Landmark Supreme Court Cases

Why This Matters

These ten cases aren't just historical footnotes—they're the foundation of how American government actually works. You're being tested on your ability to understand how the Supreme Court has shaped the balance of power between federal and state governments, individual rights and government authority, and the ongoing struggle for civil rights and equality. Each case represents a pivotal moment when the Court either expanded or restricted constitutional protections, and understanding the reasoning behind these decisions is essential for analyzing modern political debates.

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 these decisions remain politically relevant today. The most effective exam responses connect specific rulings to broader themes of judicial power, federalism, due process, and equal protection—concepts that appear repeatedly in FRQs and multiple-choice questions.

---

Establishing Judicial Authority

The Court's power to interpret the Constitution and check the other branches wasn't explicitly written into the document—it was claimed through strategic rulings that defined the judiciary's role in American government.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

• Judicial review—the power of courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution—was established here, making this the foundation of all Supreme Court authority
• Chief Justice John Marshall strategically avoided a direct confrontation with President Jefferson while permanently expanding judicial power
• Constitutional interpretation became the Court's primary function, setting precedent for every landmark case that followed

United States v. Nixon (1974)

• Executive privilege exists but is not absolute—the Court ruled unanimously that the president must comply with subpoenas in criminal investigations
• "No person is above the law" became the defining principle, forcing Nixon to release Watergate tapes that led to his resignation
• Separation of powers was reinforced by demonstrating that the judiciary can check presidential authority even in matters of national security

---

Federalism and National Power

The balance between federal and state authority has been contested since the Constitution's ratification. These cases defined when national law trumps state action.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

• Implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause allow Congress to take actions not explicitly listed in the Constitution, like creating a national bank
• Federal supremacy prevents states from taxing or interfering with legitimate federal institutions—"the power to tax is the power to destroy"
• Broad constitutional interpretation established that the Constitution should be read flexibly to meet national needs, not strictly limited to enumerated powers

---

The Long Arc of Civil Rights

The Court's record on racial equality reveals both its potential to advance justice and its capacity to entrench discrimination. These cases must be understood as a conversation across time, with later rulings directly responding to earlier failures.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

• Denied citizenship to all African Americans, ruling that Black people "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect"
• Missouri Compromise struck down as unconstitutional, accelerating sectional conflict toward the Civil War
• Judicial limitations exposed—the ruling demonstrated how the Court can entrench injustice when it reflects rather than challenges prevailing prejudices

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

• "Separate but equal" doctrine legitimized Jim Crow segregation laws, ruling that racial separation didn't violate the Fourteenth Amendment
• Equal Protection Clause narrowly interpreted to allow states to mandate racial segregation in public facilities
• Justice Harlan's dissent famously declared "our Constitution is color-blind"—language that would later support overturning this precedent

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

• Overturned Plessy, unanimously ruling that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal"
• Equal Protection Clause was reinterpreted to prohibit state-mandated segregation in public schools
• Chief Justice Earl Warren secured a unanimous decision to strengthen the ruling's moral and legal authority during a volatile period

---

Rights of the Accused

The Warren Court dramatically expanded protections for criminal defendants, ruling that the Bill of Rights applies to state proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

• Right to counsel guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment applies to state courts, not just federal proceedings
• Indigent defendants must be provided attorneys at state expense if they cannot afford one
• Incorporation doctrine expanded—this case applied another Bill of Rights protection to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

• Miranda warnings required before custodial interrogation: right to remain silent, right to an attorney, statements can be used against you
• Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination extended to police questioning, not just courtroom testimony
• Procedural safeguards established to prevent coerced confessions and protect suspects who may not know their rights

---

Privacy and Personal Liberty

The Court has recognized unenumerated rights—protections not explicitly listed in the Constitution—by interpreting the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Constitutional right to privacy extended to a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy, derived from the due process clause
• Trimester framework established varying levels of state interest as pregnancy progressed—later modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
• Substantive due process used to protect fundamental liberties not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

• Same-sex marriage legalized nationwide, ruling that state bans violated both due process and equal protection
• Fundamental right to marry affirmed as protected liberty that cannot be denied based on sexual orientation
• Fourteenth Amendment interpreted to require states to both license and recognize same-sex marriages from other states

---

Quick Reference Table

---

Self-Check Questions

1. Which two cases best illustrate the Supreme Court's power to check the other branches of government, and what distinguishes how each case exercised that power?

2. How does Brown v. Board of Education demonstrate that constitutional interpretation can change over time? What specific precedent did it overturn, and on what grounds?

3. Compare Gideon v. Wainwright and Miranda v. Arizona: which amendment does each case interpret, and what common principle of criminal justice do they both advance?

4. If an FRQ asked you to explain how the Court has used the Fourteenth Amendment to expand individual rights, which three cases would provide the strongest examples and why?

5. Contrast the Court's reasoning in Dred Scott v. Sandford with its reasoning in Obergefell v. Hodges: how do these cases reveal different approaches to interpreting who is entitled to constitutional protection?