court case for study

• How to Prepare for Law School
• How to brief a case
• E-mail This Page
• Print This Page

How to write a case brief for law school: Excerpt reproduced from Introduction to the Study of Law: Cases and Materials ,

Third edition (lexisnexis 2009) by michael makdisi & john makdisi.

C. HOW TO BRIEF

The previous section described the parts of a case in order to make it easier to read and identify the pertinent information that you will use to create your briefs. This section will describe the parts of a brief in order to give you an idea about what a brief is, what is helpful to include in a brief, and what purpose it serves. Case briefs are a necessary study aid in law school that helps to encapsulate and analyze the mountainous mass of material that law students must digest. The case brief represents a final product after reading a case, rereading it, taking it apart, and putting it back together again. In addition to its function as a tool for self-instruction and referencing, the case brief also provides a valuable “cheat sheet” for class participation.

Who will read your brief? Most professors will espouse the value of briefing but will never ask to see that you have, in fact, briefed. As a practicing lawyer, your client doesn’t care if you brief, so long as you win the case. The judges certainly don’t care if you brief, so long as you competently practice the law. You are the person that the brief will serve! Keep this in mind when deciding what elements to include as part of your brief and when deciding what information to include under those elements.

What are the elements of a brief? Different people will tell you to include different things in your brief. Most likely, upon entering law school, this will happen with one or more of your instructors. While opinions may vary, four elements that are essential to any useful brief are the following:

(a) Facts (name of the case and its parties, what happened factually and procedurally, and the judgment)

(b) Issues (what is in dispute)

(c) Holding (the applied rule of law)

(d) Rationale (reasons for the holding)

If you include nothing but these four elements, you should have everything you need in order to recall effectively the information from the case during class or several months later when studying for exams.

Because briefs are made for yourself, you may want to include other elements that expand the four elements listed above. Depending on the case, the inclusion of additional elements may be useful. For example, a case that has a long and important section expounding dicta might call for a separate section in your brief labeled: Dicta. Whatever elements you decide to include, however, remember that the brief is a tool intended for personal use. To the extent that more elements will help with organization and use of the brief, include them. On the other hand, if you find that having more elements makes your brief cumbersome and hard to use, cut back on the number of elements. At a minimum, however, make sure you include the four elements listed above.

Elements that you may want to consider including in addition to the four basic elements are:

(e) Dicta (commentary about the decision that was not the basis for the decision)

(f) Dissent (if a valuable dissenting opinion exits, the dissent’s opinion)

(g) Party’s Arguments (each party’s opposing argument concerning the ultimate issue)

(h) Comments (personal commentary)

Personal comments can be useful if you have a thought that does not fit elsewhere. In the personal experience of one of the authors, this element was used to label cases as specific kinds (e.g., as a case of vicarious liability) or make mental notes about what he found peculiar or puzzling about cases. This element allowed him to release his thoughts (without losing them) so that he could move on to other cases.

In addition to these elements, it may help you to organize your thoughts, as some people do, by dividing Facts into separate elements:

(1) Facts of the case (what actually happened, the controversy)

(2) Procedural History (what events within the court system led to the present case)

(3) Judgment (what the court actually decided)

Procedural History is usually minimal and most of the time irrelevant to the ultimate importance of a case; however, this is not always true. One subject in which Procedure History is virtually always relevant is Civil Procedure.

When describing the Judgment of the case, distinguish it from the Holding. The Judgment is the factual determination by the court, in favor of one party, such as “affirmed,” “reversed,” or “remanded.” In contrast, the Holding is the applied rule of law that serves as the basis for the ultimate judgment.

Remember that the purpose of a brief is to remind you of the important details that make the case significant in terms of the law. It will be a reference tool when you are drilled by a professor and will be a study aid when you prepare for exams. A brief is also like a puzzle piece.

The elements of the brief create the unique shape and colors of the piece, and, when combined with other pieces, the picture of the common law takes form. A well-constructed brief will save you lots of time by removing the need to return to the case to remember the important details and also by making it easier to put together the pieces of the common law puzzle.

D. EXTRACTING THE RELEVANT INFORMATION: ANNOTATING AND HIGHLIGHTING

So now that you know the basic elements of a brief, what information is important to include under each element? The simple answer is: whatever is relevant. But what parts of a case are relevant? When you read your first few cases, you may think that everything that the judge said was relevant to his ultimate conclusion. Even if this were true, what is relevant for the judge to make his decision is not always relevant for you to include in your brief. Remember, the reason to make a brief is not to persuade the world that the ultimate decision in the case is a sound one, but rather to aid in refreshing your memory concerning the most important parts of the case.

What facts are relevant to include in a brief? You should include the facts that are necessary to remind you of the story. If you forget the story, you will not remember how the law in the case was applied. You should also include the facts that are dispositive to the decision in the case. For instance, if the fact that a car is white is a determining factor in the case, the brief should note that the case involves a white car and not simply a car. To the extent that the procedural history either helps you to remember the case or plays an important role in the ultimate outcome, you should include these facts as well.

What issues and conclusions are relevant to include in a brief? There is usually one main issue on which the court rests its decision. This may seem simple, but the court may talk about multiple issues, and may discuss multiple arguments from both sides of the case. Be sure to distinguish the issues from the arguments made by the parties. The relevant issue or issues, and corresponding conclusions, are the ones for which the court made a final decision and which are binding. The court may discuss intermediate conclusions or issues, but stay focused on the main issue and conclusion which binds future courts.

What rationale is important to include in a brief? This is probably the most difficult aspect of the case to determine. Remember that everything that is discussed may have been relevant to the judge, but it is not necessarily relevant to the rationale of the decision. The goal is to remind yourself of the basic reasoning that the court used to come to its decision and the key factors that made the decision favor one side or the other.

A brief should be brief! Overly long or cumbersome briefs are not very helpful because you will not be able to skim them easily when you review your notes or when the professor drills you. On the other hand, a brief that is too short will be equally unhelpful because it lacks sufficient information to refresh your memory. Try to keep your briefs to one page in length. This will make it easy for you to organize and reference them.

Do not get discouraged. Learning to brief and figuring out exactly what to include will take time and practice. The more you brief, the easier it will become to extract the relevant information.

While a brief is an extremely helpful and important study aid, annotating and highlighting are other tools for breaking down the mass of material in your casebook. The remainder of this section will discuss these different techniques and show how they complement and enhance the briefing process.

Annotating Cases

Many of you probably already read with a pencil or pen, but if you do not, now is the time to get in the habit. Cases are so dense and full of information that you will find yourself spending considerable amounts of time rereading cases to find what you need. An effective way to reduce this time is to annotate the margins of the casebook. Your pencil (or pen) will be one of your best friends while reading a case. It will allow you to mark off the different sections (such as facts, procedural history, or conclusions), thus allowing you to clear your mind of thoughts and providing an invaluable resource when briefing and reviewing.

You might be wondering why annotating is important if you make an adequate, well-constructed brief. By their very nature briefs cannot cover everything in a case. Even with a thorough, well-constructed brief you may want to reference the original case in order to reread dicta that might not have seemed important at the time, to review the complete procedural history or set of facts, or to scour the rationale for a better understanding of the case; annotating makes these tasks easier. Whether you return to a case after a few hours or a few months, annotations will swiftly guide you to the pertinent parts of the case by providing a roadmap of the important sections. Your textual markings and margin notes will refresh your memory and restore specific thoughts you might have had about either the case in general or an individual passage.

Annotations will also remind you of forgotten thoughts and random ideas by providing a medium for personal comments.

In addition to making it easier to review an original case, annotating cases during the first review of a case makes the briefing process easier. With adequate annotations, the important details needed for your brief will be much easier to retrieve. Without annotations, you will likely have difficulty locating the information you seek even in the short cases. It might seem strange that it would be hard to reference a short case, but even a short case will likely take you at least fifteen to twenty-five minutes to read, while longer cases may take as much as thirty minutes to an hour to complete. No matter how long it takes, the dense material of all cases makes it difficult to remember all your thoughts, and trying to locate specific sections of the analysis may feel like you are trying to locate a needle in a haystack. An annotation in the margin, however, will not only swiftly guide you to a pertinent section, but will also refresh the thoughts that you had while reading that section.

When you read a case for the first time, read for the story and for a basic understanding of the dispute, the issues, the rationale, and the decision. As you hit these elements (or what you think are these elements) make a mark in the margins. Your markings can be as simple as “facts” (with a bracket that indicates the relevant part of the paragraph). When you spot an issue, you may simply mark “issue” or instead provide a synopsis in your own words. When a case sparks an idea — write that idea in the margin as well — you never know when a seemingly irrelevant idea might turn into something more.

Finally, when you spot a particularly important part of the text, underline it (or highlight it as described below).

With a basic understanding of the case, and with annotations in the margin, the second read-through of the case should be much easier. You can direct your reading to the most important sections and will have an easier time identifying what is and is not important. Continue rereading the case until you have identified all the relevant information that you need to make your brief, including the issue(s), the facts, the holding, and the relevant parts of the analysis.

Pencil or pen — which is better to use when annotating? Our recommendation is a mechanical pencil. Mechanical pencils make finer markings than regular pencils, and also than ballpoint pens. Although you might think a pencil might smear more than a pen, with its sharp point a mechanical pencil uses very little excess lead and will not smear as much as you might imagine. A mechanical pencil will also give you the freedom to make mistakes without consequences. When you first start annotating, you may think that some passages are more important than they really are, and therefore you may resist the urge to make a mark in order to preserve your book and prevent false guideposts. With a pencil, however, the ability to erase and rewrite removes this problem.

Highlighting

Why highlight? Like annotating, highlighting may seem unimportant if you create thorough, well-constructed briefs, but highlighting directly helps you to brief. It makes cases, especially the more complicated ones, easy to digest, review and use to extract information.

Highlighting takes advantage of colors to provide a uniquely effective method for reviewing and referencing a case. If you prefer a visual approach to learning, you may find highlighting to be a very effective tool.

If annotating and highlighting are so effective, why brief? Because the process of summarizing a case and putting it into your own words within a brief provides an understanding of the law and of the case that you cannot gain through the process of highlighting or annotating.

The process of putting the case into your own words forces you to digest the material, while annotating and highlighting can be accomplished in a much more passive manner.

What should you highlight? Similar to annotating, the best parts of the case to highlight are those that represent the needed information for your brief such as the facts, the issue, the holding and the rationale.

Unlike annotating, highlighting provides an effective way to color code, which makes referring to the case even easier. In addition, Highlighters are particularly useful in marking off entire sections by using brackets. These brackets will allow you to color-code the case without highlighting all the text, leaving the most important phrases untouched for a more detailed highlight marking or underlining.

Highlighting is a personal tool, and therefore should be used to the extent that highlighting helps, but should be modified in a way that makes it personally time efficient and beneficial. For instance, you might combine the use of annotations in the margins with the visual benefit of highlighting the relevant text. You may prefer to underline the relevant text with a pencil, but to use a highlighter to bracket off the different sections of a case. Whatever you choose to do, make sure that it works for you, regardless of what others recommend. The techniques in the remainder of this section will describe ways to make full use of your highlighters.

First, buy yourself a set of multi-colored highlighters, with at least four, or perhaps five or six different colors. Yellow, pink, and orange are usually the brightest. Depending on the brand, purple and green can be dark, but still work well. Although blue is a beautiful color, it tends to darken and hide the text.

Therefore we recommend that you save blue for the elements that you rarely highlight.

For each different section of the case, choose a color, and use that color only when highlighting the section of the case designated for that color. Consider using yellow for the text that you tend to highlight most frequently. Because yellow is the brightest, you may be inclined to use yellow for the Conclusions in order to make them stand out the most. If you do this, however, you will exhaust your other colors much faster than yellow and this will require that you purchase an entire set of new highlighters when a single color runs out because colors such as green are not sold separately. If instead you choose to use yellow on a more frequently highlighted section such as the Analysis, when it comes time to replace your yellow marker, you will need only to replace your yellow highlighter individually. In the personal experience on one of the authors, the sections of cases that seemed to demand the most highlighter attention were the

Facts and the Analysis, while the Issues and Holdings demanded the least. Other Considerations and

Procedural History required lots of highlighting in particular cases although not in every case.

Experiment if you must, but try to choose a color scheme early on in the semester and stick with it. That way, when you come back to the first cases of the semester, you will not be confused with multiple color schemes. The basic sections of a case for which you should consider giving a different color are:

• Procedural History

• Issue (and questions presented)

• Holding (and conclusions)

• Analysis (rationale)

• Other Considerations (such as dicta)

Not all of these sections demand a separate color. You may find that combining Facts and Procedural History or Issues and Holdings works best. Furthermore, as mentioned above, some sections may not warrant highlighting in every case (e.g., dicta probably do not need to be highlighted unless they are particularly important). If you decide that a single color is all that you need, then stick to one, but if you find yourself highlighting lots of text from many different sections, reconsider the use of at least a few different colors. Highlighters make text stand out, but only when used appropriately. The use of many colors enables you to highlight more text without reducing the highlighter’s effectiveness. Three to four colors provides decent color variation without the cumbersomeness of handling too many markers.

Once you are comfortable with your color scheme, determining exactly what to highlight still may be difficult. Similar to knowing what to annotate, experience will perfect your highlighting skills. Be careful not to highlight everything, thus ruining your highlighters’ effectiveness; at the same time, do not be afraid to make mistakes.

Now that we have covered the basics of reading, annotating, highlighting, and briefing a case, you are ready to start practicing. Keep the tips and techniques mentioned in this chapter in mind when you tackle the four topics in the remainder of this book. If you have difficultly, refer back to this chapter to help guide you as you master the case method of study and the art of using the common law.

Have questions about law school? Check out our Facebook page , follow us on Twitter or start networking with law students and lawyers on LexTalk .

More Helpful Links

• The American Legal System
• How to Brief a Case
• How to Read a Casebook 101
• Top 20 Things You Need to Know About Law School
• Learn to Spot Issues Like a Lawyer
• Why an Internet Search is Not Legal Research
• Why go to Law School?
• What’s the Most Challenging Part of Law School?
• What advice would you give yourself about law school?

Get advice about law school from law students and legal professionals at the LexTalk legal community

Legal Research & Practical Guidance

Build your legal strategy and do vital work using authoritative primary law, analysis, guidance, court records and validation tools.

Search vast LexisNexis resources without selecting sources or using search commands.

Federal and state court dockets and documents for research, tracking, and profiling.

Practical Guidance

Current practical guidance from leading practitioners for managing transactional matters.

Lexis Securities Mosaic

Track and analyze SEC filings, U.S. agency information, industry news and current awareness.

News, Company Research & Media Monitoring Solutions

Quickly uncover up-to-date facts, news and insight essential to your decisions and business development.

LexisNexis Newsdesk

A fresh take on media monitoring & analysis to help you find the hidden gems that can impact your business.

Current, authoritative news, social media, company, financial and industry sources.

Media Intelligence Research & Analytics

Identify prospects and compile business profiles that help you close more deals.

Lexis Diligence

Corporate due diligence research tool.

• Intellectual Property

Stay up to speed with trends, track your competition, promote innovation and protect your intellectual assets.

TotalPatent One

The world's largest collection of full-text and bibliographic patent databases.

Patent Advisor

Predictive and revealing analytics for more efficient patent prosecution.

PatentOptimizer

Patent application drafting and analysis tools.

The CaseMap Suite of Litigation Tools

Comprised of four unique components, the CaseMap Suite can help you organize, analyze and present your entire case.

Compile relevant case facts, documents, research and issues into a centralized location for better assessment.

Manage litigation documents—share, search, review, produce, etc.—across your discovery team.

Quickly assemble your data and produce impactful timelines for pennies apiece.

See case presentations from a new angle with technology-driven Sanction software.

Practice & Legal Department Management

Address the business side of your legal activities with solutions to manage, track and analyze matters, finances, critical processes, relationships and performance.

CounselLink

A centralized repository for matter, e-billing and spend management.

Dashboards that display, track and manage your practice, clients and business tasks.

TimeMatters

Organize, associate and track case contacts, documents, events, phone calls, billing, etc.

InterAction

Comprehensive customer relationship management system for law firms.

Compliance & Due Diligence

Stay on top of regulatory and legislative changes, perform due diligence and manage compliance with ease, speed and confidence.

Customizable tools for tracking and reporting legislative and regulatory activity.

IntegraCheck | Integrity Due Diligence

In-depth due-diligence investigation reports.

Just for you Solutions & resources for your organization, department, role or individual work:

• Corporate Communications
• Information Professional
• Marketing & Competitive Intelligence
• Media Organizations
• Political Organizations
• Third-Party Due Diligence
• Sales & Business Development Professionals
• Strategy & Business Development Professionals
• Non-Profit Organizations
• Professional Services
• Technology Professionals
• Librarians & Information Professionals
• Paralegals & Legal Assistants
• Marketing Directors
• Law Department Management
• Litigation Management
• Tax Accounting
• View All »
• Faculty & Adminstration
• Public Libraries
• University & High School Students
• Law School Student Publications
• Portal Sign In

Browse by Industry

• Financial Services
• Health Care
• Life Sciences
• Manufacturing
• Retail & Sales

Browse by Department

• Corporate Compliance
• Corporate Counsel
• Procurement & Supply Chain
• Tax & Accounting

Visit the LexisNexis Store to purchase products that will assist you in your professional success Shop by :

• Jurisdiction
• Practice Area
• Banking Compliance
• Immigration
• Real Estate
• Workers' Comp
• Business Solutions
• Partner Products
• American Health Lawyers Association
• NITA: National Institute for Trial Advocacy
• The Florida Bar

Support & Training

Quick links.

• Lexis+ Support
• Lexis Support
• Nexis Support
• Practical Guidance Support
• CourtLink Support
• Lexis Securities Mosaic Support
• Digital Library Support
• LexTalk: Gain peer-to-peer, product support
• LexisNexis University
• Request Telephonic Training
• Support Center Resources
• Training on the Go

Communities & Blogs

Our Blogs and Communities feature a broad array of trending news and topics within socially interactive environments. Connect, explore and find the answers you need to further your goals.

• Blogs & Newsletters
• Blog Mosaic
• Business of Law Blog
• Corporate Law Advisory
• Legal Content Insider
• State Net Capitol Journal
• News & Trending Topics
• Legal Insights & Trends
• Practical Guidance Journal
• Professional Communities
• Business Insight Solutions – Partner Portal
• Corporate InfoPro (Corporate Information Professionals)
• InfoPro (Legal Information Professionals)
• LexisNexis for Developers
• Litigators Verdict & Settlement Exchange

• Location, Hours & Parking
• Transportation Grants

• Our Mission
• Board and Officers
• Teacher Advisory Council
• The Courthouse
• The Federal Courts
• Photo Gallery Tour
• Schedule a Tour
• Summer Teacher Institute
• Student Art Competition 2024
• The Supreme Court and My Hometown
• Bill of Rights Day 2024 Contest
• Citizenship in the Nation for Scouts
• Girl Scout Day at the Courthouse
• Tinker v. Des Moines Exhibit
• Program Photos
• Constitution Day, September 17
• Democracy Badge for Girl Scouts
• Inside Government Badge for Girl Scouts
• Judicial Learning Center Tenth Anniversary
• Stories of the First Amendment Teacher Event
• Alexander Hamilton Exhibit
• Homeschool Educator Institute
• Law Day 2014 Lecture: Freedom Summer
• Freedom Summer Traveling Exhibition
• Student Center Landing Page
• The Role of the Federal Courts
• Organization of the Federal Courts
• How Courts Work
• Landmark Cases
• Educator Center Main Page
• Online Learning Resources
• Comparing State and Federal Courts
• Law Day Lessons and Activities
• The Power of Judicial Review

Article III of the U.S. Constitution describes the powers and duties of the judicial branch.  Nowhere does it mention the power of the courts to review actions of the other two branches, and possibly declare these actions unconstitutional.  This power, called Judicial Review , was established by the landmark decision in Marbury v. Madison , 1803.

“ It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is…If two laws conflict with each other, the Courts must decide on the operation of each.  So, if a law be in opposition to the Constitution… the Court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty .” Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 1803  

• Facts about Judicial Review
• Possible Subjects of Judicial Review
• No law or action can contradict the U.S. Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land.
• The court can only review a law that is brought before it through a law suit.
• State courts also have the power to review state laws or actions based upon their state constitutions.
• Legislative actions (laws made by congress)
• Executive actions (treaties, executive orders issued by the president, or regulations issued by a government agency)
• State and local laws

Case Studies

Marbury v. madison , 1803.

• Case History

When President John Adams did not win a second term in the 1801 election, he used the final days of his presidency to make a large number of political appointments.  When the new president (Thomas Jefferson) took office, he told his Secretary of State (James Madison), not to deliver the official paperwork to the government officials who had been appointed by Adams.  Thus the government officials, including William Marbury, were denied their new jobs.  William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus , to force Madison to deliver the commission.

Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 (a law written by Congress), gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue writs of mandamus to settle disputes such as the one described here.  This power to force actions of government officials went above and beyond anything mentioned in Article III of the Constitution.

Therefore, in addition to deciding whether or not William Marbury had a right to his job, the U.S. Supreme Court also had to decide whether or not Section 13 of the Judiciary Act was in violation of the Constitution (the birth of Judicial Review ).

This case did not reach the U.S. Supreme Court the way most issues do.  Most cases reach the Supreme Court as the court of last resort, when the Justices are asked to review a decision of a lower court.  In this case, William Marbury petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court directly due to the provision in Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.  Note:  The power to directly accept petitions such as these is not granted to the Supreme Court in the Constitution.

What Do You Think The U.S. Supreme Court Decided?

Though the Justices agreed that William Marbury had a right to his job, they also ruled that issuing the writ of mandamus to force that to happen did not fall under their jurisdiction as stated in the Constitution. The Supreme Court opinion explained that it is within their power and authority to review acts of Congress, such as the Judiciary Act of 1789, to determine whether or not the law is unconstitutional. By declaring Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, the U.S. Supreme Court established the doctrine of Judicial Review.

The Supreme Court said “ The Constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. If the (first) part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the Constitution is not law .” by author of opinion, Chief Justice John Marshall.

• The Oyez Project
• The opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court
• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Marbury v. Madison , 5 U.S. 137 (1803)

Ladue v. Gilleo, 1994

In 1990, Margaret Gilleo placed a sign in the yard of her home in Ladue, Missouri. The sign said “Say No to War in the Persian Gulf, Call Congress Now.” The city of Ladue had a law against yard signs, and told Ms. Gilleo to take her signs down. Ms. Gilleo sued the city of Ladue for violating her 1 st Amendment rights.

Was Ladue’s law against signs unconstitutional?

Margaret Gilleo sued the city of Ladue in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The court ruled in her favor and stopped Ladue from enforcing the law. Ladue appealed the decision, and the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals also found in Ms. Gilleo’s favor. The city of Ladue then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. Ladue’s law against yard signs violated the 1 st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The 1 st Amendment protects political speech, and banning yard signs takes away the main avenue by which people traditionally express their personal political views. The value of protecting personal political speech is more important than Ladue’s desire to keep the city free of clutter.

The Supreme Court said “ They may not afford the same opportunities for conveying complex ideas as do other media, but residential signs have long been an important and distinct medium of expression .” by author of opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens.

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Ladue v. Gilleo , 512 U.S. 43 (1994)

Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, 1966

Annie Harper was not allowed to register to vote in Virginia because she wasn’t able to pay the state’s poll tax. Virginia law required voters to pay $1.50 tax to register, with the money collected going to public school funding. Ms. Harper sued the Virginia Board of Elections, claiming the poll tax violated her 14 th Amendment right to equal protection. Note: The 24 th Amendment to the Constitution already banned poll taxes in federal elections, but not in state elections.

Was the Virginia law requiring a tax to vote in a state election unconstitutional?

The U.S. District Court dismissed Ms. Harper’s suit in favor of the Board of Elections. She then asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

The Supreme Court declared the Virginia poll tax law unconstitutional. By making it more difficult for poor people to vote, the state was violating the 14 th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. Voting is a fundamental right, and should remain accessible to all citizens. The amount of wealth someone has should have no bearing on their ability to vote freely.

The Supreme Court said “ We conclude that a State violates the …(Constitution).. …whenever it makes the affluence of the voter or payment of any fee an electoral standard. Voter qualifications have no relation to wealth nor to paying or not paying this or any other tax …. Wealth or fee paying has, in our view, no relation to voting qualifications; the right to vote is too precious, too fundamental to be so burdened or conditioned. ” by author of opinion, Justice William O. Douglas

• The official version of the opinion can be found in the U.S. Reports at your local law library. Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections , 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

Breaking News

Students for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College

Holding : The admissions programs at Harvard College and the University of North Carolina violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Judgment : Reversed , 6-2, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 29, 2023. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Gorsuch filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Kavanaugh filed a concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Kagan joined. Justice Jackson took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

• Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action programs in college admissions (Amy Howe, June 29, 2023)
• Affirmative action appears in jeopardy after marathon arguments (Amy Howe, October 31, 2022)
• The court is poised to set jurisprudence on race for generations — and not just in affirmative action (James Romoser, October 30, 2022)
• A guide to the amicus briefs in the affirmative-action cases (Ellena Erskine, Angie Gou, and Elisabeth Snyder, October 29, 2022)
• The court should relegate racial discrimination in higher education to the dustbin of history (Zach West and Bryan Cleveland, October 28, 2022)
• Being race-conscious is a necessary and effective tool to address racism and discrimination — including for Asian Americans (Bethany Li, October 28, 2022)
• On being original: Racial classifications and the fallacy of a certain strain of “progressive originalism” (Devon Westhill, October 28, 2022)
• A business perspective: Diversity in university admissions is a compelling interest (Michael R. Dreeben, Natalie Camastra, and Kelly Kambourelis, October 27, 2022)
• In higher education and beyond, race-based policies stifle individualism and ultimately harm everyone (Wen Fa, October 27, 2022)
• The history of anti-Black discrimination in higher education and the myth of a color-blind Constitution (Danielle R. Holley, October 26, 2022)
• Diversity by diktat: An obscure 1977 OMB memo forms the basis for today’s affirmative-action programs (David Bernstein, October 26, 2022)
• In cases challenging affirmative action, court will confront wide-ranging arguments on history, diversity, and the role of race in America (Amy Howe, October 26, 2022)
• Affirmative action cases up first in November argument calendar (Amy Howe, August 3, 2022)
• Court will hear affirmative-action challenges separately, allowing Jackson to participate in UNC case (Amy Howe, July 22, 2022)
• The rise of certiorari before judgment (Steve Vladeck, January 25, 2022)
• Court will hear challenges to affirmative action at Harvard and University of North Carolina (Amy Howe, January 24, 2022)
• Revenge of the rescheduled cases: Congressional proxy voting, the ministerial exception, and more (John Elwood, January 20, 2022)
• Court will take up five new cases, including lawsuit from football coach who wanted to pray on the field (Amy Howe, January 14, 2022)
• Blockbuster watch: Affirmative action, same-sex weddings, and other big relists (John Elwood, January 12, 2022)
• Justices add new cases on bankruptcy, workers’ comp, and relief from final judgments (Amy Howe, January 10, 2022)
• Justices request government’s views on Harvard affirmative-action dispute (Amy Howe, June 14, 2021)
• Affirmative action at Harvard, border searches and pedestrian safety (Andrew Hamm, February 26, 2021)

Privacy Overview

Library electronic resources outage May 29th and 30th

Between 9:00 PM EST on Saturday, May 29th and 9:00 PM EST on Sunday, May 30th users will not be able to access resources through the Law Library’s Catalog, the Law Library’s Database List, the Law Library’s Frequently Used Databases List, or the Law Library’s Research Guides. Users can still access databases that require an individual user account (ex. Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law), or databases listed on the Main Library’s A-Z Database List.

• Georgetown Law Library
• Research Process

Case Law Research Guide

Introduction.

• Print Case Reporters
• Online Resources for Cases
• Finding Cases: Digests, Headnotes, and Key Numbers
• Finding Cases: Terms & Connectors Searching

Key to Icons

• Georgetown only
• On Bloomberg
• More Info (hover)
• Preeminent Treatise

Every law student and practicing attorney must be able to find, read, analyze, and interpret case law. Under the common law principles of stare decisis, a court must follow the decisions in previous cases on the same legal topic. Therefore, finding cases is essential to finding out what the law is on a particular issue.

This guide will show you how to read a case citation and will set out the sources, both print and online, for finding cases. This guide also covers how to use digests, headnotes, and key numbers to find case law, as well as how to find cases through terms and connectors searching.

To find cases using secondary sources, such as legal encyclopedias or legal treatises, see our Secondary Sources Research Guide . For additional strategies to find cases, like using statutory annotations or citators, see our  Case Law Research Tutorial . Our tutorial also covers how to update cases using citators (Lexis’ Shepard’s tool and Westlaw’s KeyCite).

Basic Case Citation

A case citation is a reference to where a case (also called a  decision  or an  opinion  ) is printed in a book. The citation can also be used to retrieve cases from  Westlaw  and  Lexis . A case citation consists of a volume number, an abbreviation of the title of the book or other item, and a page number.  

The precise format of a case citation depends on a number of factors, including the jurisdiction, court, and type of case. You should review the rest of this section on citing cases (and the relevant rules in  The Bluebook ) before trying to format a case citation for the first time. See our Bluebook Guide for more information.

The basic format of a case citation is as follows:

Parallel Citations

When the same case is printed in different books, citations to more than one book may be given. These additional citations are known as  parallel citations .

Example: 265 U.S. 274, 68 L. Ed. 1016, 44 S. Ct. 565.

This means that the case you would find at page 565 of volume 44 of the  Supreme Court Reporter  (published by West) will be the same case you find on page 1016 of volume 68 of  Lawyers' Edition  (published by Lexis), and both will be the same as the opinion you find in the official government version,  United States Reports . Although the text of the opinion will be identical, the added editorial material will differ with each publisher.

Williams Library Reference

Reference Desk : Atrium, 2nd (Main) Floor (202) 662-9140 Request a Research Consultation  

Case law research tutorial.

Update History

Revised 4/22 (CMC) Updated 10/22 (MK) Links 07/2023 (VL)

• Next: Print Case Reporters >>
• © Georgetown University Law Library. These guides may be used for educational purposes, as long as proper credit is given. These guides may not be sold. Any comments, suggestions, or requests to republish or adapt a guide should be submitted using the Research Guides Comments form . Proper credit includes the statement: Written by, or adapted from, Georgetown Law Library (current as of .....).
• Last Updated: Feb 29, 2024 1:03 PM
• URL: https://guides.ll.georgetown.edu/cases

Landmark Library

This library of mini-lessons targets a variety of landmark cases from the United States Supreme Court. Each mini-lesson includes a one-page reading and one page of activities. The mini-lessons are designed for students to complete independently without the need for teacher direction. However, they also make great teacher-directed lessons and class discussion-starters. 

Not sure which cases you want to use? Start by reviewing our Meet the Supremes Teacher’s Guide . It provides case summaries, teaching suggestions, and a crosswalk of the themes, laws, and amendments each case addresses. If you want to assign a Supreme Court case as a research project, use our Research Roadmap graphic organizer to guide students through the process.

Choose Grade Level:

• Middle School
• High School

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)

United States v. Virginia (1996)

Pga tour, inc. v. martin (2001), obergefell v. hodges (2015), lyng v. northwest indian cemetery protective…, loving v. virginia (1967), lau v. nichols (1974), elk v. wilkins (1884), eeoc v. abercrombie & fitch (2015), see how it all fits together.

• --> Login or Sign Up

Shop by Author

• Harvard Law Case Studies A-Z
• Free Materials
• Workshop-Based Case Study
• Discussion-Based Case Study
• Sabrineh Ardalan
• Sharon Block
• Robert Bordone
• Emily M. Broad Leib
• Robert Clark
• John Coates
• Susan Crawford
• Alonzo Emery
• Philip B. Heymann
• Howell E. Jackson
• Wendy Jacobs
• Adriaan Lanni
• Jeremy McClane
• Naz Modirzadeh
• Catherine Mondell
• Ashish Nanda
• Charles R. Nesson
• John Palfrey
• Bruce Patton
• Todd D. Rakoff
• Lisa Rohrer
• Jeswald W. Salacuse
• James Sebenius
• Joseph William Singer
• Holger Spamann
• Carol Steiker
• Guhan Subramanian
• Lawrence Susskind
• David B. Wilkins
• Heidi Gardner
• Jonathan Zittrain

Shop by Brand

Howell Jackson

• Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Semi Haas
• Chad M. Carr
• John Coates, Clayton Rose, and David Lane

Ashish Nanda and Lauren Prusiner

• Ashish Nanda and Lisa Rohrer
• Ashish Nanda and Monet Brewerton
• View all Brands

Harvard Law School

The Case Studies

The Case Study

a valuable tool for experiential, participant-centered learning

Public Company Analysis

Understand the control structures within US public companies

Financial Regulation

Explore emerging challenges in regulating financial institutions

Mediation & Negotiation

Develop the theory and practice of negotiation and dispute resolution

Shop by Category

Featured items.

A Difficult Discussion with the Board (A)

John Coates, Karina Shaw, Nathan Cisneros

GE Capital after the Crisis

John Coates, John Dionne, David Scharfstein

Noorain Khan and Disability Inclusion at the Ford Foundation

Laura Winig and Susan Crawford

BYOB in Boston

Susan Crawford and Brittany Deitch

Current Top Sellers

Diego Primadonna

Robert Ricigliano

Lawrence Susskind and Eileen Babbitt

Ernest Shackleton's Journey to the Endurance

Ashish Nanda and Nicholas Tabor

Linklaters (A): Seeking Clear Blue Water

New products.

Hogan Lovells’ Sector-Focused Client Service Approach: Put to the Test During Covid

Heidi K. Gardner

First National Bank of Ames Corporation (Teaching Note)

Investor Access to Private Investment (Teaching Note)

Investor Access to Private Investment

Hannah Valentine under the supervision of Howell Jackson

Please note that each purchase of a product entitles the purchaser to one download and use.  If you need multiple copies, please purchase the number of copies you need.  For more information, see  Copying Your Case Study .

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ
• Our Offices

MENU Legal Aid Interagency Roundtable

• Funding Opportunities

Case Studies

The WH-LAIR Case Studies are two-page documents that illustrate how civil legal aid supports federal efforts to serve the low-income and other vulnerable populations in various areas. They contain descriptions of common challenges faced by vulnerable populations, examples of federal responses to these challenges, and concrete examples of the ways in which civil legal aid meaningfully supports federal agencies’ efforts. The WH-LAIR continues to issue new case studies on selected topics.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts To Help Protect Consumers

Standing up for Victims of Mortgage Fraud

A home repair contractor approached Sadie, an 85-year-old African American woman who has owned her home for forty years, promising to perform home improvements under a "free government program" for seniors.  Sadie did not understand the papers she signed, and did not realize that the contractor had taken $122,000 from a reverse mortgage on her home even before any work was done.  He eventually remodeled two bathrooms, but the work was sloppy and defective.  No other home improvements were performed.  Legal Assistance Foundation of Chicago (LAF), a federally-funded Legal Services Corporation grantee, filed a lawsuit to void the loan and recover money damages from the contractor's company, ultimately settling for $110,000.  LAF continues to represent other mostly elderly and minority victims of this reverse mortgage scheme.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts To Help Keep America Working

Legal Aid gets Dad Back on Road to Work

After five years working as a delivery driver for a home improvement chain, Joe lost his job when his driver’s license was suspended because medical expenses for his prematurely-born daughter left him unable to pay outstanding traffic fines.  SonomaWORKS,  Sonoma County’s HHS-funded  welfare-to-work program, referred Joe to what seemed like a perfect job as a delivery driver for a parts store. When the employer offered him a position contingent on securing a driver’s license, he sought help from Legal Aid of Sonoma County.  With funding from California’s TANF program, Joe’s legal aid lawyer successfully arranged an affordable payment plan for a reduced bail amount so Joe could pay off his fines and get his drivers license reinstated. Thanks to the legal and employment services provided through SonomaWORKS, Joe once again became self-sufficient.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts To Help Prevent Elder Abuse

Legal Aid Delivers Justice for Elderly Domestic Violence Victim

Cynthia was 83-years old when her controlling husband threw her out of their home and cut her off from all assets after she became too ill to care for him and their home. Cynthia’s husband was wealthy, and theirs was a second marriage that occurred late in life. During their marriage, Cynthia became isolated and was subjected to controlling and threatening behavior. After her husband Kicked her out of their home, she had no means of support other than a small Social Security benefit. Funded in part by DOJ OVW’s Legal Assistance for Victims grant, a Montana Legal Services Association attorney represented Cynthia in court.  The attorney successfully obtained a property settlement that allowed Cynthia to live out her remaining years in safety and in a home close to her adult children.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts On Behalf Of Tribes & Tribal Members

Doctor prescribes a lawyer to keep family healthy and housed

After Rose, a citizen of the Navajo Nation, lost her adult daughter in a car accident, she was left to raise five grandchildren.  With no room for the children in her own house, Rose moved into her deceased daughter’s apartment.  Still grieving, Rose received an eviction notice from the housing agency, because she was not named on the apartment lease.  She was told that she and the children had to move.  When a pediatrician at the Indian Health Service clinic learned of the situation, she referred Rose to DNA-People’s Legal Services Medical-Legal Partnership Program, funded by DOJ’s Tribal Civil Legal Assistance Program. With the help of her DNA-People’s Legal Services lawyer, Rose showed that tribal law and federal policies allowed her to assume the lease obligations.  Rose continued to care for the children in their own home and, with DNA’s help, obtained legal guardianship over each grandchild.

WH-LAIR Case Study: On Behalf Of Tribes & Tribal Members

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Prevent Domestic Violence

“Nazia,” a 37-year-old immigrant from Guyana, fled with her two young children from the physical and emotional abuse of her husband. With the assistance of Legal Services Corporation-funded Queens Legal Services (QLS), a recipient of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Family and Youth Services Bureau funding, she successfully obtained an Order of Protection and full custody of her children. However, shortly thereafter, Nazia’s abuser retaliated by filing for a modification of custody, citing frivolous allegations of inappropriate parenting. Her legal aid lawyer continued to represent her and also referred Nazia to a QLS social worker, who provided counseling to her and her children throughout the process. Again, thanks to her legal aid lawyer, after two years of litigation, Nazia settled the case and retained sole legal custody of her children.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Prevent Domestic Violence  

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help People with Criminal Records Make a Successful Reentry

“Andy’s” 10-year old felony conviction prevented him from pursuing his hopes of securing a state license to become a New York Licensed Practical Nurse. The Fortune Society, a grantee of U.S. Department of Labor’s Reintegration of Ex-Offenders Program, referred Andy to MFY Legal Services in New York. His legal aid lawyer helped Andy obtain out-of state criminal court records, gather proof of rehabilitation, and represented him at the initial investigative interview. The result was a successful license application and a job.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Successful Reentry

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Veterans & Servicemembers

When “Clyde” sought medical help from the Philadelphia U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, a social worker learned he had fallen behind on his rent and faced eviction from his apartment. The social worker and the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) caseworker recognized Clyde’s need for legal help, and assisted Clyde in getting an appointment with an attorney at the SSVF program’s legal aid partner, Homeless Advocacy Project. With the SSVF program providing some of Clyde’s back rent, the attorney negotiated an agreement to stop the eviction in exchange for a lump sum payment for most of the unpaid rent, plus a payment plan to cover the remainder. With his housing stabilized, Clyde was able to focus on his health needs.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Help Veterans and Servicemembers

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Keep Children in School

Growing up in a community influenced by gangs, “Carl” was expelled from middle school. Later incarcerated for a juvenile offense, Carl began working with a TeamChild ® attorney – partially funded by U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevent – to plan his release and return to school. His attorney successfully advocated for his readmission. When other students threatened Carl he sought help from school administrators who responded by expelling him. His attorney successfully represented him at the hearing and Carl finished the semester. Fearful of the gangs, he left Washington state to live with relatives, and pursue a GED and Job Corps training program. Denied admission because of his juvenile record, his lawyer stepped in yet again, to appeal and document Carl’s determination to get back on track. Job Corps reversed their decision. Carl got his GED and is working hard towards his auto mechanic certificate.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Keep Children in Schools

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help People Exit Homelessness and Stay Housed

“Frank,” a disabled man living in U.S. Department of Agriculture-subsidized housing in rural Iowa, received an eviction notice from his landlord after neighbors complained that he yelled too much, especially late at night. Attempts by the property manager to talk to Frank about the problem only made it worse. Fearing that he would become homeless, Frank sought help from Legal Services Corporation-funded Iowa Legal Aid. With support from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Emergency Solutions Grant, Iowa Legal Aid could assist him. Frank’s lawyer realized that his disruptive behavior flowed from untreated mental illness. She met with his property manager and reached out to other professionals to help Frank manage his mental illness. They collaborated on a plan to address the problems and involve his case manager as an intermediary if an issue arose. The property manager agreed to dismiss the eviction, and Frank remained in his home.

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help People Access Healthcare

“Alex” sought help from Legal Services Corporation-funded Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County because of medical debt that threatened his family with bankruptcy. Unable to purchase affordable insurance in the private market because of his pre-existing condition, Alex’s debt had accrued after several emergency room visits for a severe heart condition that required surgery he could not afford. In addition to helping negotiate his medical bills with the hospital and avoid bankruptcy, his legal aid attorney – thanks in part to support from the Affordable Care Act Consumer Assistance Program funds – helped identify affordable insurance options through California’s Covered CA and new adult Medicaid expansion programs that will help Alex get the surgery he desperately needs.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Access Health Care

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Assist Law Enforcement & Promote Public Safety

Police partnership with legal aid help decrease incidence of domestic violence

The High Point Police Department partnered with Legal Aid of North Carolina, Family Service of the Piedmont, and other community groups to open the High Point Center for Children and Families and Victims’ Justice as part of the COPS-funded Offender Focused Domestic Violence Initiative (OFDVI). The initiative focuses on early intervention to break the cycle of domestic violence, and helps victims with their civil legal needs, such as obtaining protective orders. Within the first two years of the OFVDI, recidivism rates – which typically range from 20-34% -- decreased to 9% across more than 1,000 offenders.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Assist Law Enforcement & Promote Public Safety

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Americans with Disabilities

P&A Lawyer Listens to Teacher’s Tale of Denial of Services for Hearing Loss

When “Jack” realized his already limited hearing had deteriorated, he knew he needed new hearing aids to keep his teaching job. But when Jack requested a replacement device, Indiana Vocational Rehabilitation Services (VR), the state government office that helps people with disabilities get and retain employment, denied the request because VR’s policy required a hearing change of at least 10 decibels to provide replacement devices and Jack didn’t meet that requirement. Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services (IPAS), with funding from the Department of Education’s Client Assistant Program, appealed the denial. At the appeal, the administrative law judge determined that VR’s 10-decibel requirement was inconsistent with federal law, as it did not account for the individual needs of each VR client. Thanks to IPAS’s help, Jack received new hearing aids and kept his job. IPAS also used the decision to help other Hoosiers needing replacement hearing aids to retain their employment.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Help Americans with Disabilities

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Help Human Trafficking Victims

Legal aid helps restaurant workers in federal prosecution of traffickers and public benefits

“Narawit” was enticed to Colorado from Southeast Asia with a work visa and good wages as a chef. However, the restaurant owner forced him to work twelve-hour shifts without breaks, and the pay was far less than promised with numerous illegal deductions and fees. When the owner didn’t renew his visa, Narawit feared he had no options. Fortunately, DOJ prosecuted the owner, and  Colorado Legal Services (CLS) helped Narawit and 8 other workers in the federal prosecution. CLS helped them meet with federal prosecutors and investigators, calculate unpaid wages, and prepare victim impact statements. CLS also helped recover restitution for nearly 60 workers. Later, when Narawit became seriously ill, CLS, with funding from OVC’s Specialized Services for Victims of Human Trafficking grant, helped him successfully appeal the denial of Medicaid and food stamps by establishing his eligibility as a human trafficking victim.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Help Human Trafficking Victims

Civil Legal Aid Supports Federal Efforts to Strengthen Families

Father and son get parenting support from legal aid

“Christopher” was a dedicated father to a young son, for whom he regularly paid child support. When his work schedule was reduced and his earnings dropped, he sought help from the Alameda County Superior Court Family Law Facilitator’s office, which is funded in part by ACF’s Child Support Enforcement Program at HHS. A staff attorney there helped him request a modified child support order that would reflect his pay cut. The lawyer then explained how Christopher could use this opportunity to request increased visitation time with his son and take on more parenting responsibility. Staff from the court’s Family Law Facilitator’s Office was present at the hearing to provide legal information and procedural guidance to Christopher. The court made the proposed changes and Christopher’s payments were reduced to an amount that he could afford. He began picking his son up from school twice a week and eating dinner together, before returning him to his mother.

WH-LAIR Case Study: Strengthen Families

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

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.

The National Constitution Center’s Supreme Court Cases Library includes materials on the most influential Supreme Court cases in American history. To ensure nonpartisan rigor and ideological diversity, we enlisted a pair of leading scholars from diverse constitutional perspectives—Caroline Fredrickson and Ilan Wurman—to help choose the landmark cases included in the Supreme Court Cases Library . The Supreme Court Cases Library also includes landmark cases curated by the National Constitution Center team.

Constitutional Topics

Kennedy v. bremerton school district.

597 U.S. __ (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

592 U. S. __ (2020)

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

591 U.S. __ (2020)

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue

Carpenter v. united states.

585 U.S. ___ (2018)

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

584 U.S.__ (2018)

Obergefell v. Hodges

576 U.S. ___ (2015)

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Town of greece v. galloway.

572 U.S. 565 (2014)

Shelby County v. Holder

570 U.S. 529 (2013)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

567 U.S. 519 (2012)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

558 U.S. 310 (2010)

District of Columbia v. Heller

554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Lawrence v. Texas

539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Bush v. Gore

531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Printz v. United States

521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Washington v. Glucksberg

521 U.S. 702 (1997)

United States v. Virginia

518 U.S. 515 (1996)

United States v. Lopez

514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Employment Division v. Smith

494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Texas v. Johnson

491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Morrison v. Olson

487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

484 U.S. 260 (1988)

South Dakota v. Dole

483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Lynch v. Donnelly

465 U.S. 668 (1984)

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 800 (1982)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265 (1978)

United States v. Nixon (The Tapes Case)

418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Frontiero v. Richardson

411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Roe v. Wade

410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Wisconsin v. Yoder

406 U.S. 205 (1972)

New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case)

403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Brandenburg v. Ohio

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Terry v. Ohio

392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Loving v. Virginia

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Griswold v. Connecticut

381 U.S. 479 (1965)

United States v. Seeger

380 U.S. 163 (1965)

Reynolds v. Sims

377 U.S. 533 (1964)

New York Times Company v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Sherbert v. Verner

374 U.S. 398 (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Engel v. Vitale

370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Sweezy v. New Hampshire

354 U.S. 234 (1957)

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case)

343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Terminiello v. Chicago

337 U.S. 1 (1949)

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township

330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Korematsu v. United States

323 U.S. 214 (1944)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Wickard v. Filburn

317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Thornhill v. Alabama

310 U.S. 88 (1940)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

304 U.S. 64 (1938)

United States v. Carolene Products Co.

304 U.S. 144 (1938)

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

300 U.S. 379 (1937)

Crowell v. Benson

285 U.S. 22 (1932)

Stromberg v. California

283 U.S. 359 (1931)

Olmstead v. United States

277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Whitney v. California

274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Gitlow v. New York

268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Abrams v. United States

250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Schenck v. United States

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Plessy v. Ferguson

163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Chinese Exclusion Case—Chae Chan Ping v. United States

130 U.S. 581 (1889)

The Civil Rights Cases

109 U.S. 3 (1883)

Strauder v. West Virginia

100 U.S. 303 (1880)

Reynolds v. United States

98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Minor v. Happersett

88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Bradwell v. The State of Illinois

83 U.S. 130 (1873)

The Slaughter-House Cases

83 U.S. 36 (1873)

Dred Scott v. Sandford

60 U.S. 393 (1857)

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. 137 (1803)

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

Recent Cases

Kiviti v. bhatt.

Fourth Circuit Holds that Article III Mootness Doctrine Does Not Apply to Bankruptcy Proceedings.

Colindres v. United States Department of State

D.C. Circuit Defers to Consulate's Visa Denial.

K & R Contractors, LLC v. Keene

Fourth Circuit Declines to Consider Constitutionality of Removal Protections Because of Lack of Injury.

Lee ex rel. Gap, Inc. v. Fisher

Ninth Circuit Enforces Forum Selection Clause Blocking Derivative Suits.

Doe v. William Marsh Rice University

Fifth Circuit Advances Novel Theory of Liability for Anti-Male Discrimination.

Eldridge v. Howard

Ninth Circuit Holds that D.C. Superior Court is Not a "State Court" for Purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 2253.

Appalachian Voices v. United States Department of the Interior

Fourth Circuit Holds Congress Stripped Jurisdiction to Hear Pipeline Challenge.

Palmer v. Liberty University, Inc.

Fourth Circuit Schism Spotlights Unholy Consequences of Ministerial Exception Doctrine.

Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety

Fifth Circuit Bars Individual-Capacity Money Damages Under RLUIPA.

Pico Neighborhood Ass’n v. City of Santa Monica

California Supreme Court Interprets State Act to Expand Reach of Vote Dilution Protection.

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

• Your Health
• Treatments & Tests
• Health Inc.

Public Health

As a nurse faces prison for a deadly error, her colleagues worry: could i be next.

Brett Kelman

RaDonda Vaught, with her attorney, Peter Strianse, is charged with reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult after a medication error killed a patient. Mark Humphrey/AP hide caption

RaDonda Vaught, with her attorney, Peter Strianse, is charged with reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult after a medication error killed a patient.

Four years ago, inside the most prestigious hospital in Tennessee, nurse RaDonda Vaught withdrew a vial from an electronic medication cabinet, administered the drug to a patient and somehow overlooked signs of a terrible and deadly mistake.

The patient was supposed to get Versed, a sedative intended to calm her before being scanned in a large, MRI-like machine. But Vaught accidentally grabbed vecuronium, a powerful paralyzer, which stopped the patient's breathing and left her brain-dead before the error was discovered.

Vaught, 38, admitted her mistake at a Tennessee Board of Nursing hearing last year, saying she became "complacent" in her job and "distracted" by a trainee while operating the computerized medication cabinet. She did not shirk responsibility for the error, but she said the blame was not hers alone.

"I know the reason this patient is no longer here is because of me," Vaught said, starting to cry. "There won't ever be a day that goes by that I don't think about what I did."

Shots - Health News

Former nurse found guilty in accidental injection death of 75-year-old patient.

If Vaught's story had followed the path of most medical errors, it would have been over hours later, when the Tennessee Board of Nursing revoked her license and almost certainly ended her nursing career.

But Vaught's case is different: This week, she goes on trial in Nashville on criminal charges of reckless homicide and felony abuse of an impaired adult for the killing of Charlene Murphey, the 75-year-old patient who died at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in late December 2017. If convicted of reckless homicide, Vaught faces up to 12 years in prison.

Prosecutors do not allege in their court filings that Vaught intended to hurt Murphey or was impaired by any substance when she made the mistake, so her prosecution is a rare example of a health care worker facing years in prison for a medical error. Fatal errors are generally handled by licensing boards and civil courts. And experts say prosecutions like Vaught's loom large for a profession terrified of the criminalization of such mistakes — especially because her case hinges on an automated system for dispensing drugs that many nurses use every day.

The Nashville District Attorney's Office declined to discuss Vaught's trial. Vaught's lawyer, Peter Strianse, did not respond to requests for comment. Vanderbilt University Medical Center has repeatedly declined to comment on Vaught's trial or its procedures.

Vaught's trial will be watched by nurses nationwide, many of whom worry a conviction may set a precedent — as the coronavirus pandemic leaves countless nurses exhausted, demoralized and likely more prone to error.

Janie Harvey Garner, a St. Louis registered nurse and founder of Show Me Your Stethoscope , a nurses group with more than 600,000 members on Facebook, said the group has closely watched Vaught's case for years out of concern for her fate — and their own.

A Doctor Confronts Medical Errors — And Flaws In The System That Create Mistakes

Garner said most nurses know all too well the pressures that contribute to such an error: long hours, crowded hospitals, imperfect protocols and the inevitable creep of complacency in a job with daily life-or-death stakes.

Garner said she once switched powerful medications just as Vaught did and caught her mistake only in a last-minute triple-check.

"In response to a story like this one, there are two kinds of nurses," Garner said. "You have the nurses who assume they would never make a mistake like that, and usually it's because they don't realize they could. And the second kind are the ones who know this could happen, any day, no matter how careful they are. This could be me. I could be RaDonda."

As the trial begins, Nashville prosecutors will argue that Vaught's error was anything but a common mistake any nurse could make. Prosecutors will say she ignored a cascade of warnings that led to the deadly error.

The case hinges on the nurse's use of an electronic medication cabinet, a computerized device that dispenses a range of drugs. According to documents filed in the case , Vaught initially tried to withdraw Versed from a cabinet by typing "VE" into its search function without realizing she should have been looking for its generic name, midazolam. When the cabinet did not produce Versed, Vaught triggered an override that unlocked a much larger swath of medications, then searched for "VE" again. This time, the cabinet offered vecuronium.

Vaught then overlooked or bypassed at least five warnings or pop-ups saying she was withdrawing a paralyzing medication, documents state. She also did not recognize that Versed is a liquid but vecuronium is a powder that must be mixed into liquid, documents state.

Finally, just before injecting the vecuronium, Vaught stuck a syringe into the vial, which would have required her to "look directly" at a bottle cap that read "Warning: Paralyzing Agent," the DA's documents state.

The DA's office points to this override as central to Vaught's reckless homicide charge. Vaught acknowledges she performed an override on the cabinet. But she and others say overrides are a normal operating procedure used daily at hospitals.

While testifying before the nursing board last year, foreshadowing her defense in the upcoming trial, Vaught said that at the time of Murphey's death, Vanderbilt was instructing nurses to use overrides to overcome cabinet delays and constant technical problems caused by an ongoing overhaul of the hospital's electronic health records system.

Murphey's care alone required at least 20 cabinet overrides in just three days, Vaught said.

"Overriding was something we did as part of our practice every day," Vaught said. "You couldn't get a bag of fluids for a patient without using an override function."

Overrides are common outside of Vanderbilt, too, according to experts following Vaught's case.

Michael Cohen, president emeritus of the Institute for Safe Medication Practices, and Lorie Brown, past president of the American Association of Nurse Attorneys, each said it is common for nurses to use an override to obtain medication in a hospital.

But Cohen and Brown stressed that even with an override, it should not have been so easy to access vecuronium.

"This is a medication that you should never, ever, be able to override to," Brown said. "It's probably the most dangerous medication out there."

Cohen said that in response to Vaught's case, manufacturers of medication cabinets modified the devices' software to require up to five letters to be typed when searching for drugs during an override, but not all hospitals have implemented this safeguard. Two years after Vaught's error, Cohen's organization documented a "strikingly similar" incident in which another nurse swapped Versed with another drug, verapamil, while using an override and searching with just the first few letters. That incident did not result in a patient's death or criminal prosecution, Cohen said.

Maureen Shawn Kennedy, the editor-in-chief emerita of the American Journal of Nursing , wrote in 2019 that Vaught's case was "every nurse's nightmare."

In the pandemic, she said, this is truer than ever.

"We know that the more patients a nurse has, the more room there is for errors," Kennedy said. "We know that when nurses work longer shifts, there is more room for errors. So I think nurses get very concerned because they know this could be them."

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. It is an editorially independent operating program of KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation).

• criminal case

McCombs School of Business

• Español ( Spanish )

Videos Concepts Unwrapped View All 36 short illustrated videos explain behavioral ethics concepts and basic ethics principles. Concepts Unwrapped: Sports Edition View All 10 short videos introduce athletes to behavioral ethics concepts. Ethics Defined (Glossary) View All 58 animated videos - 1 to 2 minutes each - define key ethics terms and concepts. Ethics in Focus View All One-of-a-kind videos highlight the ethical aspects of current and historical subjects. Giving Voice To Values View All Eight short videos present the 7 principles of values-driven leadership from Gentile's Giving Voice to Values. In It To Win View All A documentary and six short videos reveal the behavioral ethics biases in super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's story. Scandals Illustrated View All 30 videos - one minute each - introduce newsworthy scandals with ethical insights and case studies. Video Series

Case Studies UT Star Icon

Case Studies

More than 70 cases pair ethics concepts with real world situations. From journalism, performing arts, and scientific research to sports, law, and business, these case studies explore current and historic ethical dilemmas, their motivating biases, and their consequences. Each case includes discussion questions, related videos, and a bibliography.

A Million Little Pieces

James Frey’s popular memoir stirred controversy and media attention after it was revealed to contain numerous exaggerations and fabrications.

Abramoff: Lobbying Congress

Super-lobbyist Abramoff was caught in a scheme to lobby against his own clients. Was a corrupt individual or a corrupt system – or both – to blame?

Apple Suppliers & Labor Practices

Is tech company Apple, Inc. ethically obligated to oversee the questionable working conditions of other companies further down their supply chain?

Approaching the Presidency: Roosevelt & Taft

Some presidents view their responsibilities in strictly legal terms, others according to duty. Roosevelt and Taft took two extreme approaches.

Appropriating “Hope”

Fairey’s portrait of Barack Obama raised debate over the extent to which an artist can use and modify another’s artistic work, yet still call it one’s own.

Arctic Offshore Drilling

Competing groups frame the debate over oil drilling off Alaska’s coast in varying ways depending on their environmental and economic interests.

Banning Burkas: Freedom or Discrimination?

The French law banning women from wearing burkas in public sparked debate about discrimination and freedom of religion.

Birthing Vaccine Skepticism

Wakefield published an article riddled with inaccuracies and conflicts of interest that created significant vaccine hesitancy regarding the MMR vaccine.

Blurred Lines of Copyright

Marvin Gaye’s Estate won a lawsuit against Robin Thicke and Pharrell Williams for the hit song “Blurred Lines,” which had a similar feel to one of his songs.

Bullfighting: Art or Not?

Bullfighting has been a prominent cultural and artistic event for centuries, but in recent decades it has faced increasing criticism for animal rights’ abuse.

Buying Green: Consumer Behavior

Do purchasing green products, such as organic foods and electric cars, give consumers the moral license to indulge in unethical behavior?

Cadavers in Car Safety Research

Engineers at Heidelberg University insist that the use of human cadavers in car safety research is ethical because their research can save lives.

Cardinals’ Computer Hacking

St. Louis Cardinals scouting director Chris Correa hacked into the Houston Astros’ webmail system, leading to legal repercussions and a lifetime ban from MLB.

Cheating: Atlanta’s School Scandal

Teachers and administrators at Parks Middle School adjust struggling students’ test scores in an effort to save their school from closure.

Cheating: Sign-Stealing in MLB

The Houston Astros’ sign-stealing scheme rocked the baseball world, leading to a game-changing MLB investigation and fallout.

Cheating: UNC’s Academic Fraud

UNC’s academic fraud scandal uncovered an 18-year scheme of unchecked coursework and fraudulent classes that enabled student-athletes to play sports.

Cheney v. U.S. District Court

A controversial case focuses on Justice Scalia’s personal friendship with Vice President Cheney and the possible conflict of interest it poses to the case.

Christina Fallin: “Appropriate Culturation?”

After Fallin posted a picture of herself wearing a Plain’s headdress on social media, uproar emerged over cultural appropriation and Fallin’s intentions.

Climate Change & the Paris Deal

While climate change poses many abstract problems, the actions (or inactions) of today’s populations will have tangible effects on future generations.

Cover-Up on Campus

While the Baylor University football team was winning on the field, university officials failed to take action when allegations of sexual assault by student athletes emerged.

Covering Female Athletes

Sports Illustrated stirs controversy when their cover photo of an Olympic skier seems to focus more on her physical appearance than her athletic abilities.

Covering Yourself? Journalists and the Bowl Championship

Can news outlets covering the Bowl Championship Series fairly report sports news if their own polls were used to create the news?

Cyber Harassment

After a student defames a middle school teacher on social media, the teacher confronts the student in class and posts a video of the confrontation online.

Defending Freedom of Tweets?

Running back Rashard Mendenhall receives backlash from fans after criticizing the celebration of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden in a tweet.

Dennis Kozlowski: Living Large

Dennis Kozlowski was an effective leader for Tyco in his first few years as CEO, but eventually faced criminal charges over his use of company assets.

Digital Downloads

File-sharing program Napster sparked debate over the legal and ethical dimensions of downloading unauthorized copies of copyrighted music.

Dr. V’s Magical Putter

Journalist Caleb Hannan outed Dr. V as a trans woman, sparking debate over the ethics of Hannan’s reporting, as well its role in Dr. V’s suicide.

East Germany’s Doping Machine

From 1968 to the late 1980s, East Germany (GDR) doped some 9,000 athletes to gain success in international athletic competitions despite being aware of the unfortunate side effects.

Ebola & American Intervention

Did the dispatch of U.S. military units to Liberia to aid in humanitarian relief during the Ebola epidemic help or hinder the process?

Edward Snowden: Traitor or Hero?

Was Edward Snowden’s release of confidential government documents ethically justifiable?

Ethical Pitfalls in Action

Why do good people do bad things? Behavioral ethics is the science of moral decision-making, which explores why and how people make the ethical (and unethical) decisions that they do.

Ethical Use of Home DNA Testing

The rising popularity of at-home DNA testing kits raises questions about privacy and consumer rights.

Flying the Confederate Flag

A heated debate ensues over whether or not the Confederate flag should be removed from the South Carolina State House grounds.

Freedom of Speech on Campus

In the wake of racially motivated offenses, student protests sparked debate over the roles of free speech, deliberation, and tolerance on campus.

Freedom vs. Duty in Clinical Social Work

What should social workers do when their personal values come in conflict with the clients they are meant to serve?

Full Disclosure: Manipulating Donors

When an intern witnesses a donor making a large gift to a non-profit organization under misleading circumstances, she struggles with what to do.

Gaming the System: The VA Scandal

The Veterans Administration’s incentives were meant to spur more efficient and productive healthcare, but not all administrators complied as intended.

German Police Battalion 101

During the Holocaust, ordinary Germans became willing killers even though they could have opted out from murdering their Jewish neighbors.

Head Injuries & American Football

Many studies have linked traumatic brain injuries and related conditions to American football, creating controversy around the safety of the sport.

Head Injuries & the NFL

American football is a rough and dangerous game and its impact on the players’ brain health has sparked a hotly contested debate.

Healthcare Obligations: Personal vs. Institutional

A medical doctor must make a difficult decision when informing patients of the effectiveness of flu shots while upholding institutional recommendations.

High Stakes Testing

In the wake of the No Child Left Behind Act, parents, teachers, and school administrators take different positions on how to assess student achievement.

In-FUR-mercials: Advertising & Adoption

When the Lied Animal Shelter faces a spike in animal intake, an advertising agency uses its moral imagination to increase pet adoptions.

Krogh & the Watergate Scandal

Egil Krogh was a young lawyer working for the Nixon Administration whose ethics faded from view when asked to play a part in the Watergate break-in.

Limbaugh on Drug Addiction

Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh argued that drug abuse was a choice, not a disease. He later became addicted to painkillers.

U.S. Olympic swimmer Ryan Lochte’s “over-exaggeration” of an incident at the 2016 Rio Olympics led to very real consequences.

Meet Me at Starbucks

Two black men were arrested after an employee called the police on them, prompting Starbucks to implement “racial-bias” training across all its stores.

Myanmar Amber

Buying amber could potentially fund an ethnic civil war, but refraining allows collectors to acquire important specimens that could be used for research.

Negotiating Bankruptcy

Bankruptcy lawyer Gellene successfully represented a mining company during a major reorganization, but failed to disclose potential conflicts of interest.

Pao & Gender Bias

Ellen Pao stirred debate in the venture capital and tech industries when she filed a lawsuit against her employer on grounds of gender discrimination.

Pardoning Nixon

One month after Richard Nixon resigned from the presidency, Gerald Ford made the controversial decision to issue Nixon a full pardon.

Patient Autonomy & Informed Consent

Nursing staff and family members struggle with informed consent when taking care of a patient who has been deemed legally incompetent.

Prenatal Diagnosis & Parental Choice

Debate has emerged over the ethics of prenatal diagnosis and reproductive freedom in instances where testing has revealed genetic abnormalities.

Reporting on Robin Williams

After Robin Williams took his own life, news media covered the story in great detail, leading many to argue that such reporting violated the family’s privacy.

Responding to Child Migration

An influx of children migrants posed logistical and ethical dilemmas for U.S. authorities while intensifying ongoing debate about immigration.

Retracting Research: The Case of Chandok v. Klessig

A researcher makes the difficult decision to retract a published, peer-reviewed article after the original research results cannot be reproduced.

Sacking Social Media in College Sports

In the wake of questionable social media use by college athletes, the head coach at University of South Carolina bans his players from using Twitter.

Selling Enron

Following the deregulation of electricity markets in California, private energy company Enron profited greatly, but at a dire cost.

Snyder v. Phelps

Freedom of speech was put on trial in a case involving the Westboro Baptist Church and their protesting at the funeral of U.S. Marine Matthew Snyder.

Something Fishy at the Paralympics

Rampant cheating has plagued the Paralympics over the years, compromising the credibility and sportsmanship of Paralympian athletes.

Sports Blogs: The Wild West of Sports Journalism?

Deadspin pays an anonymous source for information related to NFL star Brett Favre, sparking debate over the ethics of “checkbook journalism.”

Stangl & the Holocaust

Franz Stangl was the most effective Nazi administrator in Poland, killing nearly one million Jews at Treblinka, but he claimed he was simply following orders.

Teaching Blackface: A Lesson on Stereotypes

A teacher was put on leave for showing a blackface video during a lesson on racial segregation, sparking discussion over how to teach about stereotypes.

The Astros’ Sign-Stealing Scandal

The Houston Astros rode a wave of success, culminating in a World Series win, but it all came crashing down when their sign-stealing scheme was revealed.

The Central Park Five

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming evidence of the innocence of the Central Park Five, some involved in the case refuse to believe it.

The CIA Leak

Legal and political fallout follows from the leak of classified information that led to the identification of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

The Collapse of Barings Bank

When faced with growing losses, investment banker Nick Leeson took big risks in an attempt to get out from under the losses. He lost.

The Costco Model

How can companies promote positive treatment of employees and benefit from leading with the best practices? Costco offers a model.

The FBI & Apple Security vs. Privacy

How can tech companies and government organizations strike a balance between maintaining national security and protecting user privacy?

The Miss Saigon Controversy

When a white actor was cast for the half-French, half-Vietnamese character in the Broadway production of Miss Saigon , debate ensued.

The Sandusky Scandal

Following the conviction of assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexual abuse, debate continues on how much university officials and head coach Joe Paterno knew of the crimes.

The Varsity Blues Scandal

A college admissions prep advisor told wealthy parents that while there were front doors into universities and back doors, he had created a side door that was worth exploring.

Providing radiation therapy to cancer patients, Therac-25 had malfunctions that resulted in 6 deaths. Who is accountable when technology causes harm?

Welfare Reform

The Welfare Reform Act changed how welfare operated, intensifying debate over the government’s role in supporting the poor through direct aid.

Wells Fargo and Moral Emotions

In a settlement with regulators, Wells Fargo Bank admitted that it had created as many as two million accounts for customers without their permission.

Stay Informed

Support our work.

FREE AP Government Resources! 

1. marbury v. madison (1803), 2. mcculloch v. maryland (1819), 3. schenck v. u.s (1919), 4. brown v. board of education (1954), 5. baker v. carr (1962), 6. engel v. vitale (1962), 7. gideon v. wainwright (1963), 8. tinker v. des moines (1969), 9. new york times v. u.s (1969), 10. wisconsin v. yoder (1972), 11. roe v. wade (1973), 12. shaw v. reno (1993), 13. u.s. v. lopez (1995), 14. mcdonald v. chicago (2010), 15. citizens united v. fec (2010), final thoughts.

Published March 13, 2024

15 Supreme Court Cases You HAVE To Know For the AP Government Exam

High School Sophomore from West Virginia, Avid Classics Enthusiast, Marketing Intern and Blog Writer at Knowt :)

Preparing for your AP Government exam can be a daunting task, but with the right AP resources and study strategies, you can conquer it with confidence. Whether you're diving into AP test prep a few months in advance or looking for AP study guides to streamline your review sessions, understanding landmark Supreme Court cases is crucial. But don't worry, we're here to help! In this AP guide, we'll navigate through 15 Supreme Court cases crucial for your AP exam study guides. Each case discussed in this article has been carefully selected to enhance your understanding of U.S. history and government, making them indispensable for your AP test review.

To support your last-minute AP test prep, we've compiled essential AP resources and AP study notes. These tools are designed to help streamline your studying process, offering clear, concise, and relevant information that aligns with your AP test study guides.

The ULTIMATE AP Government Study Guide : A comprehensive review tool covering key topics and cases, perfect for anyone looking for effective AP study guides.

AP Government Flashcards : Handy for memorizing key facts, dates, and legal principles, these flashcards are an essential part of any AP resources kit.

Our Favorite YouTube channel for all things AP Gov - Heimler’s : complements online AP notes and AP study guides.

As you delve into each Supreme Court case, from Marbury v. Madison to Citizens United v. FEC, consider utilizing AP flashcards to remember crucial dates and outcomes. Engage with online AP notes to reinforce your understanding and participate in AP test review sessions to discuss these cases' implications. By incorporating these strategies into your AP test study guides, you'll be better prepared to tackle the AP government exam with confidence.

Remember, the key to AP test prep success is utilizing a variety of AP resources, including AP study guides, AP flashcards, and AP exam study guides. By doing so, you'll ensure a well-rounded review and a deeper understanding of the material. Good luck on your AP Government exam!

Marbury v. Madison (1803) is a foundational Supreme Court case establishing the concept of judicial review, which allows the Supreme Court to invalidate laws and government actions that conflict with the Constitution. For your AP Government exam, it's essential to know the year of the decision, the key figures involved (William Marbury, James Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall), and the principle of judicial review itself. Understand the background of the case, where Marbury was denied his commission as a justice of the peace and sought a remedy directly from the Supreme Court.

To effectively study this case, create a detailed timeline from the appointment of Marbury to the Supreme Court's decision. Make sure to understand the legal terms and the specific questions the court was answering. Focus on Chief Justice Marshall’s reasoning and how he established the court's role in interpreting the Constitution. Practice explaining the significance of the case in your own words to ensure you grasp its impact on the American legal system and the balance of power in the federal government. Engaging in discussions, using flashcards for key facts, and reviewing how this case has been applied in other contexts can deepen your understanding and help solidify this crucial piece of U.S. legal history for your exam.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that reinforced the powers of the federal government. It revolved around whether the state of Maryland had the authority to tax the Second Bank of the United States, leading to broader questions about the power of federal institutions and states' rights. For your AP Government exam, key points to remember include the year of the case, the main conflict (state versus federal power), and the outcome: the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Marshall, ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, and states could not interfere with federal institutions, epitomized by the phrase "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

To study for this case, break down the arguments presented by both sides and understand the legal reasoning behind the Court's decision. Make note cards with important terms and concepts, like "implied powers," "Necessary and Proper Clause," and "federal supremacy." Review how this case fits into the larger framework of federalism in U.S government. Discussing the case with classmates or in study groups can help you see different viewpoints and understand the broader implications of the ruling. Finally, look at how this case has been referenced in subsequent Supreme Court decisions to understand its lasting impact on American government and law.

Schenck v. United States (1919) is an important Supreme Court case for understanding the limits of free speech, particularly during wartime. In this case, Charles Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing pamphlets that opposed the draft during World War I. The Supreme Court, led by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, upheld his conviction, introducing the famous "clear and present danger" test to determine when speech could be limited.

For your AP Government exam, focus on the year of the case, the context of World War I, the main parties involved (Charles Schenck and the United States), and the significant outcome concerning the First Amendment. Understand the rationale behind the decision, especially the concept of "clear and present danger" as a standard for limiting speech. This case illustrates the tension between civil liberties and national security, a recurring theme in U.S. government.

To study Schenck v. United States, outline the arguments presented by both sides and the Court's reasoning. Create flashcards with key terms and details, like the Espionage Act, "clear and present danger," and the impact of the ruling on First Amendment rights. Discuss the case with peers to explore different perspectives and its implications in various historical contexts. Review how this decision has been referenced or challenged in subsequent Supreme Court cases to understand its lasting influence. Engaging with the material in multiple formats will help solidify your understanding of this landmark case and its place in American legal and social history.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) is a landmark Supreme Court case that declared racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional, overturning the "separate but equal" doctrine established by Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. This case is crucial for your AP Government exam because it highlights the struggle for civil rights and the role of the judiciary in addressing social injustice. Key facts to remember include the year of the decision, the context of the Civil Rights Movement, the plaintiffs (Oliver Brown and others), and the unanimous decision led by Chief Justice Earl Warren that segregation in public schools creates a sense of inferiority among African-American children.

To study for this case, focus on the background of segregation in the United States, the legal arguments made by both sides, and the social and political implications of the Court's decision. Create a timeline that links Brown v. Board of Education with other civil rights milestones. Use flashcards to remember significant terms, names, and concepts associated with the case, such as "separate but equal," "Jim Crow laws," and "de jure segregation." Discuss the case in study groups to explore its impacts and the legal reasoning behind the Court's decision. Review how this case has influenced subsequent civil rights legislation and court decisions to understand its lasting legacy. Engaging with the material in various ways will help ensure a deeper understanding of this pivotal moment in American history for your exam.

Baker v. Carr (1962) is a landmark Supreme Court case that transformed the landscape of American politics by addressing the issue of electoral districting, often summarized by the phrase "one person, one vote." The case emerged from Tennessee, where Charles W. Baker filed a lawsuit arguing that the state's apportionment (the way voting districts were drawn) ignored significant population shifts, thus diluting the voting power of certain regions, particularly urban areas. The Supreme Court's decision, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that federal courts could hear cases on state apportionment and that unequal representation violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

For your AP Government exam, important facts to remember about Baker v. Carr include the year of the decision (1962), the key legal question (whether federal courts can rule on state apportionment issues), and the major outcome (affirmation that federal courts can address legislative redistricting issues). This case set the stage for subsequent rulings that would further shape American electoral processes, emphasizing the importance of equal representation.

To study for this, start by understanding the background of the case and the legal arguments presented by both sides. Use diagrams to visualize how apportionment works and how it was being challenged. Make flashcards detailing the key figures, legal principles, and impacts of the ruling. Discuss the case's significance in relation to the civil rights movement and its effect on subsequent electoral reforms. Review how the "one person, one vote" principle has been applied and challenged in later cases. Engaging with the material in a variety of ways will help you grasp the enduring significance of Baker v. Carr in American political and legal history.

​​Engel v. Vitale (1962) is a critical Supreme Court case that examined the role of religion in public schools, ultimately reshaping the relationship between religion and government in the United States. The case arose when a public school in New York implemented a voluntary, non-denominational prayer at the start of each school day, leading to a lawsuit by a group of parents, including Steven Engel, arguing that this violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which prohibits the government from establishing an official religion.

For your AP Government exam, it's important to remember the year of the decision (1962), the main issue (prayer in public schools), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that government-directed prayer in public schools, even if non-denominational and voluntary, violates the First Amendment). This case underscores the principle of the separation of church and state, a foundational concept in American government.

To effectively study Engel v. Vitale, outline the background and the arguments from both sides, focusing on how this case illustrates the application of the Establishment Clause. Create flashcards to memorize the key facts, terms, and impacts of the ruling. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent cases involving religion in public life. Discuss the case's implications with classmates to explore different perspectives and understand its significance in the broader context of civil liberties and government powers. Understanding Engel v. Vitale will help you grasp the complex interplay between religion and public policy in U.S. history.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) is a crucial Supreme Court case for understanding the rights of defendants in the American legal system. The case centers around Clarence Earl Gideon, who was charged with a felony in Florida. Gideon requested a court-appointed attorney, arguing that he could not afford one, but was denied based on state law which only provided attorneys for capital cases. After being convicted, Gideon appealed to the Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.

For your AP Government exam, remember the year of the decision (1963), the key constitutional question (whether the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies to state court defendants in felony cases), and the ruling's impact (extending the right to counsel to all criminal defendants in state courts). This case highlights the importance of due process and the rights of individuals within the American justice system.

To study Gideon v. Wainwright, outline the events leading up to Gideon's arrest and subsequent trial, focusing on the constitutional issues at stake. Create flashcards with key terms, such as "Sixth Amendment," "right to counsel," and "Fourteenth Amendment." Discuss the implications of the ruling on the American legal system and its significance in ensuring fair trials for all individuals, regardless of economic status. Review subsequent cases influenced by Gideon's precedent to understand its lasting impact. Engaging with the case from multiple angles will deepen your understanding and help you remember its significance for your exam.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) is a significant Supreme Court case that established the standard for evaluating the freedom of speech in schools. The case originated when Mary Beth Tinker and her siblings wore black armbands to their public school as a form of protest against the Vietnam War. The school suspended them, leading to a lawsuit that argued the suspension violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers, stating that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."

For your AP Government exam, it's important to remember the year of the case (1969), the main parties involved (the Tinker family and the Des Moines school), and the principle established that students have free speech rights in school settings, as long as their speech does not disrupt the educational process. This case underscores the balance between authority and individual rights and the application of the First Amendment in educational environments.

To study Tinker v. Des Moines, examine the background leading up to the case, including the social and political climate of the 1960s. Create flashcards that define key legal terms and details, such as "symbolic speech" and "material and substantial disruption." Discuss with peers or in study groups to explore different viewpoints and the broader implications of the case on student rights and school policies. Review how this case has been applied in subsequent legal disputes involving student speech to understand its continuing impact. Engaging with the material through various methods will help solidify your understanding of the case's significance in American legal and educational history.

New York Times v. United States (1971), commonly known as the "Pentagon Papers Case," is a crucial Supreme Court case for understanding the balance between national security and the freedom of the press. The controversy arose when the New York Times started publishing the Pentagon Papers, classified documents detailing U.S. strategy in the Vietnam War. The Nixon Administration argued that publishing these documents posed a security risk and sought to stop their publication. However, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the newspapers, holding that the government had not met the heavy burden required to justify a prior restraint on speech under the First Amendment.

For your AP Government exam, key facts to remember about this case include the year (1971), the central conflict (freedom of the press versus government secrecy), and the outcome (a reaffirmation of the press's right to publish information significant to public interest without prior restraint). This case is pivotal for its role in shaping the modern understanding of the First Amendment and its protections for the press.

To study New York Times v. United States, start by understanding the context of the Vietnam War and why the Pentagon Papers were significant. Outline the arguments made by both sides in the case and the Supreme Court's reasoning. Make flashcards to remember the key legal terms and principles, such as "prior restraint" and "First Amendment." Discuss the case's implications for journalism and government transparency with classmates to explore different perspectives. Review how this decision has been applied and referenced in later freedom of the press cases to grasp its lasting impact. By approaching the case from multiple angles, you can gain a comprehensive understanding of its significance and be better prepared for your exam.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) is a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the balance between individual religious freedoms and state educational requirements. The case originated when three Amish families in Wisconsin were prosecuted under a state law requiring all children to attend public school until age 16. The families argued that this law conflicted with their religious beliefs and practices, which dictated that children should not attend school past the eighth grade. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Yoder family, stating that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion outweighed the state's interest in mandating school attendance beyond the eighth grade.

For your AP Government exam, important points to remember include the year of the decision (1972), the central issue (the conflict between religious freedom and state laws on education), and the outcome (recognition of the Amish community's right to limit their children's schooling based on religious beliefs). This case highlights the importance of religious liberties and the limitations of state power in infringing upon these freedoms.

To study Wisconsin v. Yoder, focus on understanding the background of the Amish community and their reasons for opposing extended public schooling. Create flashcards with key legal terms and principles, such as "free exercise of religion," "compelling state interest," and "First Amendment." Analyze the court's reasoning and how it balanced the interests of religious freedom against the state's educational goals. Discuss the case with peers to explore different viewpoints and its broader implications on religious and educational rights. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent cases involving religious freedoms and state regulations. By exploring these various elements, you will develop a comprehensive understanding of Wisconsin v. Yoder and its significance in American legal history.

Roe v. Wade (1973) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that significantly impacted American society and law by addressing the issue of abortion rights. The case was brought by "Jane Roe" (a pseudonym for Norma McCorvey), who challenged Texas laws criminalizing most abortions, arguing that they were unconstitutional. The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion. However, the Court also held that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in regulating abortions: protecting women's health and protecting the potentiality of human life. The decision led to the establishment of the trimester framework, which set different levels of state interest for each stage of pregnancy.

For your AP Government exam, essential facts to remember include the year of the decision (1973), the constitutional basis for the ruling (the right to privacy under the 14th Amendment), and the outcome (the establishment of a woman's right to choose an abortion within the first trimester, with increasing state regulation possible in later stages of pregnancy). This case is crucial for understanding shifts in social policies, individual rights, and the role of the state.

To study Roe v. Wade, outline the legal arguments presented by both sides and the Supreme Court's reasoning. Create flashcards with key terms and concepts, such as "right to privacy," "Due Process Clause," and "trimester framework." Discuss the case's broader implications on American society, politics, and health care with classmates to explore different perspectives. Review how this decision has been challenged, reaffirmed, or modified in subsequent Supreme Court cases to understand its lasting impact, and how it has been overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson.

Shaw v. Reno (1993) is an essential Supreme Court case for understanding the complexities of racial gerrymandering and the interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the context of electoral districting. The case arose after the U.S. Department of Justice rejected North Carolina's initial congressional redistricting plan for failing to create a majority-black district. The state submitted a new plan creating two majority-black districts, but one of them was unusually shaped, leading white residents to challenge the plan as racially discriminatory.

For your AP Government exam, remember the year of the case (1993), the main issue (whether racial considerations in redistricting, leading to oddly shaped electoral districts, violate the Equal Protection Clause), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that redistricting based primarily on race must be held to a standard of strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause). This case underscored the tension between preventing racial discrimination and avoiding racial segregation in voting practices.

To study Shaw v. Reno, focus on the background and political context of the case, understanding the balance between enhancing minority representation and avoiding racial segregation. Make flashcards detailing key concepts such as "racial gerrymandering," "Equal Protection Clause," and "strict scrutiny." Discuss with classmates the implications of this ruling on redistricting and minority representation in Congress to explore different viewpoints. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent legal standards and cases related to redistricting and race. Engaging with the material through different methods, such as case summaries, scholarly articles, and class discussions, will deepen your understanding of Shaw v. Reno's significance in American legal and political history.

U.S. v. Lopez (1995) marks a significant moment in Supreme Court history, primarily because it was the first case in decades where the Court limited the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause. The case began when Alfonso Lopez, a high school student, was charged under the Federal Gun-Free School Zones Act for carrying a concealed weapon into his Texas high school. Lopez argued that the federal law, which banned guns in school zones, exceeded Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, which allows Congress to regulate interstate commerce.

For your AP Government exam, important details to remember include the year of the decision (1995), the central legal question (whether the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 exceeded Congress's power under the Commerce Clause), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lopez, stating that carrying a gun in a school zone did not significantly affect interstate commerce and therefore was beyond the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause). This case is critical for understanding the limits of federal power and the balance of authority between state and federal governments.

To study U.S. v. Lopez, start by understanding the background of the Commerce Clause and its previous interpretations by the Court. Create flashcards highlighting key legal terms and principles, such as "Commerce Clause," "federalism," and "Gun-Free School Zones Act." Discuss the implications of the ruling on federal regulatory powers and its impact on the balance between state and federal authority with classmates. Review how this decision has been referenced in subsequent cases to understand its lasting impact on federalism and congressional authority. Engaging with a variety of study materials and viewpoints will help you grasp the significance of U.S. v. Lopez and its place in American legal history.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010) is a pivotal Supreme Court case that marked a significant moment in the interpretation of the Second Amendment and the application of constitutional rights at the state level. The case arose after Otis McDonald, a resident of Chicago, challenged the city's stringent handgun ban, arguing that it violated his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. This case followed the landmark District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) decision, which had recognized an individual's right to own firearms under the Second Amendment but applied only to federal enclaves.

For your AP Government exam, it's crucial to remember the year of the decision (2010), the main legal question (whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms is incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, making it applicable to the states), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment does apply to the states, thereby extending the Heller decision's protections to include state and local governments). This case is vital for understanding the evolving interpretation of the Bill of Rights and the concept of "selective incorporation."

To study McDonald v. Chicago, focus on the legal background provided by the Heller decision and how McDonald sought to expand those rights to the state level. Make flashcards with key terms and concepts, such as "Second Amendment," "selective incorporation," and "Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Discuss the case's broader implications for gun control laws and individual rights with peers to explore different viewpoints. Review subsequent legal challenges and discussions surrounding gun rights and regulations to understand the decision's ongoing impact. By examining various resources and engaging in thoughtful discussion, you will deepen your understanding of McDonald v. Chicago's significance in American legal and social history/

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) is a landmark Supreme Court case that significantly changed campaign finance laws in the United States. The case arose when Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, was prevented from airing a film critical of Hillary Clinton close to the 2008 Democratic primaries due to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), which restricted "electioneering communications" by corporations and unions. Citizens United challenged these restrictions, arguing that they violated the First Amendment's free speech protections.

For your AP Government exam, essential facts to remember about this case include the year of the decision (2010), the main legal question (whether the BCRA's restrictions on corporate and union spending on electioneering communications violate the First Amendment), and the outcome (the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns, asserting that such spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment). This case is crucial for understanding the intersection of free speech, campaign finance, and political influence.

To study Citizens United v. FEC, start by understanding the background of campaign finance laws in the U.S. and how this decision changed them. Create flashcards with key terms and principles, such as "electioneering communications," "Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act," and "corporate speech." Discuss the implications of the ruling on political campaigns, electoral integrity, and public perception of democracy with classmates to explore different perspectives. Review how this decision has influenced subsequent elections and the creation of Super PACs to grasp its lasting impact. Engaging with the material through diverse methods and perspectives will help you better understand the significance of Citizens United v. FEC in American political and legal history.

As you gear up for your AP Government exam, remember that these 15 landmark Supreme Court cases are not just names and dates to memorize—they are the vibrant, living history of American democracy in action. Each case represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing journey toward justice, equality, and the balance of power. By studying these cases, you're not only preparing to ace your exam; you're gaining a deeper understanding of the principles that shape our nation and the rights we hold dear. So, take a deep breath, embrace the challenge, and dive into your studies with enthusiasm and curiosity. Remember, your effort now is not just for a grade—it's a step toward becoming an informed and engaged citizen. Good luck on your AP Government exam, and remember, we're rooting for you every step of the way!

Everything You Need to get a 5 on AP Physics C: Mechanics

This guide will explore a selection of our best AP Physics C: Mechanics exam tips and advice designed to assist you in achieving a coveted score of 5 on the AP Physics C: Mechanics exam. I will dissect these valuable tips and resources throughout this article, empowering you to approach your preparation with confidence and learn how to pass the AP Physics C: Mechanics exam. With the proper methods and the support of these AP Physics C test tips, attaining success in the AP Physics C: Mechanics exam is entirely attainable! Let's set you on the path to excellence and show you the best way to stu...

AP Exam Schedule 2024

It's officially that time of the year again - the AP Exam Schedule 2024 is out, and while it seems far away, NOW is the time to start planning. AP exams are a great way to get ahead of the college curve, but they can also be tough and require a lot of studying! As someone who has taken her fair share of AP exams, a word of advice... it's important to start studying early and keep reviewing small chunks of AP study guides throughout the school year.  Here are the 2024 AP Exam dates : 2024 AP Test Schedule | Week 1 Week 1 8 AM Local Time 12 PM Local Time Monday, May 6, 2024 AP United States ...

Everything You Need to get a 5 on AP Human Geography

Getting a 5 on the AP Human Geography exam can feel like an uphill mountain to climb, but with the right strategies, resources, and AP Human Geography exam tips it’s definitely possible! I took AP Human Geography not too long ago and got a 5! In this article, I’ll break down all my tips on how to pass the AP Human Geography exam, including tips for writing FRQs, understanding what human geography is all about, last-minute review resources, and some general tips! How hard is the AP human geography exam? Although many underclassmen take this to be their first AP class, the AP Human Geography exa...

• Key things to consider in effectively maneuvering the changing court system
• Practical tips you can use today
• How to virtually share evidence with key solutions from Thomson Reuters
• Lessons learned by Courts who are on the cutting-edge of technology advancements since the pandemic. 

• QUICK LINKS

Court Cases That Shaped Disability Services in Education

Court cases and summaries.

by Brian Rose, JD (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey)

1. Southeastern Community College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1979)

Summary:  The nursing school rejected the application of student who had a hearing impairment. The school believed that the student would be unable to satisfy the clinical requirements of program. The school was unwilling to allow the student to waive out of the clinical components of program or to assign an aid that would help her to communicate in a clinical setting. The Supreme Court determined that Section 504 did not require the College of Nursing to admit student. The Court's rationale was that 504 did not prohibit institutions from establishing physical qualifications for admission to the clinical program and that the accommodations requested by student amounted to "affirmative action" that was not required under 504. The Court defined "otherwise qualified" as person who can meet all of the program requirements in spite of "handicap".

Key Points:  Technical standards are permissible; the ruling begins to define "otherwise qualified"; it sets forth an analysis to determine what accommodations are reasonable (required) and what accommodations would impact the essential elements of a program (not required).

2. Pushkin v. Regents of the University of Colorado (10th Cir. 1981)

Summary : Pushkin was an M.D. with multiple sclerosis applying for a medical residency at the University of Colorado Psychiatry unit. He was denied admission. Those in the interview committee justified their decision to deny him admission, stating that (a) they were concerned how patients would react to Dr. Pushkin; (b) they felt Dr. Pushkin had not come to terms with his disability, and that this would affect his ability to treat patients; (c) Dr. Pushkin would not be able to handle the stress on the job on account of his condition; (d) and that Dr. Pushkin would require too much medical care to be able to satisfy the requirements of the job. The members of the admission1s committee gleaned all this from a 45-minute interview. Dr. Pushkin's therapist offered testimony stating his belief that Dr., Pushkin would be able to handle the stress of the job. Dr. Pushkin offered information on how he would handle his need for on-going medical treatment. The 10th Circuit found that the residency program had discriminated against Dr. Pushkin.

Key Points :  Pushkin makes clear that there must be an individualized inquiry into the circumstances of each individual and that broad stereotypes of the limitations of individuals with various disabilities are not properly the basis of a decision that someone is not "otherwise qualified". Typical applications in higher education involve students in clinical placements or teacher education programs. Pushkin teaches that we may not stereotype students with disabilities when deciding whether they are otherwise qualified for such programs, but rather consider how each individual student can or cannot meet program requirements.

3. Wynne v. Tufts University School of Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 932 F.2d 19 (1st Cir. 1992 and 1991 (en banc)

Summary : Wynne was a medical school student with a learning disability appealing his academic dismissal on the basis that Tufts had not properly accommodated his disability. Most critically, Wynne had wanted Tufts to refrain from using multiple-choice exams when testing him. Tufts refused this accommodation request. Initially the 1st Circuit was unwilling to accept Tufts's explanation as to why it would only use multiple-choice tests. The Court indicated that, while some deference was owed to an institution making academic judgments, such institutions nevertheless have a duty to seek out reasonable means of accommodating students with disabilities. The Court further indicated that to conscientiously carry out this duty, institutions should show that relevant officials considered reasonable means of accommodating a student, considered their feasibility and effect on the program, and came to a justifiable conclusion that providing such accommodations would result in lowering academic standards or substantially modifying the program in question. When the matter came back to the Court a second time, the Court accepted Tufts explanation that critical thinking skills were taught by use of multiple choice exams and therefore allowed the dismissal of Wynne to stand.

Key Points :  Wynne tells us what thought process an institution should go through before refusing to provide an accommodation on the basis that doing so would lower academic standards and /or substantially modify a program of study. In essence, an institution should show that (a) officials with relevant duties and experiences considered the accommodation request; (b) that they meaningfully considered the impact on the program and the availability of alternatives; and (c) that they reached a rational conclusion that accommodations could not be offered. Wynne Clarifies "otherwise qualified" to mean "can complete program requirements with or without reasonable accommodation".

4. Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Case Western Reserve University, 666 N.E.2d 1376 (Ohio Sup Ct. 1996)

Summary : A blind applicant to the CWRU Medical School was denied admission and filed suit under state disability law that used the same statutory language as the Section 504 regulations. The Court majority relied heavily upon an Association of American Medical College technical standard that medical school candidates must have an ability to "observe" in finding for the university on the basis that the student was not otherwise qualified. The majority opinion identified various tasks that the student would be unable to do such as insert an IV or directly observe an x-ray and make independent judgments. The majority ignored experiences of a blind medical school graduate (Hartman) who had attended the Temple University Medical School as not "probative". Dissenting opinion seemed to believe that reasonable accommodation existed given the experiences of Hartman at Temple.

Key Points : The fundamental question is how far one has to go to accommodate someone before the accommodation becomes "unreasonable". Both majority and dissenting opinions handle this issue poorly in our view. Hartman's experience at Temple was important, but not for reasons cited by the dissenters. Temple found it necessary to provide constant one-on-one assistance to Hartman, to exempt him from certain requirements and to do so at cost of help to other students. This amounts to a substantial change in the way in which the program is taught and the provision of personal aids that go above and beyond what relevant law requires. In that respect, if Temple's handling of Hartman is the only way that a student can complete the requirements, it is not reasonable to require this of an institution. The facts show what an example of "undue burden" might be. The decision also stands for the proposition that a school can require that its graduates be able to perform a full range of functions (i.e. to be generalists) and need not make an accommodation that exempts a student from certain pieces of a program that s/he cannot complete. For example, an arts school can require all graduates to complete "dance" even though they will not all necessarily have to dance to pursue their desired careers and even though students with mobility impairments may not be able to complete the requirement.

5. Guckenberger v. Boston University, 974 F. Supp. 106 (D. Mass. 1997)

Summary : A class action suit by students with learning disabilities was brought against Boston University alleging discrimination principally because BU would no longer approve course substitutions for a foreign language requirement for students with LD. Using analysis in Wynne, the court ultimately determined that, if BU could establish by such a "deliberative process" that allowing a substitute for a foreign language requirement would either lower academic standards or substantially alter the program of study, it could refuse to permit course substitutions for students with LD.

Key Points : The existence or merits of LD as a diagnosis were never called into question by BU or the court. Course substitutions are not per se required as an accommodation if the university can justify unwillingness to offer substitution through deliberative process outlined in Wynne.

6. Anderson v. University of Wisconsin, No. 87-2335. (7th Cir. 1988)

Summary : Anderson was an alcoholic law student who failed his first semester and was readmitted on 2 other occasions to try and complete his first year of law studies. Each time he was unable to complete his studies due to the return of difficulties related to alcoholism, including harassing behavior. When the law school denied Anderson readmission for a 4th time, he brought suit alleging discrimination and seeking reinstatement. The court refused to reinstate Anderson finding that the record had not established that he had overcome his alcoholism sufficiently to assume that he would be able to appropriate engage in the study of law.

Key Points : Individual inquiry is required, but when that inquiry shows that a student is unable to meet program requirements, schools may refuse to admit / readmit the student. Students who left the university due to behavioral problems associated with a disability can be required to demonstrate that they have been able to function without behavioral difficulties for a period of time before being readmitted.

7. Frank v. State of New York, 972 F. Supp. 130, (N.D.NY 1997)

Summary : Frank is one of a handful of federal court decisions where the court refused to accept into evidence medical testimony about "Multiple Chemical Sensitivity" (MCS), finding that such testimony did not meet federal evidentiary standards for reliability. Frank was an employment case, not a higher education case.

Key Points : DS offices sometimes tie themselves in knots trying to accommodate MCS. This case establishes that it is appropriate to call into question documentation of MCS and to refuse to provide accommodations on the basis that no disability has been established. MCS should be distinguished from cases where students have strong reactions to specifically identified allergens.

8. Sutton v. United Airlines Inc., No. 97-1943, (U.S. Sup Ct. 1999)

Summary : The plaintiffs were twins who both had poor vision when uncorrected by glasses. United Airlines refused to hire them as pilots given their poor uncorrected vision. The plaintiffs sued alleging discrimination on the basis of disability. The Supreme Court determined that plaintiffs did not have a "disability" and therefore were not entitled to invoke the protections of the ADA. The decision focused upon the definition of "disability" in the ADA. The Court determined that when assessing whether someone has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, mitigating measures (eyeglasses in this instance) must be considered. Given that plaintiffs' corrected vision (i.e. vision wearing glasses) was relatively normal, the Court determined that they were not substantially limited in seeing.

Key Points : Sutton invalidated guidance previously provided in ADA regulations that stated that mitigating measures should not be considered when assessing whether someone has a disability. A typical application in higher education might be that students with ADD who take Ritalin could be determined not to be substantially limited in learning and thus not entitled to accommodations, if, when on Ritalin, they function at, better than or near to "normal". Sutton possibly leaves open the question as to whether someone can be required to take their meds before they are eligible to be considered for accommodations.

9. PGA Tour Inc. v. Casey Martin, No.00-24 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2001)

Summary : A professional golfer with a mobility impairment sought the right to use a cart in PGA competitions as an accommodation to a mobility impairment. The court determined that it would not fundamentally alter the game of golf to allow Martin to use a cart in PGA competitions.

Key Points : ADA does not require institutions to provide accommodations that would "fundamentally" alter a program of study. Decided under Title III of the ADA, Martin nonetheless gives public and private higher education institutions a perspective on what the current Supreme Court might regard to be a "fundamental alteration". Specifically, the court wrote that a fundamental alteration is something that either changes such an essential aspect of the "game" that it makes it a different game, or something that not only accommodates the person with a disability, but gives him / her an advantage over others and thereby fundamentally alters the character of the competition. It is not yet clear whether Martin portends a broad or narrow view of what might be a fundamental alteration in higher education.

The Supreme Court is nearing the end of its term. Here are the cases it still has to decide.

Washington — The Supreme Court has wrapped up arguments for its current term and until around the end of June, it will be handing down opinions for the remaining cases, among them, over a dozen involving hot-button issues including abortion, guns, homelessness, Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan and the prosecution of former President Donald Trump.

This term, which began in October 2023, follows two in which the Supreme Court handed down consequential decisions unwinding the constitutional right to abortion and bringing to an end affirmative action in higher education. The justices kicked off this latest slate of cases with several involving administrative law and online speech. But it was a pair of disputes involving Trump that captured widespread attention and thrust the justices into the center of legal battles with high stakes for the former president as he mounts a bid to return to the White House.

The court has already decided one of the cases involving the presumptive Republican presidential nominee: whether Colorado could keep him off the 2024 ballot using a Civil War-era provision of the 14th Amendment. The high court ruled in March that states cannot disqualify Trump from holding the presidency under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and allowed him to stay on the ballot.

"It's the most consequential term of my lifetime," said Victoria Nourse, law professor at Georgetown University, "because they're covering a gambit of things from guns to abortion to presidential power."

Here are the most significant cases that the Supreme Court will decide in the coming weeks:

Presidential immunity for Trump

Trump v. United States

Argued April 25

The Supreme Court is considering whether a former president is entitled to sweeping immunity from criminal prosecution for allegedly official acts taken while in the White House. Trump has argued that he cannot be criminally charged for his alleged efforts to subvert the transfer of presidential power after the 2020 election.

The decision by the Supreme Court will impact special counsel Jack Smith's case against Trump in Washington, D.C., where the former president has pleaded not guilty to the four charges he is facing. But a ruling could also have consequences for two other cases involving Trump: One, also brought by Smith, in South Florida involving Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents; and a second brought by prosecutors in Fulton County, Georgia, related to Trump's alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election in the state. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

During arguments in April, the last of the term, the Supreme Court seemed likely to recognize that former presidents are entitled to some level of immunity from federal prosecution for acts undertaken while in the White House. But the justices expressed skepticism toward Trump's claim that he is absolutely immune from criminal prosecution.

FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories, LLC v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Argued March 26

Less than two years after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade , the issue of abortion returned to the high court. This case involves access to the widely used abortion pill mifepristone and whether the Food and Drug Administration acted unlawfully when it relaxed the rules for the drug's use in 2016 and 2021.

The challenge was brought by a group of anti-abortion rights doctors and medical associations who claimed the agency went too far when it made the changes that made mifepristone easier to obtain. 

During arguments, the justices seemed inclined to maintain access to the drug. Several expressed skepticism that the medical groups and physicians had the legal right to sue, a concept known as standing. If a majority of the court finds that the challengers do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, it would order the case to be dismissed.  

Moyle v. United States and Idaho v. United States

Argued April 24

This pair of cases involves the interplay between Idaho's near-total ban on abortion and a federal law that requires Medicare-participating hospitals to provide necessary stabilizing treatment to a mother whose health is at serious risk.

The Biden administration has argued that in certain circumstances, that stabilizing treatment will be abortion care. But Idaho lawmakers have said that the administration is using the law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, to invalidate state abortion restrictions enacted after Roe's reversal.

The justices appeared divided during arguments over whether federal law requires physicians in states with stringent abortion bans to offer pregnancy terminations in certain medical emergencies.

Social media and the First Amendment

Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, and NetChoice, LLC, v. Paxton

Argued Feb. 26

The two cases involve similar laws enacted in Florida and Texas that impose rules on social media companies and their content-moderation policies. Enacted in 2021, the Florida and Texas laws came in response to claims by Republicans that social media companies were silencing conservative viewpoints. 

At issue in the challenges, brought by Internet trade associations, is whether the states' restrictions on the social media companies violate the First Amendment. The justices heard arguments in February, during which they seemed skeptical that the Constitution allows states to regulate how the companies make decisions about the content posted to their platforms.

Murthy v. Missouri

Argued March 18

In another clash involving the First Amendment and social media, the Supreme Court weighed whether the Biden administration violated the free speech rights of a group of social media users when it pressured platforms to remove content it believed spread misinformation about the 2020 election and COVID-19 pandemic.

The dispute tests how far federal officials can go to push platforms to take down or suppress posts before crossing a constitutional line. When the justices heard the case in March, several appeared wary of curtailing the administration's contacts with platforms and raised concerns about hampering officials' ability to communicate with social media companies about certain issues.

The regulatory power of federal agencies

Loper Bright Enterprises, Inc. v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

Argued Jan. 17

In a major challenge to the power of federal agencies, these two cases call on the Supreme Court to overrule its 1984 decision in Chevron v. National Resources Defense Council. That case laid out the framework, known as Chevron deference, that requires judges to defer to an agency's interpretation of ambiguous statutes if it is reasonable.

The 40-year-old decision has long been a target of the conservative legal movement, which has argued that it gives federal officials too much power in crafting regulations that affect areas like the environment, public health and the workplace.

The justices heard arguments in January, during which the court's conservative majority seemed open to curtailing agencies' ability to interpret laws passed by Congress.

Garland v. Cargill

Argued Feb. 28

A ban on bump stocks implemented during the Trump administration is at the center of this dispute, brought by a Texas man who was forced to surrender his devices to comply with the restriction. The case does not involve the Second Amendment, but rather whether the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives could outlaw bump stocks.

Bump stocks are attachments to semi-automatic rifles that speed up their rate of fire. Following the 2017 mass shooting at a music festival in Las Vegas, where the shooter used semi-automatic weapons outfitted with bump stocks, ATF issued a rule finding that a rifle equipped with the device qualifies as a machine gun, as defined under federal law. Machine guns have been largely banned since 1986.

The justices heard arguments in the case in February and grappled with whether to leave the ban on bump stocks in place.

Obstruction charge for Jan. 6 defendants

Fischer v. U.S.

Argued April 16

More than 1,300 people have been charged in connection with the Jan. 6, 2021, assault on the U.S. Capitol, and of those, more than 350 are accused of violating a federal law that makes it a crime to "corruptly" obstruct or impede an official proceeding. 

But the Justice Department's use of that law is now under scrutiny from the Supreme Court, which is considering whether federal prosecutors can apply the obstruction law, passed in the wake of the Enron scandal, to the Jan. 6 attack.

The outcome of the case could affect the Jan. 6 defendants who have already been convicted of the obstruction offense or pleaded guilty, as a decision rejecting prosecutors' broad reading of the measure could lead to new trials or lighter sentences. The ruling could also impact the federal prosecution of Trump in Washington, D.C., as he is charged with one count of obstructing an official proceeding — Congress' counting of Electoral College votes — and one count of conspiring to obstruct the proceeding, as well as two other charges. 

Trump has pleaded not guilty to all four counts. 

During arguments in April, the court appeared divided over prosecutors' use of the obstruction statute. 

Funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Community Financial Services Association

Argued Oct. 3

On the second day of the term, the Supreme Court heard a case challenging the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's funding mechanism.

The question in the legal battle is whether the way in which the CFPB receives its funding violates the Constitution's Appropriations Clause. The dispute is one of several that has been brought since the CFPB's creation in 2010 that has sought to weaken the agency.

But during the arguments, several of the justices expressed skepticism that the CFPB's funding mechanism is unconstitutional.

Federal firearms prohibition for alleged domestic abusers

United States v. Rahimi

Argued Nov. 7

This case presented the Supreme Court with its first opportunity to clarify its June 2022 decision that expanded the scope of the Second Amendment. In that ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices laid out a new standard which says gun laws must fit with the nation's history and tradition of firearms regulation to pass constitutional muster. To demonstrate that, the government must put forth laws that are analogous to the modern-day measure at issue.

This dispute involves a 1994 law that prohibits people subject to domestic violence restraining orders from having guns. A federal appeals court struck down the 30-year-old law under the Supreme Court's new test, and the justices considered whether the prohibition violates the Second Amendment.

The justices appeared inclined to leave in place the law stripping alleged domestic abusers of their firearms, and several suggested that those deemed dangerous to society could be disarmed.

Racial gerrymandering

Alexander v. South Carolina Conference of the NAACP

Argued Oct. 11

At issue in this case are the lines of South Carolina's Congressional District 1, which a lower court struck down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The district, represented by GOP Rep. Nancy Mace, was redrawn after the 2020 Census to produce a safer Republican district. To achieve that goal, state GOP officials moved more than 30,000 Black voters from Congressional District 1 into a neighboring district. 

The Supreme Court weighed whether race or politics was the predominant factor during the mapmaking process, though the conservative justices appeared likely to leave the GOP-drawn lines intact .

Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy plan

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma

Argued Dec. 4

This court fight arose from a bankruptcy plan for Purdue Pharma , which shields the Sackler family from civil lawsuits stemming from the opioid crisis. The Sacklers owned and operated Purdue during the height of the opioid epidemic, and after Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2019, the family agreed to contribute $6 billion for abatement of the opioid crisis in exchange for the legal shield.

The bankruptcy plan was approved by 95% of victims, but several states, Canadian municipalities and a smaller group of individuals opposed it because of the protections for the Sacklers. The case involves whether those dissenters should be bound by the releases and therefore unable to pursue their own opioid-related lawsuits against the Sacklers, who never filed for bankruptcy protection.

The Justice Department objects to Purdue's bankruptcy plan and has argued that the so-called third party releases are not allowed under federal bankruptcy code.

Some of the justices during arguments raised concerns about the consequences of a decision unraveling Purdue's bankruptcy agreement, especially for victims and their family members who stand to benefit from it. Others, meanwhile, noted that the plan deprives the holdouts of the ability to hold the Sacklers accountable in civil court, and said the family is benefitting from bankruptcy protection without ever declaring bankruptcy.

A provision of Trump's tax reform package

Moore v. U.S.

Argued Dec. 5

This case involves a challenge to an obscure provision of Republicans' sweeping tax reform package signed into law by Trump in 2017. The mandatory repatriation tax is a one-time tax targeting U.S. taxpayers who hold shares of certain foreign corporations and requires them to pay a levy on their proportionate share of the company's earnings.

The tax was projected to generate roughly $340 billion in revenue over 10 years. A couple from Washington state challenged the tax as impermissible under the 16th Amendment, but the Supreme Court appeared likely to leave it in place .

EPA rule for addressing harmful smog

Ohio v. EPA; Kinder Morgan, Inc. v. EPA; America Forest and Paper Association v. EPA; and U.S. Steel Corp v. EPA

Argued Feb. 21

In these cases, which were heard together, the court is considering whether to halt an environmental rule from the Biden administration that aims to curb air pollution and address harmful smog that travels from certain states into others.

The dispute stems from a plan announced by the EPA in 2023 that established an emissions-control program for large industrial sources like power plants and factories in 23 states. The EPA said emissions from those facilities were contributing significantly to smog pollution in downwind states.

Three GOP-led states, energy companies and industry groups challenged the initiative, and the Supreme Court seemed likely to halt the "good neighbor" rule during arguments in February.

Anti-camping ordinances

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson

Argued April 22

Arising out of an Oregon city's ordinances banning public camping, the case raises whether it's a violation of the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment to punish homeless people with civil citations for camping on public property when they have nowhere else to go.

The dispute is the most significant involving homelessness to come before the Supreme Court in decades, and the outcome could impact how cities and states respond to high rates of homelessness as encampments pop up on public property.

The justices weighed the constitutionality of anti-camping laws during arguments in April and appeared divided over whether the city of Grants Pass went too far with its rules.

• THE WEEK TV
• ENTERTAINMENT
• WEB STORIES
• JOBS & CAREER
• Home Home -->
• wire updates wire updates -->
• NATIONAL NATIONAL -->

JD S MLA H D Revanna granted bail in kidnap case by Bengaluru court

Bengaluru, May 13 (PTI) A Special Court for Elected Representatives on Monday granted bail to JD(S) MLA H D Revanna in connection with a kidnap case. The 66-year-old former Minister was arrested by the Special Investigation Team (SIT) in an alleged case of abduction of a woman, linked to the allegations of sexual abuse of women by his son and Hassan MP Prajwal Revanna, on May 4. The special court judge Santhosh Gajanan Bhat heard the matter and granted conditional bail to Revanna. His three-day police custody ended on May 8, following which he was produced in the XVII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, which remanded him to seven days’ judicial custody, till May 14. The case was registered following a complaint by the woman's son, who alleged that his mother was sexually abused by Revanna's son Prajwal. The woman was allegedly abducted to prevent her from testifying against Prajwal, police sources have said. The SIT has also secured the custody of Revanna's confidant Sathish Babanna in connection with the case. The SIT arrested Babanna on May 3 and subsequently rescued the woman allegedly from a farmhouse in Mysuru’s Hunsur taluk on May 4, hours before the arrest of Revanna from his father and former PM H D Deve Gowda's residence in Bengaluru’s Padmanabhanagar. While Revanna engaged senior counsel C V Nagesh for his bail plea, Special Public Prosecutor Jaina Kothari and Additional Public Prosecutor Ashok Naik argued on behalf of SIT. Nagesh claimed that there is a political conspiracy behind Revanna’s arrest and the victim has recently said in a video that she has not been abducted by Revanna or his family. Kothari and Naik countered it by saying, SIT recorded statements both under CrPC sections 161 (examination of witnesses by police) and 164 (statements recorded by Magistrate) and the victim has given a statement against Revanna. The SIT advocates also argued that the bail application was moved when the accused was already in custody and hence the matter is not maintainable. However, the Judge differed with this argument and said “.....you please argue on the merit of the case.” Nagesh further added that the victim’s son lodged the complaint saying his mother had not come home and he also mentioned that she had gone with the known individual on a motorbike. “How is it interpreted as kidnap? It is not a case of kidnap."     Naik said that the victim and her family have been threatened by the accused and the victim needs police protection.     After a brief adjournment, Nagesh argued that the sections invoked by SIT are invalid and cited a few previous court verdicts on kidnapping cases. Nagesh said, "SIT has not furnished a single evidence against my client to establish that he abducted the victim. There is no demand for money or valuables or any sort of force against the victim. 364A (Kidnapping for ransom) cannot be invoked in this case." He further added that cases against Prajwal Revanna have got nothing to do with Revanna and he requested to grant his client Revanna immediate bail relief. He also targeted the SIT counsels and asked "Why two special public prosecutors appearing for bail objection?" However, Kothari clarified that they aren't repeating the argument and one is adding to the other argument. Later, Kothari requested the court to make further submission to counter Nagesh's argument. But, Nagesh objected to this saying, "If SIT gets another round of argument, I should also be given an opportunity to counter it." Kothari pointed out that there is some misinformation in Nagesh's argument. "Victim is not a relative of H D Revanna as stated by CV Nagesh and 161 statements before the Investigation Officer have been recorded on May 5th and not later." To this, Judge Bhat said, "161 and 164 statements are furnished before the court in both remand applications." SIT sought time to furnish written documents related to this, but was turned down by the Judge and he reserved the order at 5 pm on Monday and granted bail to Revanna. The 33-year-old JD(S) MP Prajwal Revanna, who is grandson of JD(S) patriarch Deve Gowda, is facing charges of multiple instances of sexually abusing women. The scandal has raised a political storm with the ruling Congress and BJP-JD(S) engaged in a slugfest. Prajwal Revanna reportedly left the country on April 27, a day after the first phase of Lok Sabha polls in Karnataka was held, and an Interpol Blue Corner Notice has been issued against him in an effort to bring him back.     He was BJP-JD(S) alliance's joint candidate from Hassan Lok Sabha segment, which went to polls in the first phase.     While the Congress government has formed a SIT to probe the cases, the BJP and JD(S) -- NDA partners -- have demanded that it be handed over to the CBI, and action against those behind the circulation of explicit videos.

(This story has not been edited by THE WEEK and is auto-generated from PTI)

Don't play with self-respect and dignity of Bengal's women, Mamata tells Modi

ICC T20 World Cup 2024 squads: Full list of players, reserves of all participants

Mob attacks Kannada actor Chetan Chandra; he says he was assaulted 'without mercy'

Zomato posts Q4 consolidated net profit at Rs 175 crore

Algorithms help people see and correct their biases, study shows