-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
The part of the Bill of Rights that was being incorporated was the "just compensation" requirement of the Fifth Amendment. In a 7-1 decision, the Court held that the Due Process clause required the states to award just compensation when taking private property for public use. -
Gitlow v. New York
The Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment's free speech protections to abuses by state governments by this trial. However, Although the Supreme Court concluded that the amendment’s protection did apply to abuses by state and local governments, the Court upheld Gitlow’s conviction. In his majority opinion for the Court, Justice Edward Sanford concluded that New York’s law did not violate the First Amendment. -
Near v. Minnesota
The First Amendment's, freedom of press was incorporated through this trial. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes began by affirming: “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 by state action.” The Court established that, with exceptions, the government could not censor a publication in advance, even though it may be punishable afterward. -
Powell v. Alabama
The Sixth Amendment's right to counsel was incorporated into state governments via the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause. The Court held that the trials denied due process because the defendants were not given reasonable time and opportunity to secure counsel in their defense. Though Justice George Sutherland did not rest the Court holding on the right-to-counsel guarantee of the Sixth Amendment, he repeatedly implicated that guarantee. -
De Jonge v. Oregon
The First Amendment's right to peaceful protesting was incorporated because of this trial. 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
The First Amendment free religious exercise protections were applied to state governments through the incorporation doctrine under the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. In a unanimous decision, the Court held the Cantwells' actions were protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Writing for the Court, Justice Owen Roberts reasoned that while general regulations on solicitation were legitimate, restrictions based on religious grounds were not. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was incorporated on the basis of this trial. The court ruled 5-4 that this practice was not unconstitutional, as no money went directly to the Catholic schools or the Catholic religion. Rather, the money went to the parents to offset education-related transportation costs. The court found that the 'wall of separation between Church and State' was not crossed, as the funds were provided for both religious and non-religious education expenses. -
In re Oliver
The United States Supreme Court incorporated the right to a public trial of the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to states. The judge was conducting a one-man grand jury and decided that the testimony provided was false, based on the testimony of another witness. The witness was charged with contempt, convicted, and sentenced to serve 60 days in jail. -
Mapp v. Ohio
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 4th and 14th Constitutional Amendments, illegally seized evidence could not be used in a state criminal trial. So, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. -
Robinson v. California
Robinson v. California established that the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment applies to state court criminal proceedings. In a 6-2 decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court held that laws imprisoning persons afflicted with the "illness" of narcotic addiction inflicted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and, as such, applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In 1963, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon, guaranteeing the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in federal and state courts. Following the decision, Gideon was given another trial with an appointed lawyer and was acquitted of the charges. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment allows the Free Petition Clause of the First Amendment to extend to the states as well as the federal government. In an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Potter Stewart, the Court reversed the criminal convictions of the black students. It was clear to the Court that in arresting, convicting, and punishing the students under the circumstances disclosed by the record, the state infringed the students' constitutionally. -
Ker v. California
The United States Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against illegal search and seizure. The Court held that the entry into the apartment was justified because the deputies were investigating narcotics, which was a permissible circumstance, and held that the arrests of the Kers were lawful. -
Malloy v. Hogan
The Court held that the Fifth Amendment's exception from compulsory self-incrimination is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment against abridgment by a state. When determining if state officers properly obtained a confession, one must focus on whether the statements were made freely and voluntarily without improper influence. Noting that the American judicial system is accusatorial, not inquisitorial, the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment secures defendants against self-incrimination. -
Pointer v. Texas
The Court held that the Sixth Amendment's right granted to an accused to confront the witnesses against him, which includes the right of cross-examination, is a fundamental right essential to a fair trial and is made obligatory in the States by the Fourteenth Amendment in which the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. -
Parker v. Gladden
Parker v. Gladden established that the right to an impartial jury of the Sixth Amendment applies to state court criminal proceedings. The Court noted that there was no dispute over what the bailiff said, nor any dispute over whether he was subjected to confrontation, cross-examination, or other constitutional safeguards. The Court held that the bailiff’s speech was private talk tending to reach the jury by outside influence and therefore violated Parker's 6th and 14th Amendment Rights. -
Klopfer v. North Carolina
Because of this trial, the Sixth Amendment was incorporated. In a unanimous decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote the majority opinion reversing the lower court. The Supreme Court held that indefinitely suspending a trial violates a defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The Court also held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Sixth Amendment to the states. -
Washington v. Texas
In Washington v. Texas the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process was incorporated against the states. The United States Supreme Court held that a Texas statute prohibiting persons charged together with the same crime from testifying for each other violated the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process. -
Duncan v. Louisiana
The Sixth Amendment's right to a jury trial was incorporated because of this case. By a 7-2 majority the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Duncan, arguing that the right to a jury trial in criminal cases was fundamental and central to the American conception of justice. As such the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to honor requests for jury trials. -
Benton v. Maryland
This trial is what caused the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy clause to be incorporated into the states. The Court in a 7-2 decision overruled Palko, 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. As a result, Benton's larceny conviction was overturned. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
The Eighth Amendment's No Excessive Bail was incorporated into the states. Court stated in dicta: "Bail, of course, is basic to our system of law, and the Eighth Amendment's proscription of excessive bail has been assumed to have application to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment." However, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Illinois Supreme Court and held that the bail system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. -
Rabe v. Washington
The right to notice in the Sixth Amendment of accusations protected defendants was incorporated. The majority opinion avoided the obscenity issue, instead accepting the Washington Supreme Court's determination that the film did not meet the Roth definition of obscene. The Court noted that neither context nor location was part of the crime Rabe supposedly committed Rabe's conviction was thus affirmed under a statute with a meaning quite different from the one he was charged with violating. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
The case is famous for expanding the Sixth Amendment right to counsel to all individuals who "may be imprisoned for any offense, whether classified as petty, misdemeanor, or felony." In this case, the Court extended that right to cover defendants charged with misdemeanors who faced the possibility of a jail sentence. Justice Douglas's opinion described the intricacies involved in misdemeanor charges and the danger that unrepresented defendants may fall victim to "assembly-line justice". -
McDonald v. Chicago
The Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms to the states was incorporated. The Supreme Court reversed the Seventh Circuit, saying that the 14th Amendment makes the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applicable to the states. With Justice Samuel A. Alito writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that rights "fundamental to the Nation's scheme of ordered liberty" or "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition" are appropriately applied to the states. -
Timbs v. Indiana
The 8th Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause was an incorporated protection applicable to the states. 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. As such, it is “fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty” and “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition.” So, the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause incorporates the Clause against the states.