled for an undisclosed amount.

Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.

1928

Chief Judge Cardozo, writing for the New York Court of Appeals, held that the railroad owed no duty of care to Mrs. Palsgraf because the harm she suffered was not a foreseeable consequence of the guard's negligent conduct in helping a passenger board a train, which caused a package of fireworks to fall and explode, sending shockwaves that knocked over scales at the other end of the platform. Cardozo's majority opinion established that the existence of a duty depends on the foreseeability of harm to the particular plaintiff, while Judge Andrews's dissent argued that the duty question should focus on whether the defendant's conduct was negligent as to anyone and whether the plaintiff's injury was a proximate consequence of that negligence.

Property

Kelo v. City of New London

2005

The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the use of eminent domain to transfer private property from one private owner to another for the purpose of economic development satisfied the 'public use' requirement of the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. Justice Stevens's majority opinion concluded that economic development qualifies as a public use and that the Court should defer to legislative determinations about what constitutes a public purpose, even when the primary beneficiary of the taking is a private party.

Shelley v. Kraemer

1948