![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ten Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Decisions
Jul. 2nd, 2005 11:52 amHere's what was on the Ten Landmarks website at CNN, for the law-geeky amongst us :)
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857
In an opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the court held that blacks could not become citizens of the United States and that slave owners had the right to take their slaves into U.S. territories. The decision added to the North-South animosity that led to the Civil War.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886
In a case involving a Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco, the court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "is not confined to the protection of citizens," but instead its protections "are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.." This provided a basis for Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s and 1980s that states had to provide education and other benefits to illegal aliens.
Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. II, 1895
Responding to declining tariff revenues and Populist pressure for taxing the wealthy, Congress imposed a two- percent income tax in 1894. The court ruled the tax unconstitutional, leading to a popular backlash and ratification of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which authorized an income tax.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
The court upheld a Louisiana law requiring racial segregation on trains. The justices said the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color" or to enforce "a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either."
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937
After years of ruling against government regulation of wages and working conditions, the court, led by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, reversed itself and sustained Washington state's minimum wage law. Coming in the middle of congressional debate over President Roosevelt's "court-packing" proposal to add pro-regulation justices to the high court, the decision helped undermine support for the plan.
U.S. v. Carolene Products, 1938
In the famous "footnote four," Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone began a constitutional revolution by declaring that the court would apply a minimal "rational basis" test to review economic regulations, but would apply a "more exacting judicial scrutiny" to laws which impinged on freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, or which targeted religious or ethnic minorities. This ultimately led to the court using a "strict scrutiny" test to strike down such state laws as English literacy requirements for voting.
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
The court discarded the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roe v. Wade, 1973
The court held that state laws that prohibit abortions except to save the life of the mother were unconstitutional because they violated a right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. "This right of privacy.is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy," declared Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
The court upheld the University of Michigan's use of racial and ethnic preferences to increase the numbers of black, Latino and Native American applicants admitted to its law school. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time" and predicted that "25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003
The court struck down state anti-sodomy laws, deeming them a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said decisions relating to marriage, procreation, and child rearing are constitutionally protected and "persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."
Dred Scott v. Sanford, 1857
In an opinion by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the court held that blacks could not become citizens of the United States and that slave owners had the right to take their slaves into U.S. territories. The decision added to the North-South animosity that led to the Civil War.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886
In a case involving a Chinese laundry owner in San Francisco, the court ruled that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "is not confined to the protection of citizens," but instead its protections "are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality.." This provided a basis for Supreme Court rulings in the 1970s and 1980s that states had to provide education and other benefits to illegal aliens.
Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co. II, 1895
Responding to declining tariff revenues and Populist pressure for taxing the wealthy, Congress imposed a two- percent income tax in 1894. The court ruled the tax unconstitutional, leading to a popular backlash and ratification of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, which authorized an income tax.
Plessy v. Ferguson, 1896
The court upheld a Louisiana law requiring racial segregation on trains. The justices said the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment "could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color" or to enforce "a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either."
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, 1937
After years of ruling against government regulation of wages and working conditions, the court, led by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, reversed itself and sustained Washington state's minimum wage law. Coming in the middle of congressional debate over President Roosevelt's "court-packing" proposal to add pro-regulation justices to the high court, the decision helped undermine support for the plan.
U.S. v. Carolene Products, 1938
In the famous "footnote four," Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone began a constitutional revolution by declaring that the court would apply a minimal "rational basis" test to review economic regulations, but would apply a "more exacting judicial scrutiny" to laws which impinged on freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights, or which targeted religious or ethnic minorities. This ultimately led to the court using a "strict scrutiny" test to strike down such state laws as English literacy requirements for voting.
Brown v. Board of Education, 1954
The court discarded the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson and declared that racial segregation in public schools violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Roe v. Wade, 1973
The court held that state laws that prohibit abortions except to save the life of the mother were unconstitutional because they violated a right to privacy protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. "This right of privacy.is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy," declared Justice Harry Blackmun, writing for the majority.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003
The court upheld the University of Michigan's use of racial and ethnic preferences to increase the numbers of black, Latino and Native American applicants admitted to its law school. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing for the majority, held that "race-conscious admissions policies must be limited in time" and predicted that "25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary."
Lawrence v. Texas, 2003
The court struck down state anti-sodomy laws, deeming them a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy said decisions relating to marriage, procreation, and child rearing are constitutionally protected and "persons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do."
