U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES
FREE SPEECH CASES
1. Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919).
Meaning: Established the “clear and present danger” test. The government may limit speech if it creates a serious and immediate danger, especially during wartime.
2. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Meaning: Government cannot punish speech unless it is intended and likely to incite imminent lawless action. This remains one of the strongest protections for political speech.
3. Tinker v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 393 U.S. 503 (1969).
Meaning: Students do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Schools cannot suppress speech unless it substantially disrupts education.
4. N.Y. Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).
Meaning: Known as the “Pentagon Papers Case.” Government generally cannot censor the press before publication without extraordinary justification.
5. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
Meaning: Offensive language and unpopular expression are often protected speech under the First Amendment.
6. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).
Meaning: Created the three-part “Miller Test” for determining what qualifies as legally obscene material not protected by the First Amendment.
7. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).
Meaning: Flag burning is protected symbolic speech because government cannot prohibit expression simply because society finds it offensive.
8. R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
Meaning: Government cannot engage in viewpoint discrimination by selectively banning speech based on ideas or opinions expressed.
9. Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343 (2003).
Meaning: “True threats” are not protected speech, but government must prove intent to intimidate.
10. Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).
Meaning: Political spending by corporations and unions is protected as political speech under the First Amendment.
11. Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S.
DUE PROCESS
1. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
Meaning: Established judicial review, giving courts authority to strike down unconstitutional government actions.
2. Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 59 U.S. (18 How.) 272 (1856).
Meaning: Early definition of procedural due process under the Fifth Amendment.
3. Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884).
Meaning: Held that states are not always required to use grand juries under due process standards.
4. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).
Meaning: Began incorporation doctrine, applying constitutional protections against states through the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.
5. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932).
Meaning: Defendants in capital cases must receive meaningful legal counsel under due process.
6. Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937).
Meaning: Developed selective incorporation analysis for fundamental rights under due process. Later partially overruled.
7. Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U.S. 278 (1936).
Meaning: Confessions obtained through torture violate due process.
8. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
Meaning: Government conduct that “shocks the conscience” violates due process protections.
9. Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Meaning: Applied the exclusionary rule to states through due process.
10. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963).
Meaning: Indigent criminal defendants have a right to appointed counsel.
11. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
Meaning: Prosecutors must disclose exculpatory evidence to defendants.
12. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Meaning: Police must inform suspects of constitutional rights before custodial interrogation.
13. In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).
Meaning: Juveniles are entitled to due process protections in delinquency proceedings.
14. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).
Meaning: Government must provide hearings before terminating welfare benefits.
FALSE IMPROVEMENT
1. Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (1979). Meaning: Detaining a person under a valid warrant—even if mistaken identity is later claimed—does not automatically violate due process unless detention becomes unreasonable under the circumstances. 2. Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384 (2007). Meaning: A false imprisonment claim based on wrongful arrest accrues when legal process begins (e.g., arraignment), not when release occurs. 3. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266 (1994). Meaning: Claims for wrongful arrest or detention should generally be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment, not substantive due process. 4. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991). Meaning: The Constitution requires a prompt judicial determination of probable cause—generally within 48 hours of arrest—to prevent unlawful detention. 5. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1975). Meaning: A person arrested without a warrant must receive a timely probable cause hearing; extended detention without it violates the Fourth Amendment. 6. Manuel v. City of Joliet, 580 U.S. 357 (2017). Meaning: Detention without probable cause—even after legal proceedings begin—can still violate the Fourth Amendment. 7. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Meaning: Individuals may sue federal officers for damages for unconstitutional arrests and detentions (a key remedy for unlawful imprisonment). 8. Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, 532 U.S. 318 (2001). Meaning: A lawful arrest for even minor offenses is constitutionally permissible if supported by probable cause, limiting false imprisonment claims in some arrest contexts. 9. Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806 (1996). Meaning: Pretextual stops are still lawful if there is objective probable cause, even if subjective intent is questionable. 10. Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U.S. 721 (1969). Meaning: Unlawful detention for investigatory purposes (without probable cause) violates the Fourth Amendment.
MEDICAL DETENTION
1. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).
Meaning: A non-dangerous individual who can live safely in freedom cannot be confined in a mental institution. Mental illness alone is not enough to justify detention.
2. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).
Meaning: Civil commitment requires “clear and convincing evidence” that a person is mentally ill and dangerous. This raised the standard above normal civil cases.
3. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982).
Meaning: Involuntarily committed individuals retain constitutional rights to safety, reasonable care, and freedom from unnecessary bodily restraint.
4. Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).
Meaning: Prisoners can be forcibly medicated only if they are dangerous and treatment is in their medical interest, with procedural protections.
5. Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992).
Meaning: Forcible psychiatric medication during trial violates due process unless the government proves necessity and medical appropriateness.
6. Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992).
Meaning: A person cannot be held in a psychiatric facility solely because of dangerousness if they are no longer mentally ill.
7. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).
Meaning: The government may forcibly medicate a defendant to restore competency for trial only under strict conditions:
* Important government interest
* Medication is substantially likely to restore competency
* No less intrusive alternatives exist
* Treatment is medically appropriate
8. Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972).
Meaning: A person cannot be indefinitely confined solely because they are incompetent to stand trial; commitment must be reasonable in duration and purpose.
NonConsensual Test Subjects
1. Rochin v. California
Citation: Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).
What Happened
Police forcibly pumped a suspect’s stomach to retrieve swallowed evidence.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court ruled the conduct unconstitutional because it:
“shocks the conscience.”
Why It Matters
One of the strongest bodily integrity rulings in U.S. constitutional law.
Constitutional Protection
* Due Process Clause
* Protection from abusive government intrusion
2. Winston v. Lee
Citation: Winston v. Lee, 470 U.S. 753 (1985).
What Happened
Virginia sought to force surgery on a suspect to recover a bullet.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court rejected compelled surgery.
Why It Matters
Affirmed strong constitutional protection against invasive medical procedures.
Constitutional Protection
* Fourth Amendment
* Bodily privacy
* Personal security
3. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
Citation: Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dep’t of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).
Supreme Court Ruling
Recognized a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment.
Why It Matters
Foundational informed-consent decision.
Constitutional Protection
* Due process
* Bodily autonomy
4. Sell v. United States
Citation: Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003).
Supreme Court Ruling
Government may forcibly medicate defendants only under strict and limited standards.
Why It Matters
Created constitutional balancing tests limiting involuntary medication.
Constitutional Protection
* Liberty interests
* Fair trial rights
* Medical autonomy
5. Washington v. Harper
Citation: Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990).
Important Language
The Court recognized:
a “significant liberty interest” in avoiding unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs.
Why It Matters
Although the state prevailed in part, the decision still formally recognized constitutional bodily autonomy interests.
6. Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford
Citation: Union Pac. Ry. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 (1891).
Famous Supreme Court Statement
“No right is held more sacred… than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person.”
Why It Matters
One of the earliest and most cited bodily integrity declarations in American law.
7. Griswold v. Connecticut
Citation: Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).
Supreme Court Ruling
Recognized constitutional privacy protections in personal medical decisions.
Why It Matters
Helped establish the constitutional “right to privacy.”
8. Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital
Citation: Schloendorff v. Soc’y of N.Y. Hosp., 211 N.Y. 125 (1914).
Famous Statement
Justice Benjamin Cardozo wrote:
“Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.”
Why It Matters
Not a Supreme Court case, but one of the most important informed-consent rulings in U.S. legal history.
9. Olmstead v. United States
Citation: Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928).
Important Dissent
Justice Louis Brandeis warned about government technological intrusion.
Famous Language
“The right to be let alone.”
Why It Matters
Often cited in modern privacy and surveillance litigation.
ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING OR EAVESDROPPING
1. Olmstead v. United States
Citation: Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928)
What Happened
Federal agents wiretapped telephone lines without physically entering the suspect’s property.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court held that wiretapping without physical trespass did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
Why It Matters
* Narrow interpretation of privacy (property-based rule)
* Later overturned in principle by modern privacy doctrine
Famous Dissent (Brandeis)
He warned against technological surveillance:
The “right to be let alone”
2. Katz v. United States
Citation: Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967)
What Happened
FBI attached an electronic listening device to a public phone booth.
Supreme Court Ruling
The Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places.
Core Rule
Established the “reasonable expectation of privacy” test.
Why It Matters
This case is the foundation of modern surveillance law:
* phone tapping
* wiretapping
* digital interception
* electronic eavesdropping
3. Berger v. New York
Citation: Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41 (1967)
What Happened
New York authorized broad, loosely controlled wiretaps.
Supreme Court Ruling
The statute was unconstitutional because it lacked:
* particularity
* time limits
* judicial oversight
Why It Matters
Set strict limits on government wiretapping procedures.
4. United States v. United States District Court
Citation: United States v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 407 U.S. 297 (1972) (Keith case)
What Happened
Government conducted warrantless domestic security surveillance.
Supreme Court Ruling
Even national security investigations require judicial warrants.
Why It Matters
Major restriction on executive surveillance power.
5. Smith v. Maryland
Citation: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
What Happened
Police used a pen register to record dialed phone numbers.
Supreme Court Ruling
No Fourth Amendment violation because users voluntarily shared numbers with
6. Kyllo v. United States
Citation: Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001)
What Happened
Police used thermal imaging to detect indoor activity.
Supreme Court Ruling
Use of advanced surveillance technology aimed at the home is a search requiring a warrant.
Why It Matters
Protects against high-tech eavesdropping into private spaces.
7. Carpenter v. United States
Citation: Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___ (2018)
What Happened
Government obtained cell-site location data without a warrant.
Supreme Court Ruling
Warrant is required to access historical cell-phone location data.
Why It Matters
Major modern limitation on digital surveillance and tracking.
GEOFENCING