-
The case involves a question of whether the city's ordinance violated the railroad company's property rights, which are protected by the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause. The railroad company argued that the ordinance amounted to an unconstitutional taking of their property, but the Supreme Court ultimately found that the ordinance did not constitute a taking and was a reasonable exercise of the city's police power. -
In Gitlow v. New York, Benjamin Gitlow was convicted of violating New York's criminal anarchy law for publishing a left-wing manifesto, which he argued was a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech. The Supreme Court established the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the First Amendment's free speech protection, to state and local governments. -
Near v. Minnesota was a landmark 1931 Supreme Court case that extended the protection of the First Amendment's freedom of the press to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. The case centered around a scandalous newspaper publisher who challenged a state law limiting free speech, ultimately establishing a precedent for future cases. The Court's decision made clear that prior restraint on publication was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. -
DeJonge v. Oregon protected free speech and association under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man for belonging to the Communist Party, finding that the state law was overly broad and vague and could be used to punish individuals for their beliefs and associations. The case established that states cannot suppress political speech and association using vague and overly broad laws. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut established that the First Amendment's protection applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Government can't ban or punish religious speech without a compelling interest, and officials can't decide what speech is acceptable based on their views. It strengthened individual rights and freedom of expression under the U.S. Constitution and has shaped First Amendment jurisprudence. -
With the constitutionality of a New Jersey school district's reimbursement of transportation costs to public and private schools, including religious ones. The court held that the reimbursement program did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This secular purpose of ensuring equal access to education and did not promote or hinder any religion, thus complying with the principles of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. -
In re Oliver concerned the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment and the Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial. It dealt with a man convicted of contempt without a jury trial, and the court held that the Due Process Clause requires a jury trial for serious criminal contempt. The case affirmed the significance of the right to a jury trial under the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in criminal proceedings. -
Mapp v. Ohio applied the exclusionary rule to the states, meaning evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure cannot be used in state criminal proceedings. This ruling was based on the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures and the due process clause. It aimed to prevent police misconduct and protect citizens' rights, with significant implications for criminal law and the balance between individual rights and law enforcement. -
Robinson v. California dealt with the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment, which was incorporated through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that criminalizing addiction is unconstitutional, as punishing a condition is cruel and unusual punishment. This decision had significant implications for criminal law and the treatment of addiction. -
Edwards v. South Carolina established that peaceful protest is protected speech under the First Amendment and cannot be restricted based on the potential for violence or public disturbance. The case involved African American students protesting against segregation, leading to their arrest and conviction. The Court's decision had significant implications for civil rights and the right to protest, affirming that a peaceful assembly is a vital form of expression protected by the Constitution. -
Gideon v. Wainwright established that states must provide legal counsel to indigent defendants charged with serious crimes, incorporating this right through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The decision aimed to ensure fair trials and equal protection under the law for all defendants, regardless of their financial status, with significant implications for criminal law and the justice system. -
Ker v. California established that evidence obtained through a warrantless search by a private citizen cannot be used in criminal proceedings, protecting individual privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment. The case involved a private citizen turning over evidence to the police, with implications for criminal law and the role of private citizens in law enforcement. -
Malloy v. Hogan incorporated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination into state criminal proceedings through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the case itself, the Court held that the petitioner's Fifth Amendment right was violated by the prosecutor's use of his compelled testimony in a state criminal trial. -
Pointer v. Texas incorporated the right to counsel into state criminal proceedings, after Pointer was convicted without a lawyer and argued that his rights were violated. The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, requiring states to provide counsel to defendants who cannot afford it in certain cases. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina was a Supreme Court case that involved the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The case addressed whether or not the right to a speedy trial was applicable to state criminal proceedings. -
Washington v. Texas was a Supreme Court case that involved the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process, which guarantees the right to call witnesses in one's favor. The case addressed whether or not a state law that prohibited a criminal defendant from calling an accomplice as a witness in their own defense violated the Sixth Amendment. -
Duncan v. Louisiana was a landmark Supreme Court case that involved the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial in criminal cases. The case addressed whether or not the Sixth Amendment applied to state criminal proceedings, and the Court ultimately held that the right to a jury trial was a fundamental right that applied to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. -
Benton v. Maryland was a U.S. Supreme Court case that involved the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits individuals from being tried twice for the same offense. The case addressed whether or not the Double Jeopardy Clause applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the Court ultimately held that it did. -
Schilb v. Kuebel was a Supreme Court case that involved the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by an impartial jury. The case addressed whether or not a jury trial was required for a misdemeanor offense and the Court ultimately held that it was not, as long as the defendant had the option to request a jury trial. -
In a highly publicized case, a drive-in movie theater was found to be playing a film containing explicit sexual content, leading to the intervention of a police officer. The owner of the theater subsequently argued in court that the showing was protected under the First Amendment, as it constituted free speech. -
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel extended to defendants facing misdemeanor charges that carry a potential sentence of imprisonment. This ruling significantly expanded the constitutional protections afforded to criminal defendants, ensuring that they have the right to legal representation at all critical stages of the legal process, regardless of the severity of the offense. -
In a highly controversial case, McDonald v. Chicago, an individual challenged the city's gun ban by arguing that it infringed on his Second Amendment right to bear arms. Specifically, he argued that the right to bear arms should apply to state and local governments as well, not just the federal government. -
Timbs purchased a Landrover and unfortunately became involved in drug trafficking. As a result, he was sentenced to a term of 6 years in prison, with the possibility of having 5 years of his sentence reduced. Despite attempts to seize his Landrover under the 8th amendment, Timbs was able to successfully regain possession of his vehicle.