A landmark decision is the outcome of a legal case (often thus referred to as a landmark case) that establishes a precedent that either substantially changes the interpretation of the law or that simply establishes new case law on a particular issue. Certain cases within this category are widely known in legal studies and may be reviewed by law students even if they have been overturned by later decisions. In law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. ... Lady Justice is a personification of the law. ... Case law (precedential law) is the body of judge-made law and legal decisions that interprets prior case law, statutes and other legal authority -- including doctrinal writings by legal scholars such as the Corpus Juris Secundum, Halsburys Laws of England or the doctinal writings found in the Recueil Dalloz...

The term "landmark decision" is not a formal legal term but a colloquialism, however it is in widespread use amongst legal professionals — over 5,000 published opinions of lower courts can be found identifying some precedent as a landmark decision in the field of law being addressed. Originally, a landmark literally meant a geographic feature used by explorers and others to find their way back or through an area. ... A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech or writing. ...

Comparison with cause célèbre

A landmark decision differs from a cause célèbre in that a case that draws public attention may not involve any substantial changes to the law or creation of new law, whereas conversely a landmark decision may not impinge upon the consciousness of the general public. Look up cause célèbre in Wiktionary, the free dictionary. ...

The Lindbergh kidnapping was a sensational crime of the 1930s. One may call it a cause célèbre. The alleged kidnapper was captured, tried and executed several years after the crime. The correctness of that death sentence is in dispute even until today. However, the legal basis of the decision itself does not involve with too much theoretical dispute. The Congress of the United States later passed the "Lindbergh Law" that made cross-state kidnapping a federal crime (otherwise, it will be a state crime). This, arguably, could have been a "landmark decision", if the Supreme Court rather than the Congress made the change (this is nearly impossible - the only way such a change could be made by a court is if an existing law could reasonably be interpreted to mean Congress intended it to have such an effect). Lindbergh baby kidnapping poster. ... The 1930s (years from 1930–1939) were described as an abrupt shift to more radical and conservative lifestyles, as countries were struggling to find a solution to the Great Depression, also known in Europe as the World Depression. ... Capital punishment, also referred to as the death penalty, is the judicially ordered execution of a prisoner as a punishment for a serious crime, often called a capital offense or a capital crime. ... Congress in Joint Session. ... Following the historic Lindbergh kidnapping (the abduction and murder of Charles Lindberghs toddler son), United States Congress adopted a federal kidnapping statute—popularly known as the Lindbergh Law — which was intended to let federal authorities step in and pursue kidnappers once they had crossed a state border...

Criminal law was originally reserved for the states in the U.S. The Congress, with the help from the Commerce Clause, later enacted numerous federal criminal statutes. If the Supreme Court one day finds the Commerce Clause not applicable to criminal laws, it will very likely to be called a landmark decision by legal professionals. Criminal law (also known as penal law) is the body of statutory and common law that deals with crime and the legal punishment of criminal offenses. ... Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. ...

If, for whatever reason, Bruno Hauptmann was found not to be the person who killed Charles Lindbergh's son, his case would have been called cause célèbre in a way similar to the famous case of Alfred Dreyfus (see Dreyfus affair). Bruno Hauptmann Bruno Richard Hauptmann (November 26, 1899 – April 3, 1936) was a German carpenter and former criminal, sentenced to death and executed for the abduction and murder of Charles Augustus Lindbergh II, the 20-month old son of famous pilot Charles Lindbergh. ... For the U.S. Representative from Minnesota (1859 – 1924), see Charles August Lindbergh Charles Augustus Lindbergh (February 4, 1902 – August 26, 1974), known as Lucky Lindy and The Lone Eagle, was an American pilot famous for the first solo, non-stop flight from New York to Paris in 1927 in... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... The Dreyfus affair was a political scandal which divided France during the 1890s and early 1900s. ...

Landmark decisions in Australia

Main articles: List of court cases#Australian court cases and List of Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases

Landmark decisions in Australia have usually been made by the High Court of Australia, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. This is a list of significant court cases. ... This list is of all major cases decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. ... High Court entrance The High Court of Australia is the final court of appeal in Australia, the highest court in the Australian court hierarchy. ... The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom. ... This article is about the capital of England and the United Kingdom. ...

• In 1948 the High Court of Australia found that the Chifley government's legislation to nationalise Australia's private banks was unconstitutional.
• In 1951 the High Court of Australia found that Robert Menzies' attempts to ban the Communist Party of Australia were unconstitutional.
• In 1992 Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No.2) invalidated the declaration of terra nullius.

Chicken nuggets are sold at McDonalds (September 22, 1885–June 13, 1951), Australian politician and 16th Prime Minister of Australia, was one of Australias most influential Prime Ministers. ... Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, KT, AK, CH, FRS, QC (20 December 1894 – 14 May 1978), Australian politician, was the twelfth and longest-serving Prime Minister of Australia, serving eighteen and a half years. ... The Communist Party of Australia was founded in 1920 and dissolved in 1991. ... Eddie Mabo & Ors v The State of Queensland (No. ... Terra nullius (English pronunciation , Latin pronunciation [[IPA]])is a Latin expression deriving from Roman Law meaning no mans land or, literally, empty land. // Rationale As in Antiquity peace was considered an exceptional condition between states, only established by peace treaty, war being their natural rapport, any territory that was...

Landmark decisions in Canada

Main articles: List of Supreme Court of Canada cases and List of Judicial Committees of the Privy Council cases

Landmark decisions in Canada are have usually been made by the Supreme Court of Canada, although historically some have been made by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London. The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort and final appeal in Canada. ... This list is of all major cases decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. ... The Supreme Court of Canada (French: Cour suprême du Canada) is the highest court of Canada and is the final court of appeal in the Canadian justice system. ... The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is one of the highest courts in the United Kingdom. ... This article is about the capital of England and the United Kingdom. ...

Aboriginal rights

• R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1. S.C.R. 1075
• Delgamuukw v. British Columbia [1997] 3 S.C.R. 1010
• R. v. Marshall [1999] 3 SCR 45

R. v. ... Delgamuukw v. ... R. v. ...

Abortion

R. v. Morgentaler [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 Holding Section 251 of the Criminal Code violates a womans right to security of person under section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and cannot be saved under section 1 of the Charter. ...

Equality

• Egan v. Canada [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513
• Law v. Canada [1999] 1 S.C.R. 497

Social equality is a social state of affairs in which certain different people have the same status in a certain respect, minimally at least in voting rights, freedom of speech and assembly, and property rights. ... Egan v. ... Law v. ...

Freedom of Speech

• Ford v. Quebec (A.G.) [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712
• Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec (Attorney General) [1989]
• R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 SCR 731
• R. v. Sharpe [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45

This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... Ford v. ... Irwin Toy Ltd. ... R. v. ... R. v. ...

Landmark decisions in the United Kingdom

Main articles: List of House of Lords cases

Landmark decisions in the United Kingdom have usually been made by the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords, and the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. Many have involved contributions from Lord Denning. This page is for notable House of Lords legal cases. ... Her Majestys Court of Appeal is the second most senior court in the English legal system, with only the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords above it. ... This article is about the British House of Lords. ... Her Majestys High Court of Justice (known more simply as the High Court) is, together with the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal, part of the Supreme Court of England and Wales in England and Wales: see Courts of England and Wales. ... Alfred Thompson Denning, Baron Denning (23 January 1899–6 March 1999) was a British barrister from Hampshire who became Master of the Rolls (the senior civil judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales) and was generally well liked, both within the legal profession and outside it. ...

• Darcy v. Allein (1603) 77 Eng. Rep. 1260 (King’s Bench) (most widely know as The Case of Monopolies): establishing that it was improper for any individual to be allowed to have a monopoly over a trade.
• The Case of Prohibitions (1607) (Court of Common Pleas)
• Bushel's Case (1670) (Court of Common Pleas): establishing the principle that a judge cannot coerce a jury to convict

• Entick v. Carrington (1765) 19 Howell's State Trials 1030: establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power.

• Tulk v. Moxhay(1848) 41 ER 1143: establishing that in certain cases a restrictive covenant can "run with the land" (i.e. bind a future owner) in equity.
• Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch. 341 (Court of Exchequer): establishing the extent to which a party in breach of contract is liable for the damages.
• Rylands v. Fletcher (1868) LR 3 HL 330: establishing a doctrine of strict liability for inherently dangerous activities.
• Foakes v. Beer [1884] 9 A.C. 605: establishing the rule that prevents parties from discharging a contractual obligation by part performance.
• The Moorcock 14 P.D. 64 (1889): establishing the concept of implied terms in contract law.
• Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1893] 1 QB 256: establishing the test for formation of a contract

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. Selfridge and Co. Ltd. [1915] A.C. 847: confirming privity of contract: only a party to a contract can be sued on it.
• Donoghue v. Stevenson [1932] S.C.(H.L.) 31: establishing the "neighbour principle" as the foundation of the modern delict of negligence
• Central London Property Trust Ltd v. High Trees House Ltd [1947] K.B. 130: establishing the doctrine of promissory estoppel
• Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223: estalishing the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness for judicial review.
• Hedley Byrne v. Heller [1963] 2 All E.R. 575: establishing liability for pure economic loss, absent any contract, arising from a negligent statement.
• Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner [1969] 1 QB 439: a leading case illustrating the requirement for concurrence of actus reus (Latin for "guilty act") and mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") in order to establish a criminal offence.
• Ramsay v. IRC [1982] A. C. 300: establishing a doctrine that ignores for tax purposes the purported effect of a pre-ordained series of transactions into which there are inserted steps that have no commercial purpose apart from the avoidance of a liability to tax.
• Furniss v. Dawson [1984] A.C. 474: establishing that tax can be levied on the results of a composite transaction, even if steps which are only there for the purpose of avoiding tax do not cancel each other out.
• Factortame case (1990): the European Court of Justice ruled that the House of Lords was required to suspend an Act of Parliament that infringed EC law.

Darcy v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... One of the ancient courts of England, the Kings Bench (or Queens Bench when the monarch is female) is now a division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales. ... In economics, a monopoly (from the Latin word monopolium - Greek language monos, one + polein, to sell) is defined as a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a product or service. ... The Case of Prohibitions (1607) is a historical English court decision that established the supremacy of the courts. ... In United States jurisprudence, Court of Common Pleas is a term referring to a court of certain jurisdiction. ... Bushel’s Case (1670) is a famous English decision on the role of juries. ... In United States jurisprudence, Court of Common Pleas is a term referring to a court of certain jurisdiction. ... This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... This article or section does not adequately cite its references or sources. ... Entick v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Civil liberties is the name given to freedoms that protect the individual from government. ... Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is the branch of a government charged with implementing, or executing, the law. ... Tulk v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... A restrictive covenant is a legal obligation imposed in a deed by the seller upon the buyer of real estate to do or not to do something. ... The Court of Chancery, London, early 19th century This article is about the concept of equity in the jurisprudence of common law countries. ... Hadley v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... The Exchequer of Pleas or Exchequer was one of the three common-law courts of Medieval and Early Modern England. ... Rylands v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Strict liability is a legal doctrine in tort law that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. ... Foakes v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... The Moorcock, 14 P.D. 64 (1889), is a leading English case in contract law where the concept of implied terms was first introduced. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Carbolic Smoke Ball advertisement Carlill v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... A contract is a legally binding exchange of promises or agreement between parties. ... Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... The doctrine of privity in contract law provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. ... Donoghue (or McAlister) v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Delict is a concept of civil law which is used to some degree in many civil law legal systems. ... In tort law, the right to sue and recover damages from another on the basis of negligence, as opposed to numerous other tort theories discussed elsewhere, is based upon proving that the defendant failed to use ordinary care, that is,that degree of care for the protection of the person... Central London Property Trust Ltd. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Estoppel is a concept that prevents a party from acting in a certain way because it is not equitable to do so. ... Wednesbury unreasonableness is a term that is used to refer to the principle enunciated in the British case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Wednesbury unreasonableness is a term that is used to refer to the principle enunciated in the British case of Associated Provincial Picture Houses v. ... Judicial review is the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice. ... Hedley Byrne v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Fagan v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... For other uses, see concurrency. ... Actus reus is the action (or inaction, in the case of criminal negligence and similar crimes which are sometimes called acts of omission) which, in combination with the mens rea (guilty mind), produces criminal liability in common law based criminal law jurisdictions such as the United States, United Kingdom. ... Latin is an ancient Indo-European language originally spoken in Latium, the region immediately surrounding Rome. ... The mens rea is the Latin term for guilty mind used in the criminal law. ... The Ramsay Principle is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982: Ramsay v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... Furniss v. ... // The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... The Factortame case was a landmark constitutional case in the United Kingdom, which confirmed the primacy of European Union law over English law. ... The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is formally known as the Court of Justice of the European Communities, i. ... This article is about the British House of Lords. ... The European Union is unique among international organizations in having a complex and highly developed system of internal law which has direct effect within the legal systems of its member states. ...

Landmark decisions in the United States

Landmark cases in the United States come most frequently (but not exclusively) from the United States Supreme Court. United States Courts of Appeal may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case, or adopts the holding of the court below. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C. The Supreme Court Building, Washington, D.C., (large image) The Supreme Court of the United States, located in Washington, D.C., is the highest court (see supreme court) in the United States; that is, it has ultimate judicial authority within the United States... The United States Courts of Appeals (or circuit courts) are the mid-level appellate courts of the United States federal court system. ...

Main articles: List of court cases#United States court cases, List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Jay Court through the Taft Court, List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Hughes Court through the Burger Court, List of United States Supreme Court cases from the Rehnquist Court through the Roberts Court

This is a list of significant court cases. ... This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the tenures of Chief Justices John Jay, John Rutledge, Oliver Ellsworth, John Marshall, Roger Taney, Salmon P. Chase, Morrison Waite, Melville Fuller, Edward Douglass White, and William Howard Taft (October 19, 1789 through February... This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States during the tenures of Chief Justices Charles Evans Hughes, Harlan Fiske Stone, Fred Vinson, Earl Warren and Warren Burger (February 24, 1930 through September 26, 1986). ... This is a chronological list of notable cases decided by the United States Supreme Court during the tenures of Chief Justices William Rehnquist and John Roberts (September 26, 1986 to the present). ...

Landmark decisions in U.S. Civil Rights

Discrimination based on race

• Scott v. Sandford (Dred Scott case), 60 U.S. 393 (1857), Blacks, whether free or slaves, cannot be U.S. citizens. Consequently, they cannot sue in federal courts. Also, the federal government cannot forbid slavery in the western territories before they access statehood. The decision is voided by the subsequent Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), segregated facilities for blacks and whites are constitutional under the doctrine of separate but equal, which held for close to 60 years.
• Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944), American citizens of Japanese descent can be interned and deprived of basic constitutional rights; first application of the strict scrutiny test.
• Brown v. Bd. of Educ. of Topeka, 344 U.S. 1 (1952), 344 U.S. 141 (1952), 347 U.S. 483 (1954), 349 U.S. 294 (1955), segregated schools in the several states are unconstitutional in violation of the 14th Amendment, overturning Plessy.
• Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), the companion case to Brown, which held that segregated schools in the District of Columbia violated the 5th Amendment.
• Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), laws that prohibit marriage between races (anti-miscegenation statutes) are unconstitutional.
• Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409 (1968), The federal government may prohibit discrimination in housing by private parties under the Civil Rights Act of 1968.
• Gates v. Collier, 501 F.2d 1291 (5th Cir. 1972), case that brought an end to the trusty system and flagrant inmate abuse at Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi. It was the first case of a body of law developed in the Fifth Circuit holding that a variety of forms of corporal punishment against prisoners was considered cruel and unusual punishment and abolished racial segregation in prison.
• Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) Race based set-asides in educational opportunities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. The decision leaves the door open to some race usage in admission decisions. See Grutter v. Bollinger.
• Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995) Race based discrimination, including discrimination in favor of minorities (affirmative action), is subject to strict judicial scrutiny.
• Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003) a narrowly tailored use of race in student admission decisions may be permissible under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, as a diverse student body is beneficial for all students (as hinted in Regents v. Bakke).

Holding Africans residing in America, whether slaves or free, could not become United States citizens and the plaintiff therefore lacked the capacity to file a lawsuit. ... Amendment XIII (the Thirteenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution officially abolished, and continues to prohibit, slavery, and, with limited exceptions such as those convicted of a crime, prohibits involuntary servitude. ... The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and it includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. ... A constitutional amendment is a change to the constitution of a nation or a state. ... Holding The separate but equal provision of public accommodations by state governments is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. ... Separate but equal was a policy enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern states during the period of segregation, in which African Americans and Americans of European descent would receive the same services (schools, hospitals, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. ... Holding The exclusion order leading to Japanese American Internment was constitutional Court membership Chief Justice: Harlan Fiske Stone Associate Justices: Owen Josephus Roberts, Hugo Black, Stanley Forman Reed, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Frank Murphy, Robert H. Jackson, Wiley Blount Rutledge Case opinions Majority by: Black Joined by: Stone, Reed... Strict scrutiny is the highest standard of judicial review used by courts in the United States. ... Holding Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. ... Bolling v. ... Holding Segregation of students in public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because separate facilities are inherently unequal. ... ... Amendment V (the Fifth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, is related to legal procedure. ... Holding The Court declared Virginias anti-miscegenation statute, the Racial Integrity Act of 1924, unconstitutional, thereby ending all race-based legal restriction on marriage in the United States. ... Anti-miscegenation laws Anti-miscegenation laws were passed to prohibit interracial couples from marrying. ... Holding ... Court membership Case opinions Laws applied ... Jones v. ... President Johnson signing the Civil Rights Act of 1968 On April 11, 1968, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also known as CRA 68), which was meant as a follow-up to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ... Gates v. ... Mississippi State Penitentiary, also known as Parchman Farm, is the oldest prison and the only maximum security prison in the state of Mississippi, USA. It is located on 18,000 acres (73 km²) in Parchman, Mississippi, and was built in 1901. ... Parchman is a small town in Sunflower County, Mississippi in the Mississippi Delta region. ... The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts: Eastern District of Louisiana Middle District of Louisiana Western District of Louisiana Northern District of Mississippi Southern District of Mississippi Eastern District of Texas Northern... Corporal punishment is the deliberate infliction of pain intended to correct behavior or to punish. ... The statement that the government shall not inflict cruel and unusual punishment for crimes is found in the English Bill of Rights signed in 1689 by William of Orange and Queen Mary II who were then the joint rulers of England following the Glorious Revolution of 1688. ... The Rex Theatre for Colored People, Leland, Mississippi, June 1937 Racial segregation is creamy jizz of different races in daily life when both are doing equal tasks, such as eating in a restaurant, drinking from a water fountain, using a rest room, attending school, going to the movies, or in... Holding The Court held that while affirmative action systems are constitutional, a quota system based on race is unconstitutional. ... The words inscribed above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court are: Equal justice under law The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ... {{SCOTUSCase |Litigants=Grutter v. ... Holding ... Court membership Case opinions Laws applied ... Adarand Constructors, Inc. ... {{SCOTUSCase |Litigants=Grutter v. ...

Discrimination based on sex

• Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677 (1973) Sex-based discriminations are inherently suspect. A statute giving benefits to the spouses of male, but not female members of the uniformed services (on the assumption that only the former were dependent) is unconsitutional.
• Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976) Setting different minimum ages according to sex (female 18, male 21) to be allowed to buy beer is unconstitutional sex-based discrimination, contrary to the equal protection clause.
• United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), found that sex-based "separate but equal" military training facilities violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.

Holding --- Court membership Case opinions Laws applied U.S. Const. ... Craig v. ... Holding State of Virginias exclusion of women from the Virginia Military Institute violated Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. ... Separate but equal was a policy enacted into law throughout the U.S. Southern states during the period of segregation, in which African Americans and Americans of European descent would receive the same services (schools, hospitals, water fountains, bathrooms, etc. ... The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and it includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. ... The words inscribed above the entrance to the U.S. Supreme Court are: Equal justice under law The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that no state shall… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. ...

Discrimination based on sexual orientation

• Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) a state may declare the private practice in one's bedroom of certain sex acts to be a crime; ironically this statute that was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court was later struck down by the Georgia State Supreme Court in the case of Powell v. Georgia (actually Powell v. State). In 2003, the Supreme Court revisited the Bowers decision and formally overturned it in Lawrence v. Texas.
• Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) A law cannot prohibit anti-discrimination laws for homosexuals (decision founded on the Equal Protection Clause).
• Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003) Texas law that prohibits gays from engaging in consensual sodomy in private is an unreasonable invasion of privacy, prohibited by Fourteenth Amendment due process clause.

Holding A Georgia law prohibiting sodomy was valid because there was no constitutionally protected right to engage in homosexual sodomy. ... Powell v. ... Holding A Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to engage in private intimate conduct. ... Holding An amendment to the Colorado Constitution that allows discrimination against homosexuals and prevents the state from protecting them violated equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment, because it was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest, but instead was motivated by animus towards homosexuals. ... Holding A Texas law prohibiting homosexual sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, to engage in private intimate conduct. ... Official language(s) English (de facto) See also languages of Texas Capital Austin Largest city Houston Area  Ranked 2nd  - Total 268,581 sq mi (695,622 km²)  - Width 773 miles (1,244 km)  - Length 790 miles (1,270 km)  - % water 2. ... Lady Justice is a personification of the law. ... Homosexuality refers to sexual interaction and / or romantic attraction between individuals of the same sex. ... François Elluin, Sodomites provoking the wrath of God, from Le pot pourri de Loth (1781). ...

Birth control and abortion

• Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) married people are entitled to use contraception and making it a crime to sell them to same is unconstitutional. (A later case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, extended this to unmarried adults.)
• Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) Most restrictions on first-trimester abortions are unconstitutional
• Planned Parenthood of Se. Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) Pennsylvania's abortion law is unconstitutional and Roe v. Wade is still valid precedent.

Holding A Connecticut law criminalizing the use of contraceptives violated the right to marital privacy. ... Eisenstadt v. ... Holding Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated womens Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. ... Constitutionality is the status of a law, procedure, or act being in accordance with the laws or guidelines contained in a constitution. ... Holding A Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. ... Holding Texas laws criminalizing abortion violated womens Fourteenth Amendment right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy. ... In law, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court may need to adopt when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts. ...

Right to die

• Cruzan v. Dir., Mo. Dep't of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990) Family having requested the termination of life-sustaining treatments of their vegetative relative, the state may constitutionally oppose this request, for lack of evidence of a clear earlier wish by said relative. (The state later withdrew its objection.)
• Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997) Washington's prohibition on assisting suicide is constitutional
• Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997) New York's prohibition on assisting suicide does not violate the Equal Protection Clause
• Gonzales v. Oregon, 126 S.Ct. 904 (2006) United States Attorney General could not enforce the Controlled Substances Act against physicians prescribing drugs for the assisted suicide of the terminally ill as permitted by an Oregon law

Cruzan v. ... A persistent vegetative state (or PVS) is a condition of patients with severe brain damage in whom coma has progressed to a state of wakefulness without awareness. The term was introduced by two doctors in 1972 to describe a syndrome that seemed to have been made possible by medicines... Question Presented Did Washingtons Natural Death Act of 1979, banning assisted-suicide, violate the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause by denying the liberty to choose death over life? Court membership Case opinions Washington v. ... Holding The Controlled Substances Act does not give the U.S. Attorney General the authority to prohibit doctors from prescribing drugs for use in physician-assisted suicide permitted by state law. ... The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) was enacted into law by the Congress of the United States as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. ... Official language(s) None Capital Salem Largest city Portland Area  Ranked 9th  - Total 98,466 sq mi (255,026 km²)  - Width 260 miles (420 km)  - Length 360 miles (580 km)  - % water 2. ...

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights

• Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be applied to a place of public accommodation, prohibiting discrimination against blacks.
• Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294 (1964), 379 U.S. 802 (1964) the power of Congress to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, section 8) extends to a restaurant not patronized by interstate travellers, as it serves food which has moved in interstate commerce. This ruling makes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 apply to virtually all businesses.
• City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). In the context of Constitutional rights, Congress cannot invoke substantive change in Constitutional protections (here, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993), but can only enact legislation that remedies or prevents actual violations of existing rights.

Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. ... President Johnson signs the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . ... An African American (also Afro-American, Black American, or simply black) is a member of an ethnic group in the United States whose ancestors, usually in predominant part, were indigenous to Africa. ... City of Boerne v. ...

Landmark decisions in U.S. criminal law

Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure

• Mapp v. Ohio 367 U.S. 643 (1961) Evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the United States Constitution is inadmissible in a criminal trial in a state court.
• Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967) Evidence obtained by wiretaping a public phonebooth without a warrant is not admissible in court, just as if a private phone line had been eavesdropped. The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
• Vernonia School District v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) Schools may require random drug testing

Holding The Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, excludes unconstitutionally obtained evidence from use in criminal prosecutions. ... Wikisource has original text related to this article: Constitution of the United States of America Page one of the original copy of the Constitution. ... Holding The Court extended the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable searches and seizures to protect individuals in a telephone booth from wiretaps by authorities without a warrant. ...

Right to an attorney

• Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335 (1963), anyone charged with a serious criminal offense has the right to an attorney and the state must provide one if they are unable to afford legal counsel.
• Escobedo v. Illinois 378 U.S. 478 (1964), a person in police custody has the right to speak to an attorney.
• Miranda v. Arizona (and Westover v. United States, Vignera v. New York, and California v. Stewart) 384 U.S. 436 (1966), police must advise criminal suspects of their rights under the Constitution to remain silent, to consult with a lawyer and to have one appointed if he is an indigent. The interrogation must stop if the suspect states he wishes to remain silent.

Holding The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is a fundamental right applied to the states through the Fourteenth, and requires that indigent criminal defendants be provided counsel at trial. ... Holding Where a police investigation begins to focus on a particular suspect who has been refused counsel and not Mirandized, his statements to police are excluded. ... Holding The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination requires law enforcement officials to advise a suspect interrogated in custody of his rights to remain silent and to obtain an attorney. ...

Capital punishment

• Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), the method then in effect for imposing the death penalty is unconstitutional.
• Jurek v. Texas 428 U.S. 262 (1976), a "three-pronged" test for determining if the death penalty should be imposed is constitutional.
• Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280 (1976) North Carolina's mandatory death sentence statute violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments
• Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) Carefully drafted death penalty statutes may be constitutional. This ruling made executions possible again after Furman v. Georgia (see above) had stopped them.
• Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976) Requirement of comparison of mitigating to aggravating factors to be used to impose death sentence is constitutional.
• Roberts v. Louisiana, 428 U.S. 325 (1976), 431 U.S. 633 (1977) Mandatory death sentences are unconstitutional
• Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) A sentence of death may not be imposed on juveniles

Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. ... Holding The arbitrary and inconsistent imposition of the death penalty violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. ... Holding The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. ... We dont have an article called Woodson v. ... The Bill of Rights in the National Archives Amendment VIII (the Eighth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the U.S. Bill of Rights, prohibits excessive bail or fines, as well as cruel and unusual punishment. ... The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and it includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. ... Holding The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. ... Holding The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. ... Holding The imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. ... Holding The Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments forbid imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were under the age of 18 when their crimes were committed. ...

Landmark decisions in U.S. Federalism

• Marbury v. Madison 5 U.S. 137 (1803), a case which established the Supreme Court's power to strike down acts of United States Congress which were in conflict with the Constitution (see judicial review).
• Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) federal courts may review State court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the various states.
• McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). The court stated the doctrine of implied powers, from the necessary and proper clause at Article I, section 8. To fulfill its goal, the federal government may use any means the constitution does not forbid (as opposed to only what the constitution explicitly allow, or only what can be proven to be necessary). State government may in no way hinder the legitimate action of the federal government (here, Maryland cannot levy a tax on the Bank of the United States). The court has varied in time on the extents of the implied powers, with a markedly narrower reading approximately from the 1840s to the 1930s.
• United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) The President of the United States is not above the law.
• South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) Withholding of Federal highway funds to force state to raise drinking age to 21 is permissible.
• U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) State law cannot set term limits on members of Congress.
• United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995) The Commerce clause of the Constitution does not give Congress the power to regulate guns in state-operated schools.
• Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997) The President of the United States has no particular immunity, which could require civil law litigation against the President for a dispute unrelated to the office of President (e.g. having occurred before (s)he took office), to be stayed until the end of the President's term. Such delay would deprive plaintiffs, (and arguably the defendant), of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
• Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) Brady Act requiring state official to execute a federal law (in doing background checks for gun ownership) is unconstitutional.

Holding Section 13 of the Judiciary Act of 1789 is unconstitutional to the extent it purports to enlarge the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court beyond that permitted by the Constitution. ... Type Bicameralism Houses Senate House of Representatives United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D, since January 4, 2007 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D, since January 4, 2007 Members 535 plus 4 Delegates and 1 Resident Commissioner Political groups (as of November 7, 2006 elections) Democratic Party Republican... Judicial review is the power of a court to review a law or an official act of a government employee or agent for constitutionality or for the violation of basic principles of justice. ... Martin v. ... Holding Although the Constitution does not specifically give Congress the power to establish a bank, it does delegate the ability to tax and spend, and a bank is a proper and suitable instrument to assist the operations of the government in the collection and disbursement of the revenue. ... Holding The Supreme Court has the final voice in determining constitutional questions; no person, not even the President of the United States, is completely above law; and the president cannot use executive privilege as an excuse to withhold evidence that is demonstrably relevant in a criminal trial. ... was a precident-setting legal case concerning Federalism. ... Holding Possession of a gun near a school is not an economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. ... Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, empowers the United States Congress To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes. ... Holding The Constitution does not protect the President from civil litigation involving actions committed before he entered office. ... The presidential seal was first used by President Hayes in 1880 and last modified in 1959 by adding the 50th star for Hawaii. ... Amendment VI (the Sixth Amendment) of the United States Constitution codifies rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. ... Holding The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Acts interim provision commanding the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of each local jurisdiction to conduct background checks, §922(s)(2), is unconstitutional. ...

Landmark decisions in First Amendment Rights

For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). ...

Freedom of Speech and of the Press

• Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) Established the idea that "clear and present danger" in certain speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Schenck's attempts to obstruct recruitment processes were perceived as a "clear and present danger that will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent".
• Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) Established the “fighting words doctrine” that some words are not protected under the First Amendment because they are tantamount to violent actions.
• Roth v. United States (and Alberts v. California), 354 U.S. 476 (1957) Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment
• New York Times v. Sullivan (and Abernathy v. Sullivan), 376 U.S. 254 (1964) A public official, to prove they were libelled, must show not only that a statement is false, but also that it has been published with malicious intent.
• Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) Mere advocacy of the use of force, or of violation of law (in this case, by a Ku Klux Klan leader) is protected by the 1st Amendment free speech clause. Only inciting others to take direct and immediate unlawful action would be without constitutional protection.
• Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969) Wearing armbands is a legitimate form of protest under the First Amendment, even on public school grounds.
• Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971) One should not be convicted for wearing a jacket in a courtroom emblazoned with the phrase "Fuck the Draft" (in the Vietnam War context), as this is communication, protected by the free speech clause of the 1st Amendment. The word "fuck" itself, clearly not directed at the hearer, is not in this particular instance a fighting word, and so not without constitutional protection.
• New York Times v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971) Government's desire to keep so-called "Pentagon Papers" classified is insufficient to overcome 1st Amendment hurdle.
• Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) To be obscene, a work must fail several tests to determine its value to society, essentially having "no redeeming social value" to be so declared.
• Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) A public figure shown in a parody must show actual malice to claim he is libelled.
• Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) Law prohibiting burning of the American flag is unconstitutional as violating the First Amendment
• Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560 (1991) Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
• Reno v. ACLU, 520 U.S. 1113 (1997) The Communications Decency Act, regulating certain content on the Internet, is so overbroad as to be an unconstitutional restraint on the 1st Amendment.
• Erie v. Pap's A. M., 529 U.S. 277 (2000) Upholding the 1991 ruling that Nude dancing is not protected by the 1st Amendment.

Holding Defendants criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting practices of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war. ... Clear and present danger is a term used in the case Schenck v. ... In its decision, Chaplinsky v. ... The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. ... The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. ... Roth v. ... The first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution make up the Bill of Rights. ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, protected a newspaper from being sued for libel in state court for making false defamatory statements about the official conduct of a public official, because the statements were not made with knowing or reckless disregard for the truth. ... Holding Ohios criminal syndicalism statute violated the First Amendment, as applied to the state through the Fourteenth, because it broadly prohibited the mere advocacy of violence rather than the constitutionally unprotected incitement to imminent lawless action. ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, did not permit a public school to punish a student for wearing a black armband as an anti-war protest, absent any evidence that the rule was necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others. ... For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). ... Holding The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace. ... Combatants Republic of Vietnam United States Republic of Korea Thailand Australia New Zealand The Philippines National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam Democratic Republic of Vietnam People’s Republic of China Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea Strength US 1,000,000 South Korea 300,000 Australia 48,000... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... The fighting words doctrine, in United States constitutional law, is a limitation to freedom of speech as granted in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution In its 9-0 decision, Chaplinsky v. ... New York Times Co. ... Holding Obscene materials are defined as those that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest; that depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law; and that, taken as a whole, lack serious... Holding The creators of parodies of public figures are protected against civil liability by the First Amendment, unless the parody includes false statements of fact made in knowing or reckless disregard of the truth. ... Holding A Texas statute that criminalized the desecration of the American flag violated the First Amendment. ... For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). ... In Reno v. ...

Freedom of Religion

• Abington School Dist. v. Schempp (and Murray v. Curlett), 374 U.S. 203 (1963) First Amendment non establishment clause forbids state mandated reading of the Bible, or recitation of the Lord's Prayer in public schools.
• Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) For a law to be considered constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion.
• Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) Parents may remove children from public school for religious reasons
• Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577 (1992) Public schools inviting clergy to read prayer at an official ceremony (here a graduation ceremony) violates First Amendment non-establishment clause.
• Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) Government must show a compelling interest to draw a statute targeting a religion's ritual (as opposed to a statute which happens to burden the ritual, but is not directed at it). Failing to show such an interest, the prohibition of animal sacrifice is a violation of First Amendment free exercise clause.
• Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995) University can't fund secular groups from student dues, then exclude religious ones that also qualify under the same funding scheme.
• Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 203 (1997) A government program sending government employees to parochial schools (and also, to other private schools) specifically to provide remedial education to disadvantaged children (and not to all children) does not violate the First Amendment non establishment clause.

The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen guarantees freedom of religion, as long as religious activities do not infringe on public order in ways detrimental to society. ... Holding The Court decided 8-1 in favor of the respondent, Edward Schempp, and declared sanctioned organized Bible reading in public schools in the United States to be unconstitutional. ... For other uses, see First Amendment (disambiguation). ... This Gutenberg Bible is displayed by the United States Library of Congress. ... Representation of the Sermon on the Mount The Lords Prayer (Greek: Η Κυριακή Προσευχή, transliterated as i Kiriakí Prosevhí) (Latin: Oratio Dominica), sometimes also known amongst English speakers as the Pater Imon, the Pater Noster or the Our Father, is probably the best-known prayer in Christianity. ... The term public school has two contrary meanings: In England, one of a small number of prestigious historic schools open to the public which normally charge fees and are financed by bodies other than the state, commonly as private charitable trusts; here the word public is used much as in... Holding For a law to be constitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. ... Holding The Wisconsin Compulsory School Attendance Law violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment because required attendance past the eighth grade interfered with the right of Amish parents direct the religious upbringing of their children. ... Holding --- Court membership Case opinions Laws applied --- Lee v. ... The Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye came up after Employment Division v. ... Holding The Establishment Clause and the Free Speech Clause are not mutually exclusive. ... A parochial school is a type of private school which engages in religious education in addition to conventional education. ...

Right to Assemble and Petition the Government

• Hurley v. Irish American Gay Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) private parade organizers have a right to exclude groups from participating whose message they disagree with.
• Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) Private organizations' First Amendment right of expressive association allows them to choose their own membership and expel members based on their sexual orientation even if such discrimination would otherwise be prohibited by anti-discrimination legislation designed to protect minorities in public accommodations.

Boy Scouts of America et al v. ...

Landmark Decisions in Other Areas of U.S. Law

• Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810), first time the Court struck down a State law as unconstitutional. A State legislature (in this case, Georgia) can repeal a previous, corruptly made law (in this case, a land grant), but not void valid contracts made under this law.
• The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677 (1900), federal courts could look to customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law.
• Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), asserted that the "right to free contract" or "liberty of contract" is implicit in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
• Missouri v. Holland, 252 U.S. 416 (1920), treaties made by the federal government are supreme over any state concerns about such treaties having abrogated any states' rights arising under the Tenth Amendment
• Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 294 (1970), federal entitlement programs such as welfare conferred property rights on recipients, and their termination required procedural due process.
• San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1 (1973) use of property tax as means to finance public education is constitutional.
• Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), government agencies' interpretation of its own mandate from Congress is entitled to judicial deference if the authority is ambiguous and the agency's interpretation is reasonable.
• Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), making of individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use.
• Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service, 499 U.S. 340 (1991), originality, not sweat of the brow, is the touchstone of copyright protection.
• Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (1993) expert evidence must be generally accepted in the scientific community (Daubert standard).
• Breard v Greene, 523 U.S. 371 (1998), rejected jurisdiction of International Court of Justice in a capital punishment case dealing with a citizen of Paraguay.

Holding The Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibited Georgia from voiding contracts for the transfer of land, even though they were secured through illegal bribery. ... Holding Federal courts could look to customary international law because it is an integrated part of American law Court membership Chief Justice: Melville Fuller Associate Justices: John Marshall Harlan, Horace Gray, David Josiah Brewer, Henry Billings Brown, George Shiras, Jr. ... Customary international law Unwritten law applied to the behaviour of nations. ... Holding New Yorks regulation of the working hours of bakers was not a justifiable restriction of the right to contract freely under the 14th Amendments guarantee of liberty. ... The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is one of the post-Civil War amendments and it includes the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. ... Holding Court membership Chief Justice: John Marshall Associate Justices: Bushrod Washington, William Johnson, Henry Brockholst Livingston, Thomas Todd, Gabriel Duvall, Joseph Story Case opinions Majority by: Holmes Laws applied U.S. Const. ... Single European Act A treaty is a binding agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely states and international organizations. ... Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal      The government of the United States of America, established by the U.S. Constitution, is a... Federal courts Supreme Court Chief Justice Associate Justices Elections Presidential elections Midterm elections Political Parties Democratic Republican Third parties State & Local government Governors Legislatures State Courts Counties, Cities, and Towns Other countries Politics Portal      A state of the United States is any one of the fifty subnational entities of the... States rights refers to the idea that U.S. states possess certain rights and political powers in the politics of the United States and constitutional law. ... Amendment X (the Tenth Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791. ... In Goldberg v. ... This does not cite its references or sources. ... Property designates those things that are commonly recognized as being the possessions of a person or group. ... In United States law, adopted from English law, due process (more fully due process of law) is the principle that the government must normally respect all of a persons legal rights instead of just some or most of those legal rights when the government deprives a person of life... Holding Reliance on property taxes to fund public schools does not violate the Equal Protection Clause even if it causes inter-district expenditure disparities. ... Holding Courts must defer to administrative agency interpretations of the authority granted to them by Congress (1) where the grant of authority was ambiguous, and (2) where the interpretation was reasonable or permissible. ... An agency is a department of a local or national government responsible for the oversight and administration of a specific function, such as a customs agency or a space agency. ... Type Bicameralism Houses Senate House of Representatives United States Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D, since January 4, 2007 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D, since January 4, 2007 Members 535 plus 4 Delegates and 1 Resident Commissioner Political groups (as of November 7, 2006 elections) Democratic Party Republican... Holding Manufacturers of home video recording machines could not be liable for contributory copyright infringement for the potential uses by its purchasers, because the devices were sold for legitimate purposes and had substantial non-infringing uses. ... Time shifting is the recording of television shows to some storage medium to be viewed at a time more convenient to the consumer. ... This article or section does not cite its references or sources. ... For fair use in trademark law, see Fair use (US trademark law). ... Holding A telephone book did not satisfy the minimum originality required by the Constitution to be eligible for copyright protection, and effort and expenditure of resources are not protected by copyright. ... Copyright symbol Copyright is a set of exclusive rights regulating the use of a particular expression of an idea or information. ... Holding The Federal Rules of Evidence do not require that techniques relied upon in expert testimony have general professional acceptance or have been subjected to peer review for that testimony to be judged reliable and admissible at trial. ... The Daubert Standard is a legal precedent set in 1993 by the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the admissibility of expert witnesses testimony during legal proceedings. ... Holding Defendant could not raise his Vienna Convention claim on federal habeas corpus review. ... The International Court of Justice (known colloquially as the World Court or ICJ; French: ) is the primary judicial organ of the United Nations. ... Capital punishment, or the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. ...

See also

• Case citation
• Lists of case law

// The United States Reports, the official reporter of the Supreme Court of the United States Case citation is the system used in common law countries such as the United States, England and Wales, Ireland, Canada, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Australia and India to uniquely identify the location of past court... This list consists of lists of case law. ...

External links

• Supreme Court Landmark Decisions - Cornell Law School