Process of Incorporation

Timeline created by AdrianaDeal2
  • Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago

    Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
    It incorporated with the 5A, the Court held that the Due Process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. While the Court warned of the danger of a government that did not have any restraints in exercising eminent domain, fair compensation could address that danger.
  • Gitlow v. New York

    Gitlow v. New York
    The Court incorporated with the 1A, the Court concluded that New York could prohibit advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government under the Criminal Anarchy Law The Court reasoned the government could punish speech that threatens its basic existence because of the national security implications.
  • Near v. Minnesota

    Near v. Minnesota
    In the 1A, the Court established as a constitutional principle the doctrine that, with some narrow exceptions, the government could not censor or otherwise prohibit a publication in advance, even though the communication might be punishable after publication in a criminal or other proceeding.
  • DeJonge v. Oregon

    DeJonge v. Oregon
    The 14A held a meeting for DeJonge's case whether the speakers' remarks transcend the bounds of freedom of speech that must be examined, which had not occurred.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut

    Cantwell v. Connecticut
    The 1A, the statute allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which ones were not, it violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court held that while the maintenance of public order was a valid state interest, it could not be used to justify the suppression of "free communication of views."
  • Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

    Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
    The Court held that the 1A did not violate the New Jersey statue. the law did not pay money to parochial schools, nor did it support them directly in anyway.
  • Mapp v. Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio
    The 1A, the Court issues and declared that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court.
  • Ker v. California

    Ker v. California
    It incorporated with the 4A, the Court extended that holding in this case, addressing the standard for deciding what are the fruits of an illegal search in state criminal trials.
  • Robinson v. California

    Robinson v. California
    In the 8A, the Court likened the law to one making it a criminal offense "to be mentally ill, or a leper, or to be afflicted with a venereal disease," and argued that the state could not punish persons merely because of their "status" of addiction.
  • Edwards v. South Carolina

    Edwards v. South Carolina
    The 1A, the Court that in arresting, convicting, and punishing the students under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the state infringed the students' constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of their grievances.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    It incorporated with the 6A, the Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel in all criminal prosecutions and requires courts to provide counsel for defendants unable to hire counsel unless the right was competently and intelligently waived.
  • Malloy v. Hogan

    Malloy v. Hogan
    In the 5A, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment secures defendants against self-incrimination and compels state and federal officials to establish guilt by evidence that is free and independent of a suspect's or witnesses' statements.
  • Pointer v. Texas

    Pointer v. Texas
    The Court held that the 6A had to require Texas to allow Pointer an opportunity to confront Dillard through counsel.
  • Miranda v. Arizona

    Miranda v. Arizona
    The 5A, the Court reasoned, procedural safeguards were required. A defendant was required to be warned before questioning that he had the right to remain silent and that anything he said can be used against him in a court of law. A defendant was required to be told that he had the right to an attorney, and if he could not afford an attorney, one was to be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desired.
  • Washington v. Texas

    Washington v. Texas
    The 6A, Washington was denied that right in this case. In the result, writing that Washington’s right to due process was violated, but the compulsory process clause played no role in his decision.
  • Klopfer v. North Carolina

    Klopfer v. North Carolina
    The 6A, The Court noted that almost every state has rejected the Supreme Court of North Carolina’s reasoning. Justice John M. Harlan concurred with the result but argued that incorporating the Sixth Amendment is not necessary.
  • Duncan v. Louisiana

    Duncan v. Louisiana
    In the 6A, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of trial by jury in criminal cases was "fundamental to the American scheme of justice," and that the states were obligated under the Fourteenth Amendment to provide such trials.
  • Benton v. Maryland

    Benton v. Maryland
    It incorporated with the 5A, holding that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as applied to the states is an element of liberty protected by Due Process of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Schilb v. Kuebel

    Schilb v. Kuebel
    It incorporated with the 8A, the trial court dismissed Schilb's complaint, and the State Supreme Court affirmed. Held: 1. The Illinois bail system does not violate equal protection requirements.
  • Argersinger v. Hamlin

    Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Ruled that the 6A gave people the right to an attorney, for misdemeanor crimes that could carry a prison sentence.
  • Rabe v. Washington

    Rabe v. Washington
    1A, Court did not hold that the film was obscene under the standards of Roth v. the United States, 354 U.S. 476, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U.S. 413, but that it was obscene in "the context of its exhibition" at a drive-in.
  • In re Oliver

    In re Oliver
    It incorporated with the 4A, there was no need for the majority to deal with the expectation of privacy issue because a field is clearly not a "house" or an "effect" under the Fourth Amendment.
  • McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago
    The 2A, the Court remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether Chicago's handgun ban violated an individual's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
  • Timbs v. Indiana

    Timbs v. Indiana
    The 8A, the Court found that the Excessive Fines Clause finds its origins in the Magna Carta, the historic English Bill of Rights, and state constitutions from the colonial era to the present day.