supreme court case study 37

Advertisement

The Major Supreme Court Cases of 2024

By Adam Liptak ,  Abbie VanSickle and Alicia Parlapiano

No Supreme Court term in recent memory has featured so many cases with the potential to transform American society.

The consequential cases, with decisions arriving by late June or early July, include three affecting former President Donald J. Trump, two on abortion, two on guns, three on the First Amendment rights of social media companies and three on the administrative state.

In recent years, some of the court’s biggest decisions have been out of step with public opinion. Researchers at Harvard, Stanford and the University of Texas conducted a survey in March to help explore whether that gap persists.

Trump’s Ballot Eligibility

Is there a major precedent involved?

Are there recent rulings on the subject, what was at stake, where does the public stand.

Source: SCOTUSPoll

More on the issue

Highlights of the Supreme Court’s Opinions on Trump’s Ballot Eligibility

In Trump Cases, Supreme Court Cannot Avoid Politics

Immunity for former presidents, what is at stake.

To Justify His Immunity Defense, Trump Flips the Prosecution Script

Conservative Justices Take Argument Over Trump’s Immunity in Unexpected Direction

Obstruction charges for jan. 6 assault.

Supreme Court’s Review of Jan. 6 Charge Has Already Freed Some Rioters

Abortion pills.

How Common Is Medication Abortion?

Emergency abortion care.

What to Know About the Federal Law at the Heart of the Latest Supreme Court Abortion Case

Tracking Abortion Bans Across the Country

Second amendment rights of domestic abusers.

In the Gun Law Fights of 2023, a Need for Experts on the Weapons of 1791

Gun Law Before Court Is Most Often Used as a Deterrent

Restrictions on the homeless.

The Town at the Center of a Supreme Court Battle Over Homelessness

Homelessness Case Draws Unusual Alliances: Conservatives and California Democrats

Social media platforms’ first amendment rights.

Supreme Court to Decide How the First Amendment Applies to Social Media

Disinformation on social media.

Ruling Puts Social Media at Crossroads of Disinformation and Free Speech

N.r.a. and the first amendment.

The A.C.L.U. Has a New Client: The National Rifle Association

Opioids settlement.

Judge Overturns Purdue Pharma’s Opioid Settlement

Fate of Billions for Opioid Victims From Sacklers Rests With Supreme Court

Racial gerrymandering.

How Maps Reshape American Politics

Nancy Mace’s District Moved Right. Then She Helped Oust McCarthy.

Power of federal agencies.

A Fight Over a Fishing Regulation Could Help Tear Down the Administrative State

A Potentially Huge Supreme Court Case Has a Hidden Conservative Backer

Agency funding.

Wall Street’s Most Hated Regulator Faces a Fundamental Threat

Administrative courts.

Supreme Court Seems Wary of In-House S.E.C. Tribunals

Cross-state air pollution.

E.P.A. Tells Dozens of States to Clean Up Their Smokestacks

Bump stocks for guns.

What Is a Bump Stock and How Does It Work?

Polling data is based on a survey conducted online by YouGov from March 18 to 25 using a representative sample of 2,218 American adults. It comes from the SCOTUSPoll project by Stephen Jessee, University of Texas at Austin; Neil Malhotra, Stanford University; and Maya Sen, Harvard University. Numbers may not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Question wording and responses broken down by political party are available here .

• Share full article

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Supreme Court Cases By Topic

Since its first decision in August 1791, the Supreme Court has heard and resolved thousands of cases spanning virtually every aspect of American life. The Court is not only the highest judicial authority in the United States but also the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution, the founding document of our democracy. Many of its decisions rest on constitutional principles, although the Court also has interpreted federal statutes, administrative regulations, treaties, and other sources of law in cases that may affect millions of people.

While each Supreme Court decision carries great weight, some decisions have resonated with particular force. Justia has selected landmark cases in the following areas:

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Explore the Constitution

The constitution.

• Read the Full Text

Dive Deeper

Constitution 101 course.

• The Drafting Table

Supreme Court Cases Library

• Founders' Library
• Constitutional Rights: Origins & Travels

Start your constitutional learning journey

• News & Debate Overview
• Constitution Daily Blog
• America's Town Hall Programs
• Special Projects

Media Library

America’s Town Hall

Watch videos of recent programs.

• Education Overview

Constitution 101 Curriculum

• Classroom Resources by Topic
• Classroom Resources Library
• Live Online Events
• Professional Learning Opportunities
• Constitution Day Resources

Explore our new 15-unit high school curriculum.

• Explore the Museum
• Plan Your Visit
• Exhibits & Programs
• Field Trips & Group Visits
• Host Your Event
• Buy Tickets

New exhibit

The first amendment.

The National Constitution Center’s Supreme Court Cases Library includes materials on the most influential Supreme Court cases in American history. To ensure nonpartisan rigor and ideological diversity, we enlisted a pair of leading scholars from diverse constitutional perspectives—Caroline Fredrickson and Ilan Wurman—to help choose the landmark cases included in the Supreme Court Cases Library . The Supreme Court Cases Library also includes landmark cases curated by the National Constitution Center team.

Constitutional Topics

Kennedy v. bremerton school district.

597 U.S. __ (2022)

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

597 U.S. ___ (2022)

Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo

592 U. S. __ (2020)

Our Lady of Guadalupe School v. Morrissey-Berru

591 U.S. __ (2020)

Espinoza v. Montana Dept. of Revenue

Carpenter v. united states.

585 U.S. ___ (2018)

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

584 U.S.__ (2018)

Obergefell v. Hodges

576 U.S. ___ (2015)

Zivotofsky v. Kerry

Town of greece v. galloway.

572 U.S. 565 (2014)

Shelby County v. Holder

570 U.S. 529 (2013)

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

567 U.S. 519 (2012)

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

558 U.S. 310 (2010)

District of Columbia v. Heller

554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Lawrence v. Texas

539 U.S. 558 (2003)

Bush v. Gore

531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Printz v. United States

521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Washington v. Glucksberg

521 U.S. 702 (1997)

United States v. Virginia

518 U.S. 515 (1996)

United States v. Lopez

514 U.S. 549 (1995)

Employment Division v. Smith

494 U.S. 872 (1990)

Texas v. Johnson

491 U.S. 397 (1989)

Morrison v. Olson

487 U.S. 654 (1988)

Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

484 U.S. 260 (1988)

South Dakota v. Dole

483 U.S. 203 (1987)

Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

467 U.S. 837 (1984)

Lynch v. Donnelly

465 U.S. 668 (1984)

Harlow v. Fitzgerald

457 U.S. 800 (1982)

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

438 U.S. 265 (1978)

United States v. Nixon (The Tapes Case)

418 U.S. 683 (1974)

Frontiero v. Richardson

411 U.S. 677 (1973)

Roe v. Wade

410 U.S. 113 (1973)

Wisconsin v. Yoder

406 U.S. 205 (1972)

New York Times Co. v. United States (The Pentagon Papers Case)

403 U.S. 713 (1971)

Brandenburg v. Ohio

395 U.S. 444 (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

393 U.S. 503 (1969)

Terry v. Ohio

392 U.S. 1 (1968)

Katz v. United States

389 U.S. 347 (1967)

Loving v. Virginia

388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)

South Carolina v. Katzenbach

383 U.S. 301 (1966)

Griswold v. Connecticut

381 U.S. 479 (1965)

United States v. Seeger

380 U.S. 163 (1965)

Reynolds v. Sims

377 U.S. 533 (1964)

New York Times Company v. Sullivan

376 U.S. 254 (1964)

Sherbert v. Verner

374 U.S. 398 (1963)

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

Engel v. Vitale

370 U.S. 421 (1962)

Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643 (1961)

Sweezy v. New Hampshire

354 U.S. 234 (1957)

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

347 U.S. 483 (1954)

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (Steel Seizure Case)

343 U.S. 579 (1952)

Terminiello v. Chicago

337 U.S. 1 (1949)

Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township

330 U.S. 1 (1947)

Korematsu v. United States

323 U.S. 214 (1944)

West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette

319 U.S. 624 (1943)

Wickard v. Filburn

317 U.S. 111 (1942)

Thornhill v. Alabama

310 U.S. 88 (1940)

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

304 U.S. 64 (1938)

United States v. Carolene Products Co.

304 U.S. 144 (1938)

West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish

300 U.S. 379 (1937)

Crowell v. Benson

285 U.S. 22 (1932)

Stromberg v. California

283 U.S. 359 (1931)

Olmstead v. United States

277 U.S. 438 (1928)

Whitney v. California

274 U.S. 357 (1927)

Gitlow v. New York

268 U.S. 652 (1925)

Pierce v. Society of Sisters

268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Abrams v. United States

250 U.S. 616 (1919)

Schenck v. United States

249 U.S. 47 (1919)

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Plessy v. Ferguson

163 U.S. 537 (1896)

Chinese Exclusion Case—Chae Chan Ping v. United States

130 U.S. 581 (1889)

The Civil Rights Cases

109 U.S. 3 (1883)

Strauder v. West Virginia

100 U.S. 303 (1880)

Reynolds v. United States

98 U.S. 145 (1879)

Minor v. Happersett

88 U.S. 162 (1875)

Bradwell v. The State of Illinois

83 U.S. 130 (1873)

The Slaughter-House Cases

83 U.S. 36 (1873)

Dred Scott v. Sandford

60 U.S. 393 (1857)

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Marbury v. Madison

5 U.S. 137 (1803)

More from the National Constitution Center

Constitution 101

Explore our new 15-unit core curriculum with educational videos, primary texts, and more.

Search and browse videos, podcasts, and blog posts on constitutional topics.

Founders’ Library

Discover primary texts and historical documents that span American history and have shaped the American constitutional tradition.

Modal title

Modal body text goes here.

Share with Students

Available exclusively as an online publication through HeinOnline

Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases

An online version of Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases that provides comprehensive expert analysis of all cases argued before the Supreme Court prior to the arguments. 

About Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases

The American Bar Association’s  Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases  is a publication that provides comprehensive expert analysis of all cases granted certiorari before the Supreme Court prior to the arguments. A subscription to this online publication includes eight issues annually. Issues 1-7 summarize the Court’s seven argument sessions from October through April. Issue 8, which is published subsequent to the close of the Court’s term at the end of June, reviews the entire term using statistics, charts, essays, and case summaries.

Title List: KBART (TXT) | CSV | HTML

Features of ABA Supreme Court Preview in HeinOnline

Since the American Bar Association’s  Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases  has been added to HeinOnline, subscribers now have a substantial advantage when accessing this publication online. HeinOnline allows users the ability to view the most current issue and archives in a fully searchable database. All PDFs of the publication are available in full color.

Other Benefits:

• Full coverage available from inception to current
• Electronic Table of Contents (eTOC) alerts when new issues are added
• Links to Amicus and Merit Briefs
• Additional case indexing and links to oral arguments and transcripts of each case
• HeinOnline’s ScholarCheck analysis on Preview articles & Supreme Court cases

Using Preview in the Classroom

Each month, the American Bar Association features a current case before the Court along with a modified case study and focus questions for classroom use. Access these ready-to-use resources through the American Bar Association.

Background of the Issue

Each case study provides key definitions relating to the case, as well as the case at a glance and the facts of the case.

Argument Summaries

The issue that is brought before the court is defined and includes argument summaries from both sides of the case.

Focus Questions

Insight focus questions are provided to promote and provoke dialogue regarding different aspects of the case.

Database Tools & Features

Case locator tool.

Quickly retrieve any case covered in Preview by name, docket number, term, subject, and more!

Inline Hyperlinks

Inline hyperlinks connect users to other cited articles and cases in HeinOnline. Click the blue hyperlinks to be directed to that citaiton.

Review Scholarly Works

Review other scholarly works written by Preview authors available in HeinOnline via their author profile page.

Using the Database

Knowledge base, customer training session.

Skip to main navigation

• Email Updates
• Federal Court Finder

Supreme Court Landmarks

Participate in interactive landmark Supreme Court cases that have shaped history and have an impact on law-abiding citizens today.

Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser (1987) Holding:  Students do not have a First Amendment right to make obscene speeches in school.

Matthew N. Fraser, a student at Bethel High School, was suspended for three days for delivering an obscene and provocative speech to the student body. In this speech, he nominated his fellow classmate for an elected school office. The Supreme Court held that his free speech rights were not violated.

*This case relates to students.

Board of Education of Independent School District #92 of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002) Holding:  Random drug tests of students involved in extracurricular activities do not violate the Fourth Amendment.

In Veronia School District v. Acton (1995), the Supreme Court held that random drug tests of student athletes do not violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures. Some schools then began to require drug tests of all students in extracurricular activities. The Supreme Court in Earls upheld this practice.

Brown v. Board of Education (1954) Holding:  Separate schools are not equal.

In  Plessy v. Ferguson  (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal." Learn more about this case.

Honor the important figures involved in the related cases  Brown v. Board of Education  and Mendez v. Westminster  using a readers theater presentation. 

Cooper v. Aaron (1958) Holding:  States cannot nullify decisions of the federal courts.

Several government officials in southern states, including the governor and legislature of Alabama, refused to follow the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision. They argued that the states could nullify federal court decisions if they felt that the federal courts were violating the Constitution. The Court unanimously rejected this argument and held that only the federal courts can decide when the Constitution is violated.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) Holding : School initiated-prayer in the public school system violates the First Amendment.

In the New York school system, each day began with a nondenominational prayer acknowledging dependence upon God. This action was challenged in Court as an unconstitutional state establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the government could not sponsor such religious activities.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) Holding:  Indigent defendants must be provided representation without charge.

Gideon was accused of committing a felony. Being indigent, he petitioned the judge to provide him with an attorney free of charge. The judge denied his request. The Supreme Court ruled for Gideon, saying that the Sixth Amendment requires indigent criminal defendants to be provided an attorney free of charge.

Learn more about this case.

Goss v. Lopez (1975) Holding:  Students are entitled to certain due process rights.

Nine students at an Ohio public school received 10-day suspensions for disruptive behavior without due process protections. The Supreme Court ruled for the students, saying that once the state provides an education for all of its citizens, it cannot deprive them of it without ensuring due process protections.

Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) Holding:  Colleges and universities have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Barbara Grutter alleged that her Equal Protection rights were violated when the University of Michigan Law School's attempt to gain a diverse student body resulted in the denial of her admission's application. The Supreme Court disagreed and held that institutions of higher education have a legitimate interest in promoting diversity.

Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Holding:  Administrators may edit the content of school newspapers.

The principal of Hazelwood East High School edited two articles in the school paper The Spectrum that he deemed inappropriate. The student authors argued that this violated their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The Supreme Court disagreed, stating that administrators can edit materials that reflect school values.

*This case relates to students. Learn more about this case.

Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Holding:  Illegally obtained material cannot be used in a criminal trial.

While searching Dollree Mapp's house, police officers discovered obscene materials and arrested her. Because the police officers never produced a search warrant, she argued that the materials should be suppressed as the fruits of an illegal search and seizure. The Supreme Court agreed and applied to the states the exclusionary rule from Weeks v. United States(1914).

Marbury v. Madison (1803) Holding:  Established the doctrine of judicial review.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

Teach students the significance of Marbury v. Madison which establishes the concept of judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) Holding:  The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Holding:  Police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

After hours of police interrogations, Ernesto Miranda confessed to rape and kidnapping. At trial, he sought to suppress his confession, stating that he was not advised of his rights to counsel and to remain silent. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that police must inform suspects of their rights before questioning.

New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985) Holding : Students have a reduced expectation of privacy in school.

A teacher accused T.L.O. of smoking in the bathroom. When she denied the allegation, the principal searched her purse and found cigarettes and marijuana paraphernalia. A family court declared T.L.O. a delinquent. The Supreme Court ruled that her rights were not violated since students have reduced expectations of privacy in school.

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) Holding : In order to prove libel, a public official must show that what was said against them was made with actual malice.

The New York Times was sued by the Montgomery, Alabama police commissioner, L.B. Sullivan, for printing an advertisement containing some false statements. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of the newspaper saying the right to publish all statements is protected under the First Amendment.

Roper v. Simmons (2005) Holding : It is cruel and unusual punishment to execute persons for crimes they committed before age 18. 

Matthew Simmons was sentenced to death for the murder of a woman when he was 17 years of age. In the 1988 caseThompson v. Oklahoma, the Supreme Court ruled that executing persons for crimes committed at age 15 or younger constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Roper argued that "evolving standards of decency" prevented the execution of an individual for crimes committed before the age of 18. A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with Roper, and held that to execute him for his crime would violate the Eighth Amendment.

Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000) Holding:  Students may not use a school's loudspeaker system to offer student-led, student-initiated prayer. 

Before football games, members of the student body of a Texas high school elected one of their classmates to address the players and spectators. These addresses were conducted over the school's loudspeakers and usually involved a prayer. Attendance at these events was voluntary. Three students sued the school arguing that the prayers violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A majority of the Court rejected the school's argument that since the prayer was student initiated and student led, as opposed to officially sponsored by the school, it did not violate the First Amendment. The Court held that this action did constitute school-sponsored prayer because the loudspeakers that the students used for their invocations were owned by the school.

Terry v. Ohio (1968) Holding:  Stop and frisks do not violate the Constitution under certain circumstances.

Observing Terry and others acting suspiciously in front of a store, a police officer concluded that they might rob it. The officer stopped and frisked the men. A weapon was found on Terry and he was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon. The Supreme Court ruled that this search was reasonable.

Texas v. Johnson (1989) Holding:  Even offensive speech such as flag burning is protected by the First Amendment.

To protest the policies of the Reagan administration, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag outside of the Dallas City Hall. He was arrested for this act, but argued that it was symbolic speech. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that symbolic speech is constitutionally protected even when it is offensive. Learn more about this case.

Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) Holding : Students do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door.

To protest the Vietnam War, Mary Beth Tinker and her brother wore black armbands to school. Fearing a disruption, the administration prohibited wearing such armbands. The Tinkers were removed from school when they failed to comply, but the Supreme Court ruled that their actions were protected by the First Amendment.

Learn more about this case.  Teach students the significance of Tinker v. Des Moines which examines student's First Amendment rights. 

U.S. v. Nixon (1974) Holding:  The President is not above the law.

The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Zelma v. Simmons-Harris (2002) Holding:  Certain school voucher programs are constitutional.

The Ohio Pilot Scholarship Program allowed certain Ohio families to receive tuition aid from the state. This would help offset the cost of tuition at private, including parochial (religiously affiliated), schools. The Supreme Court rejected First Amendment challenges to the program and stated that such aid does not violate the Establishment Clause.

DISCLAIMER: These resources are created by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for educational purposes only. They may not reflect the current state of the law, and are not intended to provide legal advice, guidance on litigation, or commentary on any pending case or legislation.

47 landmark Supreme Court cases that changed American life as we knew it

• The US Supreme Court was formed in 1789. It's gone from five seats to 10, and is now fixed at nine.
• Some of its decisions have empowered women, helped protect the environment, or guaranteed the right to expression.
• Others have strengthened racist laws, enabled forced sterilization, and allowed unequal schooling.

The US Supreme Court, the court of last resort, has undeniably changed the country.

It makes fewer than 100 decisions every year that have sweeping effects on American life.

Some have changed race relations for the better, empowered women, given the press freedom to operate, guaranteed a person's right to expression, or reiterated that the president is not above the law.

Not every decision has aged well. Other decisions have enforced slavery or created uneven schooling in the US. Last year, the court overturned a landmark case that legalized abortion in 1973.

Just before the nation's highest court entered summer recess at the end of June this year, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court issued two highly-anticipated rulings — one ending affirmative action at colleges and universities and another striking down President Joe Biden's student-loan forgiveness plan .

Here are 47 of the most important cases the Supreme Court has decided.

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

The case: Before President Thomas Jefferson took office in 1801, lame duck John Adams and Congress created new courts and appointed dozens of judges , including William Marbury as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia. But the new administration's Secretary of State James Madison wouldn't validate the appointment. So Marbury sued.

The decision: The justices ruled unanimously that Madison's refusal was illegal, and that the law Marbury had sued under was also unconstitutional. More importantly, this ruling held that the Supreme Court had the power of "judicial review" to decide whether a law or executive action is constitutional. This essentially gave the high court the legal authority for every decision it would make in the future.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

The case : In 1808, New York state gave Aaron Ogden a 20-year license to operate his steamboats on waters within the state . Thomas Gibson, another steam boat operator and Ogden's former business partner, was also working in the area, with a license from the federal government. Ogden claimed Gibbons was undercutting his business by unfairly competing. He wanted Gibbons to stop operating, and argued his license was enforceable, even though it was on interstate waters. Gibbons argued that the US Constitution gave Congress power over interstate commerce.

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held states cannot interfere with Congress's ability to regulate commerce. State laws had to yield to constitutional acts by Congress, so the court ruled in Gibbon's favor . It was an important early decision finding that federal governments had the ability to determine interstate commerce.

Worcester v. Georgia (1832)

The case : In 1828, Georgia passed laws prohibiting anyone except Native Americans from living on Native American land. Samuel Worcester, a missionary, was living on Native American land and refused to apply for a license. He was arrested and appealed, arguing his removal was a violation of his constitutional rights, as Georgia had no jurisdiction on Native American land.

The decision : The Supreme Court held, 5-1 , that the Cherokee Nation was a sovereign "distinct community." It struck down the Georgia law prohibiting white people living on Native American land. The case was important because it set out the relationship between tribes, states, and the federal government. It meant that interaction with Native American states became a federal process, and provided some sovereignty when interacting  with the US government.

But it wasn't always enforced. Then-President Andrew Jackson said, "John Marshall has issued his decision. Let him enforce it ."

Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge (1837)

The case : In 1785, Massachusetts gave the Charles River Bridge Company a charter to build a bridge between Boston and Cambridge . In exchange for covering the costs of building and maintaining it, the company could collect tolls until the charter ended.

But in 1828, a second company was authorized to build a competing bridge that would be free to the public, Charles River Bridge sought an injunction to prevent the second bridge from being built.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-2 that the authority given to Charles River never granted them a monopoly, and that general welfare would be enhanced with a second bridge. The court said the responsibility of government was to promote the happiness and prosperity of the community.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)

The case : This case arose from a suit brought by a slave in Missouri named Dred Scott . Scott had lived for a time in the free state of Illinois. When his master died in 1849, he sued the widow, arguing his time in the slave-free state made him a free man .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that since Scott's ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, he could not be an American citizen. Since he wasn't a citizen, he had no jurisdiction to sue, which also meant that black people living free in the north were barred from federal courts.  The court also held that under the Fifth Amendment, slaves were property, and any law that deprived a slave-owner of their property was unconstitutional.

The decision is thought to be one of the factors that led to the Civil War.

Munn v. Illinois (1877)

The case : In 1871, Illinois passed legislation that set the maximum rate private companies could charge for storing and transporting agricultural goods. Munn, a grain warehouse, charged too much and was found guilty of violating the law . It appealed, arguing the regulation was an unconstitutional removal of property.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the law was constitutional, and that the state can regulate private industries when it affects the public. Since storage facilities were devoted to the public, they could be regulated. This case allowed states to regulate businesses within their borders. It was important because it showed how private enterprises could be publicly regulated.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

The case : Homer Plessy, who was black under Louisiana law of the time, boarded a train and sat in a car that was reserved for white passengers . When he refused to move, he was arrested. Plessy argued that the Separate Car Act, which required all railroads to provide equal but separate accommodation, was violating his rights under the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-1  that "separate but equal" accommodations for whites and blacks did not violate the 14th Amendment.

Justice John Marshall Harlan, known as the " great dissenter ," wrote that the Constitution was color-blind, and the US had no class system. "T here is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens; there is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens," he wrote. Despite his dissent, the decision solidified the "separate but equal" doctrine for the next six decades.

Lochner v. New York (1905)

The case : In 1897, New York passed a labor law limiting the working week for bakers to 60 hours. Joseph Lochner, a Bavarian baker, was fined twice, because his employees worked more than 60 hours. Lochner appealed, arguing the law was unconstitutional.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the New York law was unconstitutional. The court said the law interfered with the contract between an employer and and his employees.

This decision was widely condemned . For the next three decades, the court struck down minimum wage laws, rights to organize, and child safety laws using Lochner as precedent, before reversing course and allowing such laws.

Abrams v. United States (1919)

The case : In New York, five Russian anti-war activists were arrested under the 1917 Espionage Act for printing and distributing 5,000 leaflets that criticized the US's role in World War I. They also advocated for a general strike, and had put out a call to arms if the US intervened in Russia. They were sentenced to prison for up to 20 years. They appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that the Espionage Act was valid, and that it was a crime to willfully publish " disloyal " language about US politics, arguing that such speech was not protected by the First Amendment.

One of the most important things to come out of this case is Justice Holmes' dissenting opinion. He argued that the government should only regulate people's expression when it was required to save the country.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Mellon (1923)

The case : The 1921 Maternity Act gave states money for programs aimed to help mothers and their infants. A woman named Frothingham thought the act would lead to an increase in her taxes, so she tried to sue the federal government. The issue was whether a taxpayer had standing to sue, when the only injury was going to be an increase in taxes .

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held she did not have standing because the injury was too small and indeterminable. It led to the legal concept of a "particularized" injury , which needs to be traced to a legal violation. Without this decision, it would be a lot easier to take a suit to court.

Buck v. Bell (1927)

The case : A young woman named Carrie Buck was diagnosed with "feeble mindedness," and committed to a state institution after she was raped by her foster parent's nephew, and had his child. Her mother had also been diagnosed as feeble minded. Under the 1924 Virginia Eugenical Sterilization Act , she was to be sterilized against her will, since she was seen as unfit to procreate. Buck's appointed guardian sued, hoping to have the Supreme Court find sterilization constitutional .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 8-1 that there was nothing in the Eighth or 14th Amendments that said Carrie Buck could not be sterilized.

In his opinion, Justice Oliver Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from breeding their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes … Three generations of imbeciles are enough."

After this case, sterilizations did not cease until the 1960s, and more than 60,000 people were sterilized without their consent. The case has never been overturned.

Near v. Minnesota (1931)

The case : The 1925 Public Nuisance Bill, also known as the "Minnesota gag law," allowed judges to close down newspapers that were deemed obscene or slanderous . In 1927, the Saturday Press, a newspaper based in Minneapolis, began to publish articles attacking several public officials. One of them accused a politician named Floyd B. Olson of being a pawn to a conspiracy. Olson filed a complaint. A judge, using the 1925 law, issued a temporary restraining order against the newspaper. The newspaper appealed under the First Amendment's right to a free press.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Public Nuisance law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Hughes wrote, "This statute ... raises questions of grave importance transcending the local interests involved in the particular action. It is no longer open to doubt that the liberty of the press and of speech is within the liberty safeguarded by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion of state action."

The case stopped journalists from being censored , and enabled the press to fulfill its role as watchdog, including the printing of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.

Wickard v. Filburn (1942)

The case : The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, enacted to stabilize agricultural prices after the Great Depression, restricted how much wheat could be grown , to avoid another recession. The Department of Agriculture fined Roscoe Filburn, a wheat farmer in Ohio, for growing too much. He sued, arguing Congress didn't have the authority, since he'd never planned to sell all of the wheat. The issue was whether Congress had the authority to regulate local wheat production.

The decision : The Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress had the power to regulate activities in the industry, and within states, when the activities had substantial effects on interstate commerce. So, even though Filburn's wheat wasn't all going to make it into the market, growing it still altered supply and demand in a national market .

This case led to the federal government having more power to regulate the economy , and also enabled federal regulation of things like workplace safety and civil rights. Not everyone has been in favor of this case. Notably, the late Justice Antonia Scalia used to laugh at it .

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

The case: In the 1950s, Linda Brown had to take a dangerous route to school, because the only school that was closer was for white students . Her father, Oliver Brown, believed this was a breach of the 14th Amendment, which says, "no state can deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Brown, along with a dozen other parents, challenged the segregation policy on behalf of their 20 children.

The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that separate educational facilities were inherently unequal. A second decision called for lower courts and school boards to proceed with desegregation. This decision knocked down the doctrine of "separate but equal" from Plessy v. Ferguson, which had allowed mixed race schools, transportation, and facilities to exist as long as they were "equal."

The Atlantic described Chief Justice Earl Warren's "ringing opinion" as "the belated mid course correction that began America's transformation into a truly multiracial world nation."

Mapp v. Ohio (1961)

The case : When Ohio police thought a suspected bomber was hiding out in Dollree Mapp's house, they forced their way in without a warrant. When Mapp asked where the warrant was, they held up a piece of paper. In their search of her house, they found pornographic materials. They arrested Mapp and later convicted her for being in possession of obscene materials. She appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 6-3 that any violation of the Fourth Amendment's right against unlawful searches and seizures made evidence inadmissible in court. Justice Clark wrote in his majority opinion that " the exclusionary rule ," which prohibits the use of illegally obtained evidence in criminal trials, was essential.

This case has led to the redefining of the rights of people being accused and limits how police can obtain evidence.

Engel v. Vitale (1962)

The case: In New York, schools  adopted a daily prayer after it was required by state law. Some parents argued it was a violation of individuals' rights, but the school board said it wasn't, since students could opt out. Five families led by parent Steven Engel disagreed, and sued on the basis that it violated the religion clause of the First Amendment.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-1 that reading an official prayer at school violated the constitution, because it was an " establishment of religion ." Justice Hugo Black wrote for the majority: "It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America."

The case meant any state-enforced prayer, or reading of the bible in a public school would be suspected . It also was a key case showing the enforcement of separation between church and state.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

The case : Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and entering a pool hall. He requested a lawyer to defend him, but Florida's state court rejected him. After defending himself poorly Gideon went to prison. Giddeon appealed, and the issue was whether the right to counsel extended to felony defendants in state courts.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that state courts were required to appoint attorneys for those who could not afford their own counsel.

The US justice system would not be what it is today without this decision. The decision affirms that " lawyers in criminals courts are necessities, not luxuries ." However, the quality of criminal defense services varies across the country.

Reynold v. Sims (1964)

The case: This case stemmed from the apportionment scheme in Alabama . Under the 14th Amendment, each voter's intentions are meant to have equal weight, but in Alabama, legislative districts were no longer accurately representing the amount of people who lived in them, especially in the cities, where populations had grown rapidly. The issue was whether this breached the "equal protection clause" in the 14th Amendment.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that Alabama's apportionment scheme had breached the 14th Amendment . The justices ruled that the right to vote is a fundamental right, and equal participation is crucial. Chief Justice Warren wrote for the majority: "legislators represent people, not trees or acres."

This decision made the government more democratic .

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. US (1964)

The case: The Heart of Atlanta Motel in Georgia refused to provide accommodation for black people, but the Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned the practice . Two hours after the act was passed, the motel asked the court to stop the enforcement of a clause in Title II, which forbid racist discrimination by public accommodation providers. The motel argued it exceeded Congress's power.

The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that the act was not exceeding Congress's power. It reasoned that discrimination by businesses had a big impact on black people traveling, even when it was a small business, since negative effects could be far-reaching when added up. It was especially the case here, since 75% of the guests staying at the motel came from out of state.

This was the first case to challenge the Civil Rights Act, and by upholding it, the act was legitimatized and strengthened. The law would go on to be used to dismantle many other forms of racist discrimination .

New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

The case: This case was about an advertisement titled "Heed Their Rising Voices" that was published in The New York Times in 1960. The ad was looking for donations to defend Martin Luther King Jr. and criticized the Montgomery police. The ad had factual errors, and L.B. Sullivan, a Montgomery city commissioner, sued The Times for defamation, though he wasn't mentioned. In Alabama, Sullivan won and The Times was ordered to pay $500,000. The paper appealed.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that while regular defamation requires that a defendant knows a statement is false or reckless, when it's a public figure, the defendant must act with "actual malice" — meaning they must know it was false or have a "reckless disregard" for the truth.

This decision strengthens the freedom of the American press, which has the strongest protections in the world , ensuring debate on public issues is robust and open .

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

The case: In 1963, police obtained a written confession from Ernesto Miranda that said he had kidnapped and raped a woman. However, they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda appealed on the basis that his confession had been gained unconstitutionally .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that law enforcement must advise suspects of their right to remain silent, their right to an attorney, and that anything they say can and will be used against them in a court of law. Evidence could not be used in a trial unless the warnings had been given and knowingly waived.

Police work, and the well-known "you have the right to remain silent" would not be so firmly entrenched into society (or TV shows and movies) without this decision . People know their rights, and police know they have to read them to suspects.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)

The case : Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were from Virginia, where inter-racial marriage was illegal. In 1958, they got married in D.C. and then returned home. On their return, they were charged with breaking the law and sentenced to one year in prison. A judge suspended their sentence as long as they didn't return to the state together for 25 years. Loving wrote to then-Attorney General Robert Kennedy and asked for his help, and he referred them to the ACLU, which helped them sue.

The decision : In a unanimous decision , the Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. Chief Justice Warren wrote, "Under our constitution the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the state."

In a watershed moment for civil rights, the case found that people of any race, anywhere in the US, can get married, striking down laws banning inter-racial marriage in 16 states. The case was later cited in same-sex marriage cases .

Terry v. Ohio (1968)

The case : In 1963, three men were suspiciously walking back and forth in a block in Cleveland, Ohio, and a detective thought they were preparing to rob a store . He approached them, identified himself, then frisked them and found two concealed guns. One of the men was convicted for having the gun. The man appealed. The issue was whether police frisking violated the Fourth Amendment.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 8-1 that the search was reasonable since the men were acting suspiciously, warranting inquiry. If circumstances justify a belief that an individual is armed and dangerous, the justices ruled, the officer may pat down the outside of an individual's clothing.

Justice William O. Douglas, the lone dissenter, did not think the standard for search and seizures should have been lowered from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion." He wrote : " Yet if the individual is no longer to be sovereign, if the police can pick him up whenever they do not like the cut of his jib, if they can 'seize' and 'search' him in their discretion, we enter a new regime. The decision to enter it should be made only after a full debate by the people of this country."

This case opened up the police's ability to investigate activity they deem suspicious.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

The case : Clarence Brandenburg was arrested after making racist remarks and claiming the government was suppressing the "Caucasian race" to a gathering of Ku Klux Klan members in a field in Ohio. He also mentioned action might need to be taken, and was filmed by media he had invited to the gathering. The state law criminalized advocating violence as a means of accomplishing political reform, and he was sentenced to up to 10 years prison . The issue was whether speech advocating for violence was protected by the First Amendment.

The decision : The Supreme Court held per curiam , which means in the name of the court rather than the judges, that his freedom of speech had been violated. It found that speech may only be outlawed when it is directly inciting " imminent lawless action ." It also found that abstract discussions are not the same as actual preparation to engage in violence. This case broadened protections for political dissent.

Phillips v. Martin Marietta Corp. (1971)

The case: Ida Phillips applied for a job at the Martin Marietta Corporation, a missile plant in Orlando. She had seven children, and the business had a hiring policy excluding mothers with pre-school children, believing them to be unreliable. Phillips alleged she'd been denied employment because of her sex. The issue was whether this was discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The case was complicated , because the company hired women for the job, just not women with young children.

The decision: The Supreme Court unanimously held that it was discriminatory, since it was based on the sex of the applicant, even if it was about motherhood.

However, it did send the case back to lower courts to give the corporation a chance to present evidence about the impeded ability of mothers with young children. And the judges were uneasy about the idea that both sexes were equally equipped to do all jobs. Justice Hugo Black asked Phillips' lawyer , "Does the law require that the employer give the woman a job of digging ditches and things of that kind?"

All nine justices at the time were men.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

The case : In Wisconsin, children were required by law to attend school until they were 16. But three Amish families refused to send their children to school after eighth grade, when most children are 14, resulting in $5 fines from the state. (Amish families think the content of secondary and higher education conflicts with their life of austerity .) They argued the compulsory attendance violated their rights under the First Amendment, specifically the Free Exercise Clause.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that the Amish families' right to religious freedom was not overridden by the state's interest in education. It held that sending the children to high school would threaten the Amish way of life. Freedom of religion was seen as more important than the state's interest in education, and this case created an exception for Amish people, and others in similar situations .

The justices agreed overall on the ruling, but Justice William O. Douglas filed a partial dissent arguing that the children's viewpoint wasn't being considered, worried that they may miss out on an education if they're not asked whether they want to go to high school.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

The case : This case stemmed from a Texas law that said abortion was illegal unless, by doctor's orders, it was to save a woman's life. An anonymous plaintiff called Jane Roe (who was later identified as Norma McCorvey) filed against the Dallas County district attorney, arguing the law was unconstitutional .

The decision : The Supreme Court held 7-2 that overly restrictive legislation around abortion was unconstitutional. Based on a right to privacy in the 14th Amendment, the state was not allowed to regulate a woman's decision.

This case overruled any laws that made abortion illegal before a fetus was viable, giving women more power when it comes to their bodies and having children. It made access to abortion a constitutional right .

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

The case: In the late 1960s, schools in Texas could use local property taxes to boost revenue. So schools that were based in poorer areas had less revenue, because the property taxes were lower. A class-action suit was filed on behalf of children living in poorer areas. The issue here was whether the system violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there is no constitutional right to an equal education. The opinion said it should not be unconstitutional, because " burdens or benefits " fall unevenly, depending on the wealth of the areas in which citizens live.

In Time Magazine's list of the worst Supreme Court cases since 1960 , the editors concluded this case enforced the idea that discrimination against the poor did not violate the Constitution, and education wasn't a fundamental right.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

The case : This case was triggered by the Watergate scandal , when a special prosecutor asked for tapes that President Richard Nixon had recorded in the White House. He refused, saying he had "executive privilege" that allowed him to withhold sensitive information in order to maintain confidential communications and to maintain national security. Nixon released edited versions, but not the complete tapes, leading to Nixon and the prosecutor both filing petitions to be heard in the Supreme Court.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that while there was limited executive privilege for military or diplomacy reasons, it wasn't enough in this case. Nixon had to hand over the tapes. The case led to Nixon's resignation, and also ensures that the president does not have unlimited privilege to withhold information from other branches of government. " Not even the president is above the law ," Harvard constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe said.

O'Conner v. Donaldson (1975)

The case: After Kenneth Donaldson told his parents he thought his neighbor was poisoning his food, he was examined and diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia . Against his will, he was committed to a state hospital for the next 15 years. During that time, two different people volunteered to be responsible for him, but the hospital refused to release him. He sued, saying the hospital staff had " intentionally and maliciously deprived him of his right to liberty."

The decision: The Supreme Court held unanimously that mental patients could not be confined in institutions against their will, if they weren't dangerous and were capable of surviving in society. In the opinion, Justice Potter Stewart wrote: "May the state fence in the harmless mentally ill solely to save its citizens from exposure to those whose ways are different? One might as well ask if the state, to avoid public unease, could incarcerate all who are physically unattractive or socially eccentric."

The decision established the legal threshold for people posing a danger to themselves or others.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

The case : This was a case about freedom of speech, in particular about spending limits by, or for, candidates running for office. Sen. James L. Buckley, and a coalition of groups, filed a suit arguing that the Federal Election Campaign Act, which limited spending and required spending disclosures, weren't constitutional.

The decision : The court held per curiam that independent spending was a form of political speech protected by the First Amendment. However, it also concluded that contributions could be capped. This is an important decision for campaign spending. It helped lead the way to the rising of political action committees, or PACs. It also led to the enforcement of reporting campaign spending.

First National Bank of Boston v. Belloti (1978)

The case : Several plaintiffs, including the First National Bank of Boston, wanted to challenge a proposed increase on personal income taxes for high-wage earners in Massachusetts. The plaintiffs wanted to pay for advertising to criticize it, but they could only spend money if they were "materially affected," based on a Massachusetts law, which restricted what corporations could spend in politics. Attorney General Francis Bellotti said the bank wasn't materially affected. The plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of the provision.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Massachusetts law was unconstitutional . The court concluded that the First Amendment protected corporations , since they were made up of shareholders who decided their corporation should engage on public issues. This case opened the door to Citizens United .

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

The case: Allan Bakke, a 35-year-old Vietnam war veteran, was rejected from medical school at the University of California twice. Every year, the school accepted 100 people, and 16 of those accepted were from "minority groups." He argued his rejections were due to "reverse racism", since his grades were better than the 16 people who got in on minority seats.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that Bakke should be admitted. However, it also said race could be taken into account to promote diversity on campuses.

Six different justices wrote opinions. In one opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun wrote: "In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way. And in order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."

Since this case, despite affirming that race could be taken into account, the percentage of black freshman in the US has not changed . A 2017 analysis found they make up 6% of freshmen, but are 15% of college-age Americans.

Strickland v. Washington (1984)

The case: David Washington was sentenced to death after he pleaded guilty to murder . But this case arose out of what his lawyer didn't do during the trial. His lawyer failed to call any character witnesses or get a psychiatric evaluation. Washington appealed, arguing his counsel's assistance was constitutionally ineffective.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 8-1 that ineffective counsel only violated the Sixth Amendment when the performance was deficient. For this, counsel assistance had to fall below an objective reasonableness standard, and there needed to be a "reasonable probability" the result would have been different had counsel not failed.

Justice Thurgood Marshall wrote in dissent: "My objection to the performance standard adopted by the Court is that it is so malleable that, in practice, it will either have no grip at all or will yield excessive variation ... To tell lawyers and the lower courts that counsel for a criminal defendant must behave 'reasonably' and must act like 'a reasonably competent attorney' is to tell them almost nothing."

This case makes it difficult for defendants to prove ineffective assistance claims , since they need to show that it's outside the range of professional competence and that the client was prejudiced by it.

Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984)

The case : In 1977, Congress added an amendment to the Clean Air Act, requiring states to establish programs to reduce power plant pollution. In the amendment, entire power plants were treated as a single unit within a "bubble", even if they had multiple smoke stacks. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) thought the bubble interpretation dulled the law, and sued the EPA.

The decision : The Supreme Court held unanimously that the bubble policy was valid. It found that if the law is clear then agencies must follow it, and when a a law does not have a clear meaning, the courts should defer to the federal agency's interpretation of the law.

This is one of the most cited Supreme Court decisions of all time, and this standard became known as the " Chevron Defense ."

Texas v. Johnson (1989)

The case : During a protest in 1984 against then-President Ronald Reagan and local corporations in Dallas, Gregory Johnson covered the American flag in kerosene then lit it on fire , offending witnesses. He was arrested and charged with desecrating a venerated object, which was banned under Texas law. He was sentenced to one year in prison and ordered to pay $2,000. He appealed, on the basis that the law was in breach of his First Amendment rights.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that burning the flag was protected under the First Amendment. In the majority opinion, Justice Brennan wrote: "if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable ... We do not consecrate the flag by punishing its desecration, for in doing so we dilute the freedom that this cherished emblem represents."

Despite former President George H. Bush proposing to add an anti flag burning amendment to the constitution, this case still protects unpopular political expression in the US today.

Michael H. v Gerald D. (1989)

The case : A man, for the purposes of the case named Michael , had an affair with a woman who later had a child. Blood tests indicated he was the father. He wanted visitation rights, but under California law, the child is presumed to be from the marriage, and another person can only challenge that within the child's first two years of life. Michael was too late, and sued. The issue was whether the California law violated the man's chance to establish paternity.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that a biological father does not have a fundamental right to obtain parental rights, after the presumed father had acted in a responsible way for the child. A woman's husband is to be presumed father of her children, regardless of anyone else's claim.

Cruzan v. Director of the Missouri Department of Health (1990)

The case : In 1983, Nancy Cruzan, a 25-year-old woman, was in a car crash that resulted in her falling into a vegetative state. She was on life support for five years, and had no chance of recovery, but doctors estimated she could have lived on life support for another 30 years. Her parents asked for her to be disconnected, but the hospital refused without a court order. Before the car crash, Nancy had said she would not want to live if she were sick or injured and could not live "at least halfway normally." Her parents asked for a court order to remove her from life support.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that there was a right to die, but the state had the right to stop the family, unless there was "clear and convincing" evidence that it was her wish to die.

This was the first time the court had ruled on a right-to-die case. It didn't set national guidelines, and left it to be decided on a state-by-state basis. In the month after the case, 300,000 requests were made for advance-directive forms , so people could make it known in advance what should happen to them if they became incapacitated.

Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

The case : Police entered a private residence on a false report about a weapons disturbance, and found Lawrence and Garner engaging in a consensual sexual act. They were arrested and convicted under Texas law, which forbid two people of the same sex to have sex. The issue for this case was whether the 14th Amendment protected them.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 6-3 that the Texas law violated their right to liberty, under the " Due Process Clause ," which allowed them to engage in their conduct without government intervention.

This was seen as a victory for LGBT rights, removing what one law professor called " the reflexive assumption of gay people's inferiority ," and overturning 14 state laws across the US.

Georgia v. Randolph (2006)

The case : After a fight at home between a separated couple, a woman called the police and told them to come in , then showed them cocaine she said her husband was using. The husband was later charged with possession, even though he had told the police they couldn't come in. The issue was whether the police can search a home without a warrant when one person gives consent, but the other refuses.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-3 that in at least a few circumstances the right to search and enter is not valid if one of the occupants says they can't, ruling in the husband's favor .

This case narrows the scope for when police can enter and search homes without warrants. They can still enter to protect someone from harm or to chase a fleeing suspect, for example.

Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency (2007)

The case : This case came about in 1999, when Massachusetts, 11 other states, and several environmental organizations petitioned for the EPA to start regulating carbon dioxide coming out of new motor vehicles, since it was a pollutant. The EPA denied the petition, saying it did not have the legal authority to regulate it.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the EPA had the right to regulate heat-trapping gases coming from automobiles, and that the Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant had been written with sweeping language so that it would not become obsolete.

According to James Salzman , a professor of law and environmental policy at Duke University, the majority's acknowledgement of climate change science put this case on the legal map. And since it made it almost impossible for the EPA not to regulate, the decision sent a message to other agencies that they also had to deal with climate change.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

The case: Richard Heller, a security guard who lived in D.C. and carried a gun for work, was not allowed to have a gun at home , due to the city's laws. He thought the laws were too restricting and made it impossible to defend himself. Heller, along with five others, sued, arguing it was a violation of the Second Amendment. They were funded by Robert Levy , a libertarian lawyer from the Cato Institute.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the Second Amendment guaranteed an individual's right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense. It was the first time in 70 years the Supreme Court ruled on the Second Amendment.

In 2019, former-Justice John Paul Stevens said it was the worst decision during his 34-year tenure, representing "the worst self-inflicted wound in the Court's history." He said an amendment should be added to the Constitution to overrule the case, to stop gun massacres like what had happened in Las Vegas or  Sandy Hook .

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

The case : A non-profit organization called Citizens United made a disparaging film about Hilary Clinton and they wanted to run an advertisement for it during the 2008 election. But the Federal Election Campaign Act banned corporations and unions from spending money to advocate during elections. So Citizens United couldn't show the film since it mentioned Clinton, who was a presidential candidate at the time. Citizens United argued the ban was unconstitutional.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that corporations and unions can spend as much as they like to convince people to vote for or against political candidates, as long as the spending is independent of the candidates. The ruling gave corporations protections under the First Amendment's right to free speech.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in dissent of the ruling, that it was "a rejection of the common sense of the American people," and a threat to democracy.

The decision changed how politics works in the US. In the 2014 senate elections, outside spending had more than doubled to $486 million since 2010.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)

The case : President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010 to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, and to decrease the cost of healthcare. Twenty-six states, several people, and the National Federation of Independent Business sued to overturn the law. The first issue was whether it was legal to require people to purchase health insurance with an individual mandate. The second was whether a provision forcing states to cover more people or lose federal funding was unconstitutionally coercive.

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the individual mandate was legitimate, because it was in essence a tax , and struck down the provision that would withhold funds for states which did not expand the program.

It wasn't without dissent, though. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that the decision was a " vast judicial overreaching ," which would create a "debilitated, inoperable version of health care regulation."

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)

The case : James Obergefell and John Arthur, a couple from Ohio, got married in Maryland. In Ohio, same-sex marriage was not allowed on death certificates. Arthur was chronically ill and wanted to have Obergefell on his death certificate. Along with three couples from Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee, they sued their states, claiming they were in breach of the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment , which says, "no state shall ... deny to any citizen within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The decision : The Supreme Court held 5-4 that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to marry , including same-sex marriages. Every state in the US now legally recognizes same-sex marriage. Before this case, 13 states still had a ban on gay marriage.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022)

The case:  In March 2018, the Jackson Women's Health Organization, Mississippi's only abortion clinic since 2006, sued the state for enacting a law that banned abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The lawsuit argued that the rule was unconstitutional due to the precedent set by the Supreme Court, including Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Dobbs refers to Dr. Thomas E. Dobbs, the state's Department of Health officer, but he had little to do with the overall case.

The decision: The Supreme Court held 6-3 to uphold the Mississippi law. However, on top of the ruling, five of the justices in the majority opinion also ruled to overturn Roe, repealing a landmark case that made abortion legal in the US for nearly five decades. Chief Justice John Roberts was the only member of the court's conservative majority who believed the court should not have outright overruled Roe.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (2023) Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina (2023)

The case:  Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit led by conservative activist Edward Blum, accused the University of North Carolina of discriminating against Asian and white applicants and violating the Constitution's equal protection clause by considering race in its admissions. SFFA also sued Harvard University, claiming the university discriminated against Asian applicants and violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The nonprofit brought the cases to the Supreme Court in October 2022 , urging the court to overturn Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which upheld affirmative action.

The decision: On June 29, the Supreme ruled 6-3 against the admissions processes at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, deeming it unconstitutional to consider race in college applications. Chief Justice John Roberts said universities have "concluded, wrongly, that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built, or lessons learned but the color of their skin. Our constitutional history does not tolerate that choice."

• Main content

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

Pennsylvania v. Torsilieri (majority)

On July 3, 2017, a jury convicted Appellee George Torsilieri of one count each of aggravated indecent assault, and indecent assault. The trial court deferred sentencing until completion of a presentence investigative report and a sexually violent predator assessment by the Sexual Offenders Assessment Board (“SOAB”). While sentencing was pending, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided Commonwealth v. Muniz, 164 A.3d 1189 (Pa. 2017), holding that the registration and notification provisions of the then-applicable SORNA were punitive. A majority of the Court consequently concluded that the punitive provisions violated the constitutional protections of Pennsylvania’s ex post facto clause when applied retroactively to sexual offenders who were convicted prior to December 20, 2012, the effective date of SORNA. In September 2017, the SOAB concluded that Appellee did not meet the criteria for designation as a sexually violent predator (“SVP”). Between the SOAB’s determination and Appellee’s sentencing, the Superior Court declared a different aspect of SORNA unconstitutional. After review, the Supreme Court vacated that portion of the trial court's order declaring the registration requirements of SORNA unconstitutional, and remanded for further proceedings: "Unfortunately, the procedural posture of this case prevents tidy resolution of the matter by this Court. While Appellee presented a colorable argument that the General Assembly’s factual presumptions have been undermined by recent scientific studies, we are unable to affirm the trial court’s several conclusions finding Revised Subchapter H unconstitutional."

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

Get free summaries of new Supreme Court of Pennsylvania opinions delivered to your inbox!

• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Breaking News

SCOTUS NEWS

Supreme court takes up rico and veterans “benefit of the doubt” cases.

In a list of orders released from the justices’ private conference last week, the justices granted review in four cases – adding those cases to the lone four cases that they have agreed to take up for the 2024-25 term since early January. Monday’s grants involve (among others) the interpretation of federal racketeering laws and the “benefit of the doubt” rule for veterans.

In Medical Marijuana v. Horn , the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether a commercial truck driver who lost his job after he failed a drug test can bring a claim under federal racketeering laws against the makers of the product that he says was responsible for that failed test.

The driver, Douglas Horn, began taking Dixie X CBD Dew Drops Tincture to relieve chronic pain from injuries he sustained in a serious trucking accident in 2012. Horn and his wife, Cindy Harp-Horn, who was also a truck driver, believed – based on the advertising for the tincture – that the product did not contain THC, the active ingredient in marijuana. Horn and Harp-Horn sought to confirm the absence of THC, however, by watching YouTube videos, reviewing the “frequently asked questions” page on the Dixie X website, and calling the company’s customer service line.

After he began using Dixie X, Horn failed a drug test – and, as a result, lost his job and his insurance and pension benefits. Harp-Horn, who had worked with her husband, then quit her job, because she believed it was not safe to work without him.

When an independent lab test confirmed that Dixie X contained THC, Horn filed a lawsuit in federal court in New York under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that the makers of the product had engaged in mail and wire fraud and that, as a result, he had lost his job and therefore suffered – as RICO requires – an injury to his business or property.

The district court ruled for Medical Marijuana and the other companies on Horn’s RICO claim. It concluded that because Horn’s lost earnings flow from a personal injury – his ingestion of THC – he had not suffered an injury “to business or property” for which he could recover under RICO.

Horn appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, which reinstated his RICO claim. It ruled that because RICO’s reference to the term “business” includes “employment,” Horn had indeed suffered an injury to his “business” for purposes of the RICO law. The court of appeals acknowledged that there is no liability under RICO when the “injuries alleged are personal ones,” but it cautioned that “there is no reason to extend that bar to an injury to business or property for which a personal injury was a necessary precursory.”

The companies came to the Supreme Court last fall, asking the justices to take up the case and weigh in. They described the question presented by the case as “critically important,” explaining that “RICO is a frequently litigated federal statute that imposes treble damages and attorneys’ fees.” “If quintessential personal injuries count as injuries to ‘business or property’ just because economic damage inevitably results,” the companies told the justices, “Congress’ careful limitation on civil RICO claims would be toothless.”

Horn urged the justices to allow the 2nd Circuit’s decision to stand and to stay out of the dispute. He contended that the companies’ proposed rule would “override the statute’s text, undermine its purpose, and afford a windfall to criminal enterprises across the country. And the” companies’ petition for review, he argued, “resurrects stale debates over civil RICO’s scope that have little to do with this case.”

After considering the case at their conferences on April 19 and April 24, the justices granted the companies’ petition for review on Monday.

In Bufkin v. McDonough , the justices agreed to weigh in on the application of the “benefit of the doubt” rule – the idea that a veteran, rather than the government, should receive the benefit of the doubt on close issues involving veterans’ law. The Veterans Benefits Act directs the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to “take due account of the” application of the “benefit of the doubt” rule by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The question that the justices agreed to decide is whether that means that the Veterans Court is only required to review the factual findings of the Veterans Administration for clear error, or whether it must conduct a more thorough review that looks at whether the veteran actually received the benefit of the doubt on close factual issues.

Joshua Bufkin and Norman Thornton, two veterans who lost in the lower courts, urged the justices to take up their cases, calling the “benefit of the doubt” rule one of “the oldest and most fundamental building blocks of the veterans’ claims system. If left to stand,” they contended, the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit “will severely narrow the Veterans Court’s review, resulting in many veterans being denied benefits which they have earned through their service and to which they are entitled by law.”

The justices granted two other petitions for review on Monday:

• Bouarfa v. Mayorkas , involving whether courts can review a decision to revoke approval of a petition for an immigrant visa on the ground that the government had initially misapplied nondiscretionary criteria during the approval process, and when the applicant would have had a right to review of an initial decision denying review of the application; and
• Royal Canin U.S.A. v. Wullschleger , in which the justices will consider whether a plaintiff – here, a dog owner alleging that the designation of specialized dog food as “prescription” dog food is misleading – whose state-court lawsuit has been transferred by the defendants to federal court can seek to have the case sent back to state court by removing all references to federal law.

The four cases granted on Monday will likely be argued in October. The justices’ next regularly scheduled conference is Thursday, May 9; orders from that conference are expected to follow on Monday, May 13, at 9:30 a.m.

This article was originally published at Howe on the Court . 

Posted in Merits Cases

Cases: Medical Marijuana, Inc. v. Horn , Bouarfa v. Mayorkas , Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger , Bufkin v. McDonough

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Supreme Court takes up RICO and veterans “benefit of the doubt” cases , SCOTUSblog (Apr. 29, 2024, 10:58 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/supreme-court-takes-up-rico-and-veterans-benefit-of-the-doubt-cases/

Privacy Overview

Supreme Court Appears Unlikely to Upend Abortion-Pill Access

T he Supreme Court appeared likely to preserve access to the abortion pill mifepristone, following arguments Tuesday in which justices suggested that protecting doctors who oppose abortion wasn’t enough justification to roll back access to the drug.

Several justices, including some who voted to overrule Roe v. Wade two years ago, focused their questioning on whether the doctors and medical associations that brought the case in fact have the right to sue. Those doctors and groups don’t prescribe mifepristone, don’t perform abortions and have no legal obligation to help women end unwanted pregnancies.

“Just to confirm,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh, “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion, correct?”

“Yes,” answered U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who argued on behalf of the Biden administration. “We think that federal conscience protections provide broad coverage here.”

The case is the first major abortion issue to reach the Supreme Court after it overruled Roe v. Wade two years ago, rescinding women’s constitutional right to end unwanted pregnancies before fetal viability the justices had recognized in 1973.

While the 2022 decision made abortion regulation largely a matter of state law, Tuesday’s case has the potential to restrict access to medication abortion, the most common form of the procedure, even in states that protect reproductive rights.

The case was brought by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian conservative group that helped overturn Roe, on behalf of doctors and medical associations that oppose abortion and long have fought to reduce the availability of mifepristone. Because pills can be sent through the mail and self-administered, antiabortion groups fear mifepristone can help women flout abortion bans in states that have outlawed the procedure.

Erin Hawley, a lawyer for the organization, won a lower-court ruling reimposing restrictions on mifepristone that had been in place from 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration first approved the drug, to 2016, when the agency said research demonstrated the rules could safely be relaxed. The order—on hold while the Supreme Court appeal is pending—would again require women to make three in-person visits to obtain a medication abortion.

On Tuesday, however, she faced a stream of skeptical questioning from the justices.

Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned why the case should affect anyone other than the doctors involved.

“This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule,” Gorsuch said.

Hawley said it would be impracticable to limit a court order to protecting the individual plaintiffs. The unpredictable nature of emergency room work, she argued, means the doctors still would risk encountering a mifepristone patient.

Hawley’s husband, Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), observed the argument from the visitors gallery, as did New York Attorney General Letitia James, who filed a brief backing the FDA on behalf of some two dozen states and the District of Columbia.

Even if the court found the doctors had legal standing to sue, Prelogar said, there was no basis to second guess the FDA’s scientific judgment that mifepristone could safely be dispensed the same way other prescription drugs are: By remote doctor’s appointment with delivery from a mail-order pharmacy or pickup at a drugstore such as CVS or Walgreens.

“The agency relied on dozens of studies involving tens of thousands of women,” she said. Allowing the suit to prevail “would severely disrupt the federal system for developing and approving drugs, harming the agency and the pharmaceutical industry,” she said.

Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the 2022 opinion rescinding abortion rights, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, questioned whether the FDA was entitled to such deference.

“You think the FDA’s infallible?” he asked Jessica Ellsworth, an attorney for mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories. “Has the FDA ever approved a drug and then pulled it” after discovering safety problems? he said.

Ellsworth said that both the agency and the manufacturer monitor the drug’s use and would take action if risks emerged. Drugmakers, she said, are liable for defective products and frequently are sued by people claiming they have been harmed.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson then turned Alito’s question around.

“You were asked if the agency is infallible,” she said. “I’m wondering about the flip side, which is do you think that courts have specialized scientific knowledge with respect to pharmaceuticals?” she said. “Do you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies?”

Ellsworth said the pharmaceutical industry indeed was concerned, pointing to friend of the court briefs saying it depended “on FDA’s gold standard review process to approve their drugs and then to be able to sell their products.”

The November 2022 lawsuit was filed in Amarillo, Texas, where it was sure to land before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who previously worked for another conservative religious advocacy group. Kacsmaryk determined that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 was flawed and in April 2023 ordered the drug withdrawn from the market altogether.

Both the Biden administration and Danco appealed to the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans. That court last year found that the FDA cut corners in relaxing dispensing rules for mifepristone, in part by failing to consider the cumulative effect of several regulatory changes. The administration and Danco then appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case.

Hawley has also argued that allowing mifepristone delivery by mail violates the Comstock Act, a 19th-century federal law that outlawed mailing contraceptives, abortion implements and other materials then considered immoral. Although the statute’s current iteration no longer restricts contraceptives, the language against mailing abortion implements remains on the books.

Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas both asked about the Comstock Act’s relevance to the case.

Prelogar said it wasn’t the FDA’s job to enforce that statute. Under federal law, she said, “it’s very clear that the only thing FDA can take into account for restrictions are safety and efficacy concerns,” she said.

Moreover, she said, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which advises executive branch agencies, concluded that the Comstock Act prohibits mailing only of unlawful abortion implements, not an approved medication such as mifepristone.

While the 2022 ruling that struck down Roe settled a longstanding legal question at the heart of the abortion debate, it hasn’t freed the Supreme Court from litigation over the procedure. Next month, the justices will consider whether emergency-room doctors at hospitals receiving Medicare funding are permitted to perform abortions to stabilize critical patients—even if state law bans the procedure.

Idaho, which outlaws nearly all abortions, is appealing a lower court order the Biden administration won permitting such emergency procedures.

A decision in the case argued Tuesday, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, is expected by early July.

Write to Jess Bravin at [email protected] and Jan Wolfe at [email protected]

• Subscribe Now (Opens in new window)
• Air Force Times (Opens in new window)
• Army Times (Opens in new window)
• Marine Corps Times (Opens in new window)
• Pentagon & Congress
• Defense News (Opens in new window)
• Flashpoints
• Benefits Guide (Opens in new window)
• Military Pay Center
• Military Retirement
• Military Benefits
• VA Loan Center (Opens in new window)
• Discount Depot
• GearScout (Opens in new window)
• Military Culture
• Military Fitness
• Military Movies & Video Games
• Military Sports
• Transition Guide (Opens in new window)
• Pay It Forward (Opens in new window)
• Military History
• Black Military History (Opens in new window)
• Congressional Veterans Caucus (Opens in new window)
• Military Appreciation Month (Opens in new window)
• Vietnam Vets & Rolling Thunder (Opens in new window)
• Hall of Valor (Opens in new window)
• Service Members of the Year (Opens in new window)
• Create an Obituary (Opens in new window)
• Medals & Misfires
• Installation Guide (Opens in new window)
• Battle Bracket
• CFC Givers Guide
• Task Force Violent
• Newsletters (Opens in new window)
• Early Bird Brief
• Photo Galleries
• Long-Term Care Partners
• Navy Federal
• Digital Edition (Opens in new window)

Supreme Court to hear another major veterans benefits case this fall

The Supreme Court this fall will review the legal claim of two veterans denied medical benefits for what they insist were service-connected traumas, a case that could potentially expand benefits for thousands of veterans.

Officials from the high court on Monday announced they will take up Bufkin v McDonough , which has been moving through the veterans and federal courts for the last four years. Justices will address the case in their next term, which starts this fall, and are expected to issue a ruling in early 2025.

The case centers on Air Force veteran Joshua Bufkin, who served from 2005 to 2006, and Army veteran Norman Thornton, who served from 1988 to 1991. Both men were repeatedly denied medical benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs, but say the decisions and appeals process have been improperly handled.

Both Bufkin and Thornton sought medical care for post-traumatic stress disorder related to their military service, but failed to convince VA administrators they qualified for the benefits.

Supreme Court rules in favor of veteran who sued over GI Bill limits

The supreme court ruled 7-2 in favor of a veteran who wanted to use both his post-9/11 gi bill and montgomery gi bill benefits..

Their attorneys have argued those moves violate federal “benefit of the doubt” rules mandated by Congress, which state that when evidence supporting or opposing a veteran’s claim is roughly balanced, the department should rule in favor of granting the benefits.

VA officials — and subsequent court officials — have said the cases were properly handled, both by staffers evaluating the claims and during the subsequent appeals process.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs by the Supreme Court could force major changes in how such benefits cases are appealed, and potentially open the door for more individuals initially refused benefits eligibility to have their cases reconsidered.

The Supreme Court announcement comes just two weeks after justices ruled in favor of expanding veterans benefits in another major case, Rudisill v McDonough.

In that decision, a majority of the court ruled that veterans should be able to access both their Montgomery GI Bill education benefits and Post-9/11 GI Bill college benefits, in contrast to current VA policy mandating individuals choose only one program.

VA officials have said they are still reviewing that decision and expect to issue new rules regarding education benefits eligibility in coming months.

Leo covers Congress, Veterans Affairs and the White House for Military Times. He has covered Washington, D.C. since 2004, focusing on military personnel and veterans policies. His work has earned numerous honors, including a 2009 Polk award, a 2010 National Headliner Award, the IAVA Leadership in Journalism award and the VFW News Media award.

In Other News

Navy IDs sailor who died during Middle East deployment

Chief hospital corpsman daniel d. mccracken died during a non-combat related incident on may 6..

VA to provide grants for veteran, spouse employment help

A new grant program will provide up to $500,000 to organizations helping veterans and spouses land post-military jobs..

Navy offering big bucks to keep aviation officers in uniform

Aviators from a variety of platforms are eligible for big bucks if they opt to stay navy..

Watchdog blasts VA for errors leading to $11M in improper bonuses

A watchdog report criticized va leaders for mistakes in handling $11 million in bonuses for senior department leaders..

Marine Corps’ longest-held Vietnam War POW, Harlan Chapman, dies at 89

Marine aviator harlan chapman once spent 2,657 days in captivity before his release in 1973. the retired lieutenant colonel passed away monday, may 6..