Process of Incorporation

  • Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago

    Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
    The City of Chicago wanted to connect two disjoint sections of Rockwell Street between 18th and 19th Streets, over private property. To accomplish this, the city petitioned in Cook County Circuit Court to have the necessary land condemned. Ruled that the 14th Amendment due process clause requires states to provide fair compensation for seizing private property, therefore applying the 5th Amendment concept of eminent domain to state governments.
  • Gitlow v. New York

    Gitlow v. New York
    a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment. Gitlow v. New York (1925) - Ruled that a state could prohibit speech advocating violent efforts to overthrow the government, but also stated that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects freedom of speech, therefore applying this provision of the 1st Amendment against state governments.
  • Near v. Minnesota

    Near v. Minnesota
    a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court under which prior restraint on publication was found to violate freedom of the press as protected under the First Amendment. Ruled that a state law allowing for prior restraint, or banning speech/publication before it is printed, is unconstitutional (except in extremely rare cases) due to the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, therefore applying the 1st Amendment provision of freedom of the press against state governments.
  • DeJonge v. Oregon

    DeJonge v. Oregon
    De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause applies to freedom of assembly. Ruled unconstitutional a state law allowing for the arrest of a person attending a Communist Party meeting, as the due process clause of the 14th Amendment protects the right to peaceful assembly, therefore applying this provision of the 1st Amendment against state governments.
  • Cantwell v. Conneticut

    Cantwell v. Conneticut
    a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the First Amendment's federal protection of religious free exercise incorporates via the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ruled unconstitutional an ordinance requiring a permit for solicitation, as it allowed local officials to determine which causes were religious and which were not, which violated the 1st and 14th Amendments, therefore applying the free exercise of religion provision to state and local governments.
  • In re Oliver

    In re Oliver
    In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. Ruled that a state law allowing for one-person grand juries to determine punishment for contempt of court violated the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 6th Amendment, therefore applying the public trial provision against state governments.
  • Mapp v. Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio
    Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule, which prevents prosecutors from using evidence in court that was obtained. Ruled that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in a state court, therefore applying the exclusionary rule against state governments by way of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Robinson v. California

    Robinson v. California
    the first landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution was interpreted to prohibit criminalization of particular acts or conduct. Ruled unconstitutional a state law criminalizing narcotic addiction on the basis of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 8th Amendment, therefore extending protection from cruel and unusual punishment against state governments.
  • Edwards v. South Carolina

    Edwards v. South Carolina
    Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court ruling that the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution forbade state government officials to force a crowd to disperse.Overturned the convictions of students arrested while attempting to petition their grievances against the state, ruling that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extends the 1st Amendment right to petition against state governments as well as the federal government.
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    the Court unanimously held that in criminal cases states are required under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to provide an attorney to defendants who are unable to afford their own attorney.Ruled that the right to an attorney, whether or not a person can afford one, is a fundamental right guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment and the 6th Amendment, and therefore counsel must be appointed by state governments or the federal government in felony cases.
  • Ker v. California

    Ker v. California
    a case before the United States Supreme Court, which incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. Ruled that evidence collected without a warrant was permissible in court if found in accordance with a lawful warrantless arrest, but also determined that the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure was applicable to state governments through the interpretation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Malloy v. Hogan

    Malloy v. Hogan
    Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States deemed defendants' Fifth Amendment privilege not to be compelled to be witnesses against themselves was applicable within state courts as well as federal courts, overruling the decision in Twining v. New Jersey. Ruled that witnesses in state courts are entitled to the 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination, and is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
  • Pointer v. Texas

    Pointer v. Texas
    a decision by the United States Supreme Court. This case was part of the process of applying rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the states. Ruled that using a transcript of a witness’s statements was unconstitutional as it denied a defendant of their 6th Amendment right to confront witnesses, which the Court held was a fundamental right guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, therefore applicable to criminal proceedings at the state level.
  • Miranda v. Arizona

    Miranda v. Arizona
    Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution restricts prosecutors from using a person's statements made in response to interrogation in police custody as evidence at their trial unless they can show that the person was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning.
  • Klopfer v. North Carolina

    Klopfer v. North Carolina
    Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the Speedy Trial Clause of the United States Constitution in state court proceedings. Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) - Ruled that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to a speedy trial, and this provision is extended against the states by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Washington v. Texas

    Washington v. Texas
    Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution is applicable in state courts as well as federal courts. Ruled that the 6th Amendment right to compulsory process to obtain witnesses for defense (subpoena process) is so fundamental that it is incorporated against state governments in the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Duncan v. Louisiana

    Duncan v. Louisiana
    Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, was a sign of the United States Supreme Court decision that incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial and applied it to the states. Ruled that the 6th Amendment right to criminal trial by jury is guaranteed to those charged with serious crimes (those punishable by more than six months in prison), and it is applied at the state level through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Benton v. Maryland

    Benton v. Maryland
    Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784, is a Supreme Court of the United States decision concerning double jeopardy. Benton ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the states. In doing so, Benton expressly overruled Palko v. Connecticut. Ruled that the 5th Amendment protection against double jeopardy applies to criminal proceedings at the state level, guaranteed by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Schilb v. Kuebel

    Schilb v. Kuebel
    Schilb was arrested and charged with leaving the scene of an accident, He was found guilty of one charge and not guilty of the other. Ruled it constitutional for state courts to collect a percentage of bail whether the defendant was found guilty or acquitted, but also determined that the 8th Amendment protection from excessive bail applied to state governments due to the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
  • Argersinger v. Hamlin

    Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states. Ruled that the 6th Amendment right to an attorney (whether a person can afford it or not), as decided and incorporated by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), also applied to state criminal proceedings for misdemeanors that could be punishable by jail time.
  • Rabe v. Washington

    Rabe v. Washington
    Rabe v. Washington, 405 U.S. 313, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states. Overturned an obscenity conviction on the basis of the accused person’s right to be informed of the nature of accusations being violated, applying this provision against state governments by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
  • Everson v. Board of Education

    Everson v. Board of Education
    was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to state law. Providing transportation reimbursement funds to parents of all schoolchildren, including religious schools. However, the Court also held that there must be a distinct separation between government and religion due to the 1st and 14th Amendments, therefore applying the establishment of religion provision to state and local governments.
  • McDonald c. Chicago

    McDonald c. Chicago
    McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742, is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that found that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms," as protected under the Second amendment. Ruled that the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states.
  • Timbs v. Indiana

    Timbs v. Indiana
    Timbs v. Indiana, 586 U.S. ___, was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court dealt with the applicability of the excessive fines clause of the Constitution's Eighth Amendment to state and local governments in the context of asset forfeiture. Ruled that the 8th Amendment’s protection from excessive fines is an incorporated protection applicable to the states by way of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.