Landmark Supreme Court Cases

How the Supreme Court Decides Cases

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the federal system. Article III gives it original jurisdiction in a small number of cases, such as those in which a state is a party, and appellate jurisdiction over most other federal cases. Nearly all of its cases arrive on appeal from lower federal courts or state supreme courts.

Writ of certiorari

The order the Court issues when it agrees to hear a case. By custom, four of the nine justices must vote to grant it (the "rule of four"). The Court accepts only a small fraction of the thousands of petitions it receives each year.

Judicial review

The power to declare a law or government action unconstitutional, established in Marbury v. Madison (1803).

Majority opinion

The opinion that states the Court's decision and its reasoning. It becomes binding precedent.

Concurring opinion

An opinion by a justice who agrees with the result but writes separately, often for different reasons.

Dissenting opinion

An opinion by a justice who disagrees with the result. Dissents sometimes shape later decisions; Justice Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson is a famous example.

Precedent (stare decisis)

The practice of following earlier decisions in similar cases. The Court can overrule its own precedents, as Brown v. Board of Education did to Plessy.

Strict scrutiny

The most demanding test the Court uses. A law that classifies people by race or burdens a fundamental right must serve a compelling government interest and be narrowly tailored to that interest.

The 26 Cases at a Glance

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

4–0 · Chief Justice John Marshall · Judicial power

Facts

In his final days in office, President John Adams appointed dozens of Federalist judges and officials, the so-called "midnight judges." William Marbury was named a justice of the peace for the District of Columbia, but his signed commission was never delivered. The new president, Thomas Jefferson, told Secretary of State James Madison to withhold it. Marbury asked the Supreme Court directly for a writ of mandamus (a court order) forcing Madison to deliver it, relying on Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789.

Question

Was Marbury entitled to his commission, and did the Supreme Court have the power to order its delivery?

Holding

Marbury had a legal right to the commission, but the Court could not order its delivery. Section 13 of the Judiciary Act tried to add to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction beyond what Article III allows, so that part of the act was unconstitutional and void.

Significance

It established judicial review: the power of courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution. Judicial review made the judiciary a co-equal branch and is a central check on Congress and the president. Marshall gave up a small power, ordering the commission's delivery, to establish a much larger one.

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

Chief Justice John Marshall, majority opinion

Full case page: Marbury v. Madison →

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

7–0 · Chief Justice John Marshall · Federalism and national power

Facts

Congress chartered the Second Bank of the United States in 1816. Maryland passed a tax on banks not chartered by the state, which in practice targeted the national bank's Baltimore branch. James McCulloch, the branch's cashier, refused to pay.

Question

Did Congress have the power to create a national bank, and could a state tax it?

Holding

Yes, Congress could create the bank, and no, Maryland could not tax it. The Constitution does not list a power to charter a bank, but the Necessary and Proper Clause gives Congress implied powers to carry out its enumerated powers (taxing, borrowing, regulating commerce, supporting armies). Under the Supremacy Clause, states may not interfere with legitimate federal operations.

Significance

It greatly expanded federal power through implied powers and confirmed national supremacy over the states. It remains the foundation for broad readings of congressional power.

the power to tax involves the power to destroy

Chief Justice John Marshall, majority opinion

Full case page: McCulloch v. Maryland →

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

7–2 · Chief Justice Roger B. Taney · Slavery and citizenship

Facts

Dred Scott was enslaved by an army surgeon, John Emerson, who took him to live for years in the free state of Illinois and in the Wisconsin Territory, where the Missouri Compromise banned slavery. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued for his freedom, arguing that residence on free soil had made him free.

Question

Could an enslaved person, or any person of African descent, be a U.S. citizen able to sue in federal court? Could Congress ban slavery in the territories?

Holding

The Court ruled that people of African descent, whether enslaved or free, were not citizens and could not sue in federal court. It also held that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, so the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. Taking away enslavers' "property" without due process violated the Fifth Amendment.

Significance

It is widely considered the worst decision in the Court's history. It was only the second time the Court struck down a federal law. Rather than settling the slavery question, it inflamed sectional conflict and helped bring on the Civil War. The 13th Amendment (abolishing slavery) and the 14th Amendment (birthright citizenship) overturned it.

Full case page: Dred Scott v. Sandford →

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

7–1 · Justice Henry Billings Brown (majority); Justice John Marshall Harlan (dissent) · Equal protection

Facts

Louisiana's Separate Car Act of 1890 required railroads to provide "equal but separate" cars for white and Black passengers. In 1892, in a planned challenge organized by a New Orleans civil rights group, Homer Plessy, a man of mixed race, sat in a car reserved for white passengers, refused to move, and was arrested. Judge John H. Ferguson upheld the law.

Question

Does a state law requiring racially separate but equal facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment?

Holding

No. The Court upheld the law, reasoning that the 14th Amendment required legal equality but not social equality. Separation, the Court said, did not imply that one race was inferior. This became the "separate but equal" doctrine.

Significance

It gave constitutional approval to Jim Crow segregation in schools, transportation, and public facilities for more than half a century. In reality, facilities were rarely equal. Brown v. Board of Education (1954) overturned it for public education.

Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, dissenting

Full case page: Plessy v. Ferguson →

Schenck v. United States (1919)

9–0 · Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. · Freedom of speech

Facts

During World War I, Charles Schenck, general secretary of the Socialist Party in Philadelphia, mailed thousands of leaflets to men who had been drafted, urging them to resist the draft, which the leaflets called a form of involuntary servitude. He was convicted under the Espionage Act of 1917.

Question

Did Schenck's conviction for distributing anti-draft leaflets violate his First Amendment right to free speech?

Holding

No. The Court unanimously upheld the conviction. Speech can be punished when, in the circumstances, it creates a "clear and present danger" of bringing about serious harms that Congress has the right to prevent, especially in wartime.

Significance

It established that free speech is not absolute and created the "clear and present danger" test. The Court later narrowed the government's power to punish advocacy. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), it held that only speech directed to inciting imminent lawless action, and likely to produce it, may be punished. See limits on rights.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., majority opinion

Full case page: Schenck v. United States →

Korematsu v. United States (1944)

6–3 · Justice Hugo Black · Civil liberties in wartime

Facts

After Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 9066 (1942). Military orders under it removed about 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry, most of them U.S. citizens, from the West Coast and confined them in internment camps. Fred Korematsu, an American citizen born in California, refused to leave and was convicted.

Question

Did the exclusion order violate the constitutional rights of Japanese Americans?

Holding

No. The Court upheld the exclusion order as justified by "military necessity" during wartime. It said that classifications based on race are "immediately suspect" and subject to "the most rigid scrutiny," yet found this one acceptable.

Significance

It is now viewed as a grave injustice that sacrificed civil liberties to wartime fear. Korematsu's conviction was overturned in 1983. Congress apologized and paid reparations in the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. In Trump v. Hawaii (2018), the Court stated that Korematsu "was gravely wrong the day it was decided."

Full case page: Korematsu v. United States →

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

9–0 · Chief Justice Earl Warren · Equal protection

Facts

Linda Brown, a Black third-grader in Topeka, Kansas, had to travel to a distant segregated school instead of attending a nearby school for white children. Her father, Oliver Brown, and other parents sued. The Supreme Court combined her case with similar cases from South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. Thurgood Marshall of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund argued for the families.

Question

Does state-mandated racial segregation of public schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, even if the facilities are equal?

Holding

Yes. A unanimous Court held that segregated public schools are "inherently unequal" and violate the Equal Protection Clause, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson in public education. (A companion case, Bolling v. Sharpe, applied the same result to Washington, D.C., under the Fifth Amendment.)

Significance

It was a turning point for the civil rights movement. In Brown II (1955), the Court ordered desegregation "with all deliberate speed," but many states resisted. One result was the 1957 Little Rock crisis, when President Eisenhower sent federal troops. Brown paved the way for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, unanimous opinion

Full case page: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka →

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

6–3 · Justice Tom C. Clark · Rights of the accused

Facts

In 1957, Cleveland police came to Dollree Mapp's house looking for a bombing suspect. When she demanded a warrant, they forced their way in, waving a paper they claimed was a warrant (none was ever produced). They did not find the suspect, but they found allegedly obscene materials, and Mapp was convicted under Ohio law.

Question

May evidence obtained through an unconstitutional search be used in a state criminal trial?

Holding

No. The exclusionary rule, which says illegally obtained evidence cannot be used at trial, applies to the states through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The Court had applied the rule to federal courts in Weeks v. United States, 1914.)

Significance

It incorporated the exclusionary rule against the states and changed police practices nationwide, a key moment in the Warren Court's "due process revolution." Later cases created exceptions, such as the good-faith exception (1984).

Full case page: Mapp v. Ohio →

Baker v. Carr (1962)

6–2 · Justice William J. Brennan Jr. · Voting and representation

Facts

Tennessee had not redrawn its state legislative districts since 1901, even though population had shifted heavily to the cities. As a result, rural votes counted far more than urban votes. Charles Baker, a voter in Shelby County (Memphis), sued.

Question

Can federal courts hear cases challenging how state legislative districts are drawn, or is that a "political question" for legislatures alone?

Holding

Federal courts can hear such challenges. Malapportionment claims under the Equal Protection Clause are justiciable, meaning courts can decide them, rather than nonjusticiable political questions.

Significance

It opened the door to the "one person, one vote" principle. In Reynolds v. Sims (1964), the Court required state legislative districts to have roughly equal populations, and it applied a similar rule to congressional districts in Wesberry v. Sanders (1964). Legislatures nationwide had to redraw their maps. Chief Justice Earl Warren called Baker the most important case of his tenure.

Full case page: Baker v. Carr →

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

6–1 · Justice Hugo Black · Freedom of religion

Facts

The New York State Board of Regents wrote a short, nondenominational prayer and recommended that public schools have students recite it each morning: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our Country." Participation was voluntary. Parents in New Hyde Park, including Steven Engel, sued the school board, whose president was William Vitale.

Question

Does reciting an official, state-composed prayer in public schools violate the Establishment Clause, even when participation is voluntary and the prayer is nondenominational?

Holding

Yes. Government-written, government-sponsored prayer in public schools violates the Establishment Clause, applied to the states through the 14th Amendment. Making the prayer voluntary and nondenominational did not save it.

Significance

It began the modern line of school prayer cases. A year later, Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) struck down school-sponsored Bible reading. Students remain free to pray privately at school. What is forbidden is government-sponsored prayer.

it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

Justice Hugo Black, majority opinion

Full case page: Engel v. Vitale →

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

9–0 · Justice Hugo Black · Rights of the accused

Facts

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Panama City, Florida, with breaking into a pool hall, a felony. He could not afford a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one. Under Florida law, counsel was provided only in capital cases, so the judge refused. Gideon defended himself, was convicted, and was sentenced to five years. From prison, he sent the Supreme Court a handwritten petition.

Question

Does the Sixth Amendment right to counsel require states to provide lawyers to defendants in felony cases who cannot afford one?

Holding

Yes. The right to counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial, and it applies to the states through the 14th Amendment. The decision overruled Betts v. Brady (1942).

Significance

States created or expanded public defender systems. At his retrial, Gideon had a lawyer and was acquitted. Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972) later extended the right to any case that results in jail time.

lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.

Justice Hugo Black, majority opinion

Full case page: Gideon v. Wainwright →

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

5–4 · Chief Justice Earl Warren · Rights of the accused

Facts

In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix, Arizona, and questioned by police for about two hours. He confessed in writing to kidnapping and rape. He was never told that he had the right to remain silent or to have a lawyer. His confession was used to convict him. The Supreme Court combined his appeal with three similar cases.

Question

Must police inform suspects of their constitutional rights before custodial interrogation for their statements to be used at trial?

Holding

Yes. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires that, before questioning a person in custody, police must warn the suspect of the right to remain silent, that statements can be used against them, and of the right to an attorney (appointed if they cannot afford one). Statements obtained without these warnings cannot be used to prove guilt.

Significance

It created the familiar "Miranda warnings." Miranda was retried without the confession and convicted again on other evidence. The Court reaffirmed the rule in Dickerson v. United States (2000).

He must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.

Chief Justice Earl Warren, majority opinion

Full case page: Miranda v. Arizona →

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

7–2 · Justice Abe Fortas · Student speech

Facts

In December 1965, a group of students in Des Moines, Iowa, including Mary Beth Tinker (13), her brother John Tinker (15), and Christopher Eckhardt (16), planned to wear black armbands to school to mourn the dead of the Vietnam War and support a truce. Principals adopted a policy banning armbands. The students wore them anyway, were suspended, and sued.

Question

Does a ban on wearing armbands in public school as a form of symbolic protest violate students' First Amendment freedom of speech?

Holding

Yes. Students' quiet, passive wearing of armbands was protected symbolic speech. Schools may restrict student expression only if it would "materially and substantially" disrupt school activities or invade the rights of others. A mere fear of disturbance is not enough.

Significance

It is the leading case on student speech rights and created the "substantial disruption" test. Later cases allowed more limits. Bethel v. Fraser (1986) concerned lewd speech, Hazelwood (1988) school-sponsored newspapers, and Morse v. Frederick (2007) speech promoting illegal drug use.

It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.

Justice Abe Fortas, majority opinion

Full case page: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District →

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

6–3 · Per curiam (unsigned) opinion · Freedom of the press

Facts

Daniel Ellsberg, a former military analyst, leaked the "Pentagon Papers," a secret Defense Department history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the New York Times and the Washington Post. The Nixon administration sought court orders stopping publication, arguing that it would harm national security.

Question

Could the government prevent newspapers from publishing classified information, a form of "prior restraint," in the name of national security?

Holding

No. Any prior restraint on expression comes to the Court with "a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity." The government failed to meet its heavy burden of justifying the restraint, so the newspapers could publish.

Significance

It strongly reinforced the rule against prior restraint, that government generally may not censor the press in advance, which goes back to Near v. Minnesota (1931). It is a landmark of press freedom and government accountability.

Full case page: New York Times Co. v. United States →

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

Chief Justice Warren E. Burger · Freedom of religion

Facts

Wisconsin required children to attend school until age 16. Amish parents, including Jonas Yoder, refused to send their children to high school after eighth grade. They believed that high school would expose their children to worldly values contrary to their faith and way of life. They were convicted and fined $5 each.

Question

Does a state's compulsory education law violate the Free Exercise rights of Amish parents who object to high school on religious grounds?

Holding

Yes. The state's interest in universal education did not outweigh the Amish parents' free exercise of religion and their traditional interest in their children's religious upbringing. Amish children could not be required to attend school past the eighth grade.

Significance

It strengthened protection for religious practice against generally applicable laws and recognized parents' rights in their children's upbringing. Later, Employment Division v. Smith (1990) narrowed free exercise exemptions, and Congress responded with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (1993).

Full case page: Wisconsin v. Yoder →

Roe v. Wade (1973)

7–2 · Justice Harry Blackmun · Privacy and due process

Facts

A Texas law made it a crime to perform an abortion except to save the mother's life. Norma McCorvey, using the pseudonym "Jane Roe," sued Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, arguing that the law violated her constitutional rights.

Question

Does the Constitution protect a woman's right to choose to have an abortion?

Holding

Yes, the Court held at the time. It ruled that the right of privacy, found in the 14th Amendment's concept of personal liberty, included a woman's decision whether to end a pregnancy. States could regulate abortion under a trimester framework, with more regulation allowed as pregnancy advanced.

Significance

It limited state abortion laws nationwide for nearly 50 years and became one of the most debated decisions in American history. Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) replaced the trimester framework with an "undue burden" standard. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), the Court overruled Roe and Casey, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion and returning the issue to the people and their elected representatives.

Full case page: Roe v. Wade →

United States v. Nixon (1974)

8–0 · Chief Justice Warren E. Burger · Separation of powers

Facts

During the investigation of the 1972 break-in at Democratic headquarters in the Watergate complex, special prosecutor Leon Jaworski subpoenaed tape recordings of President Richard Nixon's White House conversations for use in the criminal trial of his aides. Nixon refused, claiming executive privilege, the president's right to keep internal communications confidential.

Question

Is the president's executive privilege absolute, so that he can withhold evidence needed in a criminal trial?

Holding

No. The Court recognized that executive privilege exists but held that it is not absolute. A generalized claim of confidentiality must yield to the demonstrated need for evidence in a criminal trial. Nixon had to turn over the tapes. (Justice William Rehnquist did not participate.)

Significance

The tapes revealed Nixon's role in the cover-up. Facing likely impeachment, he resigned in August 1974, the only president ever to do so. The case stands for the principle that no one, not even the president, is above the law.

Full case page: United States v. Nixon →

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

5–4 · Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. (controlling opinion) · Equal protection and affirmative action

Facts

The medical school at the University of California, Davis, reserved 16 of its 100 seats each year for minority applicants under a special admissions program. Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected in 1973 and 1974, even though his scores were higher than those of some students admitted under the special program. He sued.

Question

Did the medical school's racial quota violate the Equal Protection Clause and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Holding

The Court was deeply divided and issued a split decision. Rigid racial quotas were unconstitutional, and Bakke had to be admitted. But race could be considered as one factor among many in admissions to achieve a diverse student body.

Significance

It shaped affirmative action in admissions for decades. Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) upheld a holistic plan. In Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), the Court held that the race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause, effectively ending most race-based admissions.

Full case page: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke →

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

5–3 · Justice Byron White · Student speech and press

Facts

Students in a journalism class at Hazelwood East High School in Missouri produced a school-sponsored newspaper, the Spectrum. The principal removed two pages containing articles about student pregnancy and the effects of divorce on students. He was concerned about student privacy and about content inappropriate for younger students. Student staff members, including Cathy Kuhlmeier, sued.

Question

Does the First Amendment prevent school officials from censoring a school-sponsored student newspaper?

Holding

No. Educators may exercise editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored activities, such as a newspaper produced as part of a class, as long as their actions are "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."

Significance

It gave schools more authority over school-sponsored expression and distinguished it from personal student expression, which is still protected under Tinker. Some states have since passed laws giving student journalists more protection.

Full case page: Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier →

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

5–4 · Justice William J. Brennan Jr. · Symbolic speech

Facts

During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside City Hall to protest the policies of the Reagan administration. No one was hurt, though some witnesses were deeply offended. He was convicted under a Texas law against desecrating venerated objects.

Question

Is burning the American flag as a form of political protest symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment?

Holding

Yes. Flag burning in this context was expressive conduct, or symbolic speech, protected by the First Amendment. Texas could not punish Johnson to protect the flag as a symbol or because his message was offensive.

Significance

It protected offensive political expression. Congress responded with the Flag Protection Act of 1989, which the Court struck down in United States v. Eichman (1990). Proposed constitutional amendments to allow flag-burning bans have failed in the Senate.

If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr., majority opinion

Full case page: Texas v. Johnson →

Shaw v. Reno (1993)

5–4 · Justice Sandra Day O'Connor · Voting and representation

Facts

After the 1990 census, North Carolina drew a second majority-Black congressional district (the 12th District) to comply with the Voting Rights Act. The district was extremely irregular. In places it was no wider than the Interstate 85 corridor it followed for about 160 miles. White voters challenged it as a racial gerrymander. (Janet Reno was the U.S. Attorney General.)

Question

Does a congressional district drawn mainly on the basis of race, with a bizarre shape, raise a valid Equal Protection claim?

Holding

Yes. A redistricting plan so irregular that it can be understood only as an effort to separate voters by race is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. The Court sent the case back for the lower court to apply that standard.

Significance

It limited racial gerrymandering. Race cannot be the predominant factor in drawing districts unless the plan survives strict scrutiny. The district was later struck down in Shaw v. Hunt (1996). See census and redistricting.

Full case page: Shaw v. Reno →

United States v. Lopez (1995)

5–4 · Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist · Federalism and the Commerce Clause

Facts

In 1992, Alfonso Lopez Jr., a 12th-grade student in San Antonio, Texas, brought a concealed handgun to school. He was charged under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which made it a crime to possess a firearm in a school zone. He argued that Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the law.

Question

Does the Commerce Clause give Congress the power to ban guns near schools?

Holding

No. Possessing a gun in a school zone is not an economic activity that substantially affects interstate commerce, so the law exceeded Congress's Commerce Clause power.

Significance

It was the first time in nearly 60 years that the Court struck down a federal law as exceeding the Commerce Clause, signaling renewed limits on federal power and support for federalism. United States v. Morrison (2000) followed. Congress later re-passed the law, adding a requirement that the gun have moved in interstate commerce.

Full case page: United States v. Lopez →

Bush v. Gore (2000)

7–2 on the equal protection problem; 5–4 on the remedy · Per curiam (unsigned) opinion · Elections

Facts

The 2000 presidential election came down to Florida's electoral votes. Texas Governor George W. Bush led Vice President Al Gore by only a few hundred votes out of nearly 6 million cast. Gore contested the result, and the Florida Supreme Court ordered a statewide manual recount of "undervotes," ballots on which machines had detected no vote for president. Different counties used different standards to judge voter intent, such as "hanging" or "dimpled" chads on punch-card ballots.

Question

Did the Florida recount, with its varying standards from county to county, violate the Equal Protection Clause? If so, what remedy was appropriate?

Holding

Seven justices agreed that the recount, as conducted without uniform standards, violated equal protection by valuing one person's vote over another's. Five justices held that no valid recount could be completed by the December 12 deadline for safely choosing electors, so the recount was ended.

Significance

It effectively decided the 2000 election: Bush won Florida's electoral votes and the presidency, and Gore conceded. It also illustrated how the Electoral College works and led to election reforms such as the Help America Vote Act of 2002, which helped replace punch-card ballots.

Full case page: Bush v. Gore →

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

5–4 · Justice Antonin Scalia · Right to bear arms

Facts

Washington, D.C., effectively banned handgun possession in the home and required other firearms kept at home to be unloaded and disassembled or trigger-locked. Dick Heller, a special police officer licensed to carry a gun on duty, was denied a permit to keep a handgun at home and sued. Because D.C. is a federal district, not a state, the Second Amendment applied directly.

Question

Does the Second Amendment protect an individual's right to keep a handgun at home for self-defense, unconnected with militia service?

Holding

Yes. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The District's handgun ban and trigger-lock requirement were unconstitutional.

Significance

It was the first Supreme Court decision squarely recognizing an individual right to bear arms. It applied only to federal enclaves until McDonald v. Chicago (2010) extended it to the states. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) extended the right to carrying handguns in public.

Full case page: District of Columbia v. Heller →

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)

5–4 · Justice Samuel Alito · Right to bear arms and incorporation

Facts

After Heller, Otis McDonald, a retired Chicago resident who wanted a handgun for protection in his high-crime neighborhood, challenged Chicago's handgun ban along with others.

Question

Does the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms apply to state and local governments through the 14th Amendment?

Holding

Yes. The right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fundamental and is incorporated against the states through the 14th Amendment. Chicago's ban was invalid.

Significance

It made the Second Amendment binding on all levels of government, a major example of selective incorporation.

Full case page: McDonald v. City of Chicago →

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)

5–4 · Justice Anthony Kennedy · Campaign finance and speech

Facts

Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit corporation, produced "Hillary: The Movie," a documentary critical of Senator Hillary Clinton, and wanted to air it on demand and advertise it during the 2008 primary season. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold, 2002) barred corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds for "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.

Question

Can the government limit independent political spending by corporations and unions?

Holding

No. Political spending is a form of protected speech, and the government may not ban independent expenditures by corporations, unions, and other associations. The Court overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and part of McConnell v. FEC (2003). It upheld disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

Significance

Together with a lower-court ruling that soon followed (SpeechNow.org v. FEC), it led to the rise of super PACs, which may raise and spend unlimited amounts independently. Direct contributions to candidates remain limited. The decision remains hotly debated.

Full case page: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission →

Other Cases Worth Knowing

These decisions are not on the FCLE's list of 26, but they continue or reverse the stories above and often appear in explanations.