Landmark Legal Decisions

Why This Matters

These cases aren't just historical footnotes—they're the building blocks of how courts interact with society today. You're being tested on your understanding of judicial review, constitutional interpretation, civil rights expansion, and the balance of power between branches of government. Each decision represents a moment when the Supreme Court either expanded or contracted individual rights, redefined federalism, or checked another branch's authority.

Don't just memorize case names and dates. Know what constitutional principle each case established, how later cases built upon or overturned earlier precedents, and why the Court's reasoning mattered for American society. When you see a case on an exam, ask yourself: What power did this case define? Whose rights did it affect? What precedent did it set or overturn?

---

Establishing Judicial Authority

The foundation of the Court's power rests on its ability to interpret the Constitution and check the other branches. Without judicial review, the Supreme Court would lack the teeth to enforce constitutional limits.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Established judicial review—the Supreme Court's power to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, making the judiciary a true check on legislative power
• Asserted co-equal branch status by positioning the Court as the final arbiter of constitutional meaning, not Congress or the President
• Created the foundation for every subsequent case where the Court invalidates government action; without Marbury, none of the other cases on this list would have the same force

United States v. Nixon (1974)

• Affirmed that no one is above the law—not even the President, establishing that executive privilege has constitutional limits
• Required release of Watergate tapes, directly leading to Nixon's resignation and demonstrating the Court's power to check executive overreach
• Strengthened separation of powers by proving the judiciary could compel a sitting President to comply with legal process

---

Defining Civil Rights and Equality

The Court's interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause has shaped American society more than almost any other constitutional provision. These cases show how judicial interpretation can either entrench discrimination or dismantle it.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

• Denied citizenship to African Americans—ruling that neither free nor enslaved Black people could be U.S. citizens or sue in federal court
• Struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional, declaring Congress had no power to prohibit slavery in territories
• Accelerated the path to Civil War by inflaming sectional tensions; widely considered the Court's worst decision and a cautionary tale about judicial overreach

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• Established "separate but equal" doctrine—upholding state-mandated racial segregation as constitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment
• Legitimized Jim Crow laws for nearly sixty years, enabling systematic discrimination in schools, transportation, and public accommodations
• Demonstrated judicial deference to states on matters of race, showing how the Court can entrench rather than challenge inequality

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson—declaring that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal" and violate the Equal Protection Clause
• Catalyzed the Civil Rights Movement by providing legal foundation for desegregation efforts across all public institutions
• Demonstrated judicial evolution on constitutional interpretation; the same Fourteenth Amendment text produced opposite outcomes fifty-eight years apart

---

Protecting Criminal Defendants' Rights

The Warren Court dramatically expanded protections for individuals accused of crimes, applying Bill of Rights guarantees to state proceedings through incorporation doctrine. These cases ensure fair treatment within the criminal justice system.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Guaranteed right to counsel—ruling the Sixth Amendment requires states to provide attorneys for defendants who cannot afford one
• Applied incorporation doctrine to extend federal constitutional protections to state criminal proceedings
• Transformed criminal justice by creating the public defender system; before Gideon, indigent defendants often faced trial alone

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Created Miranda warnings—requiring police to inform suspects of their right to remain silent and right to an attorney before custodial interrogation
• Protected Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination by ensuring confessions are truly voluntary
• Established procedural safeguards that remain standard police practice today; "You have the right to remain silent" exists because of this case

---

Privacy and Individual Autonomy

The Court has recognized certain unenumerated rights—those not explicitly stated in the Constitution—as protected under the concept of substantive due process. These cases are among the most contested because they involve judicial interpretation of implied constitutional rights.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Recognized constitutional right to privacy extending to a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy, grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause
• Established trimester framework for balancing state interests against individual rights, later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) and overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson (2022)
• Sparked ongoing constitutional debate about unenumerated rights, judicial activism, and the limits of privacy doctrine

---

Courts and Political Power

When the Court enters explicitly political disputes, it risks its legitimacy while also serving as a check on democratic processes. These cases raise fundamental questions about the judiciary's proper role in a democracy.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

• Resolved the 2000 presidential election—halting Florida's recount and effectively awarding the presidency to George W. Bush
• Applied Equal Protection Clause to voting procedures, ruling that inconsistent recount standards violated constitutional guarantees
• Raised legitimacy concerns about judicial involvement in political disputes; the Court stated its ruling applied only to this case, limiting its precedential value

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

• Extended First Amendment protections to corporate political spending, ruling that limiting independent expenditures violates free speech
• Struck down campaign finance restrictions on corporations and unions, dramatically increasing money in politics
• Redefined "speech" to include spending, sparking ongoing debates about corporate personhood and democratic integrity

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two cases both established the Supreme Court's authority to check another branch of government, and which branch did each case check?

2. Compare Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education: How did the Court interpret the same constitutional amendment differently, and what does this reveal about stare decisis?

3. Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona both expanded criminal defendants' rights. Which specific amendment does each case interpret, and at what stage of the criminal process does each protection apply?

4. FRQ-style: Explain how Roe v. Wade differs from Miranda v. Arizona in terms of the type of constitutional right each case recognized (enumerated vs. unenumerated). Why does this distinction matter for debates about judicial interpretation?

5. Identify two cases where the Supreme Court's intervention in political matters raised concerns about judicial legitimacy. What distinguishes how each case affected democratic processes?