Process of incorporation court cases

Timeline created by Nathan Penn
In History
  • Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago

    Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
    the Court held that the Due Process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. the railroad's Fourteenth Amendment rights were not violated. This case marked the first time that the Court 'incorporated' a specific provision of the Bill of Rights the "just compensation" requirement of the Fifth Amendment through the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applied that requirement to the states.
  • Gitlow v. New York

    was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution had extended the First Amendment's provisions protecting freedom of speech and freedom of the press to apply to the governments of U.S. states.
  • Near v. Minnesota

    Near v. Minnesota
    was 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. This principle was applied to free speech generally in subsequent jurisprudence. The Court ruled that a Minnesota law that targeted publishers of "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers violated the First Amendment to the United States Constitution (as applied through the Fourteenth Amendment).
  • DeJonge v. Oregon

    DeJonge v. Oregon
    In De Jonge v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled that state governments may not violate the constitutional right of peaceable assembly. The decision contributed to the development of “symbolic speech” and “speech plus” categories, concepts relating to speech combined with conduct or action.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut

    Cantwell v. Connecticut
    is 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 and so applies to state governments too.
  • Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

    Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
    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. It was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.
  • In re Oliver

    In re Oliver
    was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of due process in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that criminal prosecutions require the defendant " to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence." In this case, a witness in a Michigan grand jury hearing was convicted and sentenced to jail without either notice or attorney assistance.
  • Mapp v. Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio
    U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the exclusionary rule. In Mapp this involved the incorporation of the provisions, as interpreted by the Court, of the Fourth Amendment which is applicable only to actions of the federal government into the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause which is applicable to actions of the states.
  • Robinson v. California

    Robinson v. California
    is 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, as contrasted with prohibiting the use of a particular form of punishment for a crime.
  • Ker v. California

    Ker v. California
    The Supreme Court analyzed the evidence presented and agreed with the California courts that the seizure was incident to a lawful arrest. The Court declared that the standards of reasonableness are the same under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments applying in Federal and State courts. Clark interpreted the Court's precedents in determining if the search of the Kers’ apartment and car were reasonable.
  • Edwards v. South Carolina

    Edwards v. South Carolina
    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 when they are otherwise legally marching in front of a state house
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    is a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which 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 attorneys. Gideon argued in his appeal that he had been denied counsel and therefore that his Sixth Amendment rights, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated.
  • Malloy v. Hogan

    Malloy v. Hogan
    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 (1908). The majority decision holds that the Fourteenth Amendment allows the federal government to enforce the first eight amendments on state governments.
  • Pointer v. Texas

    Pointer v. Texas
    Pointer v. Texas, was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of the right of to confront accusers in state court proceedings. The Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights states that, in criminal prosecutions, the defendant has a right ".to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor." .
  • Miranda v. Arizona

    Miranda v. Arizona
    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, and of the right against self-incrimination before police questioning.
  • Washington v. Texas

    Washington v. Texas
    is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court decided that the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment made the right to be able to compel defense witnesses to testify necessary for a defendant's "due process" rights to fair proceedings, which applies to the states.
  • Klopfer v. North Carolina

    Klopfer v. North Carolina
    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 argued that this denied him his right to a speedy trial. In deciding in his favor, the Supreme Court incorporated the speedy trial protections of the Sixth Amendment against the states.
  • Duncan v. Louisiana

    Duncan v. Louisiana
    Duncan was arrested and ultimately charged with simple battery. As it was punishable by no more than two years, simple battery is a misdemeanor under Louisiana law and so he was not subject to trial by jury.. He appealed on the grounds that the state had violated the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments guaranteeing his right to a jury trial. The Court accepted the case, under its appellate jurisdiction from the Louisiana State Supreme Court.
  • Benton v. Maryland

    Benton v. Maryland
    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. the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment and so made it enforceable against the states.
  • Schilb v. Kuebel

    Schilb v. Kuebel
    Illinois law provides three ways in which an accused can secure his He was convicted of one offense and acquitted of the other. After he paid his fine, all but 1% of the bail (amounting to $7.50) was refunded. In this class action he thereafter challenged the Illinois system on due process and equal protection grounds. and that its imposition on an accused found innocent constitutes a court cost against the nonguilty.
  • Rabe v. Washington

    Rabe v. Washington
    was a decision by the United States Supreme Court involving the application of obscenity laws and criminal procedure to the states.
    Due to First Amendment concerns, the local court convicted Rabe not on the basis that the film as a whole was obscene, but that exhibiting it in a drive-in theater was. The Supreme Court reversed the conviction holding that the citizens of Washington State had no notice under the Sixth Amendment that the place where a film was shown was an element of the offense
  • Argersinger v. Hamlin

    Argersinger v. Hamlin
    Argersinger v. Hamlin, is a United States Supreme Court decision holding that the accused cannot be subjected to actual imprisonment unless provided with counsel. Gideon v. Wainwright made the right to counsel provided in the Sixth Amendment applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago
    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, is incorporated by either the Due Process Clause or Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is thereby enforceable against the states.
  • Timbs v. Indiana

    Timbs v. Indiana
    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. In February 2019, the Court unanimously ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of excessive fines is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the Fourteenth Amendment.