Landmark Supreme Court Decisions

Printer Friendly Version

Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)

An action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county, (State court,) where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor. On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State, the judgment below was reversed, and the case remanded to the Circuit Court, where it was continued to await the decision of the U. S. Supreme Court.

The defendant pleaded in abatement to the jurisdiction of the court, that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the State of Missouri, as alleged in his declaration, being a negro of African descent, whose ancestors were of pure African blood, and who were brought into this country and sold as slaves.

Citizenship and Freedom Denied to a Slave in a Free State
(Overturned by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments)

Scott v. Sandford, Briefs and Arguments
Scott v. Sandford, Decision

KF4545.S5 F45 1997
Finkelman, Paul, 1949-
Dred Scott v. Sandford : a brief history with documents
Boston : Bedford Books, c1997

KF4549.A3 1975 v.3
Scott v. Sandford, Pages 165-283.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896)

This case turns upon the constitutionality of an act of the general assembly of the state of Louisiana, passed in 1890, providing for separate railway carriages for the white and colored races. Acts 1890, No. 111, p. 152.

A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races-a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color-has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude.

Upholds Separate Accomodations on Racial Grounds
(Overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954-1955))

Plessy v. Ferguson, Briefs and Arguments
Plessy v. Ferguson, Decision

KF223.P56 P58 1997
Thomas, Brook
Plessy v. Ferguson : a brief history with documents
Boston : Bedford Books, c1997

KF4549.A3 1975 v.13
Plessy v. Ferguson, Pages 1-149.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917)

States can not restrict and officially segregate African Americans into residential districts.

The case presented does not deal with an attempt to prohibit the amalgamation of the races. The right which the ordinance annulled was the civil right of a white man to dispose of his property if he saw fit to do so to a person of color and of a colored person to make such disposition to a white person.

It is urged that this proposed segregation will promote the public peace by preventing race conflicts. Desirable as this is, and important as is the preservation of the public peace, this aim cannot be accomplished by laws or ordinances which deny rights created or protected by the federal Constitution. It is said that such acquisitions by colored persons depreciate property owned in the neighborhood by white persons. But property may be acquired by undesirable white neighbors or put to disagreeable though lawful uses with like results.

We think this attempt to prevent the alienation of the property in question to a person of color was not a legitimate exercise of the police power of the state, and is in direct violation of the fundamental law enacted in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution preventing state interference with property rights except by due process of law. That being the case, the ordinance cannot stand.

Buchanan v. Warley, Briefs and Arguments
Buchanan v. Warley, Decision

Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936)

The question in this case is whether convictions, which rest solely upon confessions shown to have been extorted by officers of the state by brutality and violence, are consistent with the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

Brown v. Mississippi, Briefs and Arguments
Brown v. Mississippi, Decision

Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940)

For five days petitioners were subjected to interrogations culminating in Saturday's (May 20th) all night examination. Over a period of five days they steadily refused to confess and disclaimed any guilt. The very circumstances surrounding their confinement and their questioning without any formal charges having been brought, were such as to fill petitioners with terror and frightful misgivings. 14 Some were practical strangers in [309 U.S. 227, 240] the community; three were arrested in a one-room farm tenant house which was their home; the haunting fear of mob violence was around them in an atmosphere charged with excitement and public indignation. From virtually the moment of their arrest until their eventual confessions, they never knew just when any one would be called back to the fourth floor room, and there, surrounded by his accusers and others, interrogated by men who held their very lives-so far as these ignorant petitioners could know-in the balance. The rejection of petitioner Woodward's first 'confession', given in the early hours of Sunday morning, because it was found wanting, demonstrates the relentless tenacity which 'broke' petitioners' will and rendered them helpless to resist their accusers further. To permit human lives to be forfeited upon confessions thus obtained would make of the constitutional requirement of due process of law a meaningless symbol.

Due process of law, preserved for all by our Constitution, commands that no such practice as that disclosed by this record shall send any accused to his death. No higher duty, no more solemn responsibility, rests upon this Court, than that of translating into living law and maintaining this constitutional shield deliberately planned and inscribed for the benefit of every human being subject to our Constitution-of whatever race, creed or persuasion.

Unconstitutionality of so-called "sunrise confessions" (extracted through sleep depravation and mental duress)
[Argued by Dr. Leon A. Ransom, distinguished graduate of OSU's College of Law. OSU's Black Firsts]

Chambers v. Florida, Briefs and Arguments
Chambers v. Florida, Decision

Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U.S. 373 (1946)

Bans states from having laws that sanction segregated facilities in interstate travel by train and bus.

The Court makes its own further assumption that the question of racial separation of interstate passengers in motor vehicle carriers requires national uniformity of treatment rather than diversity of treatment at this time. The inaction of Congress is an important indication that, in the opinion of Congress, this issue is better met without nationally uniform affirmative regulation than with it. Legislation raising the issue long has been, and is now, pending before Congress but has not reached the floor of either House. 6 The fact that 18 states have prohibited in some degree racial separation in public carriers is important progress in the direction of uniformity. The fact, however, that 10 contiguous states in some degree require, by state law, some racial separation of passengers on motor carriers indicates a different appraisal by them of the needs and conditions in those areas than in others. The remaining 20 states have not gone equally far in either direction. This recital of existing legislative diversity is evidence against the validity of the assumption by this Court that there exists today a requirement of a single uniform national rule on the subject.

It is a fundamental concept of our Constitution that where conditions are diverse the solution of problems arising out of them may well come through the application of diversified treatment matching the diversified needs as determined by our local governments. Uniformity of treatment is appropriate where a substantial uniformity of conditions exists.

Morgan v. Virginia, Briefs and Arguments
Morgan v. Virginia, Decision

Brown v. Board of Education I, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment - even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

(Overturns Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896))

Brown v. Board of Education I, Briefs and Arguments
Brown v. Board of Education I, Decision

Brown v. Board of Education II, 349 U.S. 294 (1955)

Brown v. Board of Education II, Briefs and Arguments
Brown v. Board of Education II, Decision

Brown v. Board of Education - Generally

KF228.B76 B76 1998
Martin, Waldo E.,Jr
Brown v. Board of Education : a brief history with documents
Boston : Bedford/St. Martin's, c1998

KF4155 B76
Brown v. Board of Education (1954 & 1955)
Publish info Washington, D.C. : University Publications of America, c1975

KF4549.A3 1975 v.49-49A
Brown v. Board of Education (1954 & 1955)
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Washington, D.C. : University Publications of America, c1975

Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956)

Enforced segregation of Negro and white passengers on motor buses operating in the City of Montgomery as required by Section 301 (31a, 31b and 31c) of Title 48, Code of Alabama, 1940, as amended, and Sections 10 and 11 of Chapter 6 of the Code of the City of Montgomery, 1952, violates the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Supplimental to Brown and regarding the Montgomery, Alabama Bus Boycott, the Supreme Court affirms a lower court decsion ordering the desegration of the Montgomery bus system.

Gayle v. Browder, Case Digest
Gayle v. Browder, Decision (District Court of the United States for the Middle District of Alabama Northern Division)
Gayle v. Browder, Opinion (Supreme Court of the United States)

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449 (1958)

Immunity from state scrutiny of petitioner's (NAACP) membership lists is here so related to the right of petitioner's members to pursue their lawful private interests privately and to associate freely with others in doing so as to come within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment.

NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, Briefs and Arguments
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, Decision

KF4549.A3 1975 v.54
NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, Pages 237-529.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)

Chapter 33 of the Virginia Acts of Assembly, Extra Sess. 1956, amended former statutes defining and punishing malpractice by attorneys so as to broaden the definition of solicitation of legal business to include acceptance of employment or compensation from any person or organization not a party to a judicial proceeding and having no pecuniary right or liability in it. It also made it an offense for any such person or organization to solicit business for any attorney.

The activities of petitioner (NAACP), its affiliates and legal staff shown on this record are modes of expression and association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments which Virginia may not prohibit, under its power to regulate the legal profession, as improper solicitation of legal business violative of Chapter 33 and the Canons of Professional Ethics

NAACP v. Button, Briefs and Arguments
NAACP v. Button, Decision

KF4549.A3 1975 v.56
NAACP v. Button, Pages 1079-1278.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Invoking the Court's original jurisdiction under Art. III, 2, of the Constitution, South Carolina filed a bill of complaint seeking a declaration of unconstitutionality as to certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The sections of the Act properly before this Court are a valid effectuation of the Fifteenth Amendment.

South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Briefs and Arguments
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Decision

KF4549.A3 1975 v.62
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Pages 1-831.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787 (1966)

Violation of the Civil Rights by law enforcement officers in conspiracy with private citizens.

On June 21, 1964, Cecil Ray Price, the Deputy Sheriff of Neshoba County, Mississippi, detained Michael Henry Schwerner, James Earl Chaney and Andrew Goodman in the Neshoba County jail located in Philadelphia, Mississippi. He released them in the dark of that night. He then proceeded by automobile on Highway 19 to intercept his erstwhile wards. He removed the three men from their automobile, placed them in an official automobile of the Neshoba County Sheriff's office, and transported them to a place on an unpaved road.

These acts, . . ., were part of a plan and conspiracy whereby the three men were intercepted by the 18 defendants, including Deputy Sheriff Price, Sheriff Rainey and Patrolman Willis of the Philadelphia, Mississippi, Police Department. The purpose and intent of the release from custody and the interception, . . ., were to "punish" the three men. The defendants, . . ., "did wilfully assault, shoot and kill" each of the three.

"To act `under color' of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents."

"There is no doubt that the indictment in sets forth a conspiracy within the ambit of the Fourteenth Amendment. It alleges that the defendants acted `under color of law' and that the conspiracy included action by the State through its law enforcement officers to punish the alleged victims without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's direct admonition to the States."

United States v. Price, Briefs and Arguments
United States v. Price, Decision

KF224.M47 B35 2004
Howard Ball
Murder in Mississippi : United States v. Price and the struggle for civil rights
Lawrence, Kan. : University Press of Kansas, c2004

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U.S. 663 (1966)

Once the franchise is granted to the electorate, lines which determine who may vote may not be drawn so as to cause invidious discrimination. Virginia's poll tax declared unconstitutional.

Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, Briefs and Arguments
Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, Decision

KF4549.A3 1975 v.62
Harper v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, Pages 833-1087.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Virginia's statutory scheme to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications held to violate the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Loving v. Virginia, Briefs and Arguments
Loving v. Virginia, Decision

KF4549.A3 1975 v.64
Loving v. Virginia, Pages 685-1007.
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969)

A prohibition against expression of opinion by students, without any evidence that the rule is necessary to avoid substantial interference with school discipline or the rights of others, is not permissible under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., Briefs and Arguments
Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., Decision

Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 (1969)

Application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to state election laws and regulations.

The Act, which gives a broad interpretation to the right to vote and recognizes that voting includes "all action necessary to make a vote effective," was aimed at the subtle as well as the obvious state regulations which have the effect of denying citizens their right to vote because of race.

Allen v. State Board of Elections, Briefs and Arguments
Allen v. State Board of Elections, Decision

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)

State criminal abortion laws, like those involved here, that except from criminality only a life-saving procedure on the mother's behalf without regard to the stage of her pregnancy and other interests involved violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy.

Roe v. Wade, Briefs and Arguments
Roe v. Wade, Decision

Regents of University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

Affirmative Action and Equal Protection.
Prohibits petitioner from taking race into account as a factor in its future (college) admissions decisions where it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Regents of University of California v. Bakke, Briefs and Arguments
Regents of University of California v. Bakke, Decision

KF101.8 R4 1977
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Washington, D.C. : University Publications of America, c1978

KF4549.A3 1975 v.99-100
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law
Washington, D.C. : University Publications of America, c1975

Grutter v. Bollinger, 000 U.S. 02-241 (2003)
And
Grutter v. Bollinger, 000 U.S. 02-516 (2003)

Clarifies the Bakke decision noting that "The Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body is not prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause".

"However, the Court finds that the University's current policy, which automatically distributes 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race, is not narrowly tailored to achieve educational diversity. In Bakke, Justice Powell explained his view that it would be permissible for a university to employ an admissions program in which 'race or ethnic background may be deemed a 'plus' in a particular applicant's file.' He emphasized, however, the importance of considering each particular applicant as an individual, assessing all of the qualities that individual possesses, and in turn, evaluating that individual's ability to contribute to the unique setting of higher education."

Grutter v. Bollinger, (241) Gutter Briefs and Arguments
Grutter v. Bollinger, (241) Gutter Decision

Grutter v. Bollinger, (516) Gratz Briefs and Arguments
Grutter v. Bollinger, (516) Gratz Decision

Tools for Searching Case Law

United States Federal Courts
United States Supreme Court Records and Briefs (At Yale)
Find Law
Legal Information Institute (at Cornell)
Glossary of Legal Terms

KF4756.A3 2000
Equal protection and the African-American constitutional experience : a documentary history / Robert P. Green, Jr.
Westport, Conn. : Greenwood Press, 2000.
ISBN 0313303509

KF4549.A3
Landmark briefs and arguments of the Supreme Court of the United States, Constitutional law / edited by Philip B. Kurland and Gerhard Casper
Arlington, Va. : University Publications, 1975-
ISBN 0890930007

KF4891.Z45 2002
Zelden, Charles L., 1963-
Voting rights on trial : a handbook with cases, laws, and documents
Santa Barbara, Calif : ABC-CLIO, c2002
Voting rights on trial : a handbook with cases, laws, and documents Web E-book

KF221.M8 W35 2001
Waldrep, Christopher, 1951-
Racial violence on trial : a handbook with cases, laws, and documents
Santa Barbara, Calif. : ABC-CLIO, c2001
Racial violence on trial : a handbook with cases, laws, and documents Web E-book

On Trial Series
Santa Barbara, Calif. : ABC-CLIO, c2001-

Legislation

The U.S. Constitution Online

Voting Rights Act of 1965 & Amendments