List of landmark court decisions in the United States


The following landmark court decisions changed the interpretation of existing law in the United States. Such a decision may settle the law in more than one way:
  • establishing a new legal principle or concept;
  • overturning precedent based on its harmful effects or flaws in its reasoning;
  • distinguishing a new principle that refines an existing principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
  • establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.
In the United States, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court. States courts of appeals may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case. Although many cases from state supreme courts are significant in developing the law of that state, only a few are so revolutionary that they announce standards that many other state courts then choose to follow.

Individual rights

Discrimination based on race and ethnicity

Discrimination based on sex

Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity

Power of Congress to enforce civil rights

Immunity from civil rights violations

Birth control and abortion

End of life

Citizenship

Freedom of movement

Restrictions on involuntary commitment

  • Jackson v. Indiana, ' A state violates due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his or her permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him or her.
  • O'Connor v. Donaldson, ' A state cannot constitutionally confine a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by themselves or with the help of willing and responsible family members or friends.
  • Addington v. Texas, ' Clear and convincing evidence is required by the Fourteenth Amendment in a civil proceeding brought under state law to commit an individual involuntarily for an indefinite period to a state mental hospital.
  • Youngberg v. Romeo, ' Involuntarily committed residents have protected liberty interests under the Due Process Clause to reasonably safe conditions of confinement, freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints, and such minimally adequate training as reasonably may be required by these interests.

Public health and safety

Other areas

Criminal law

Fourth Amendment rights

  • Weeks v. United States, ' Exclusionary rule, under which evidence obtained in violation of the Constitution cannot be admitted at trial, formulated for federal prosecutions.
  • Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, ' All evidence developed and obtained based on evidence obtained unconstitutionally is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and cannot be used at trial.
  • Olmstead v. United States, ' The Fourth Amendment's proscription on unreasonable search and seizure does not apply to telephone wiretaps. '
  • Mapp v. Ohio, ' Exclusionary rule applied to state prosecutions.
  • Schmerber v. California, ' The application of the Fourth Amendment's protection against warrantless searches and the Fifth Amendment privilege against self incrimination to searches that intrude into the human body means that police may not conduct warrantless blood testing on suspects absent an emergency that justifies acting without a warrant.
  • Katz v. United States, ' The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to all places where an individual has a "reasonable expectation of privacy."
  • Terry v. Ohio, ' Police may stop a person if they have a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed or is about to commit a crime and frisk the suspect for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment.
  • Mancusi v. DeForte, ' The privacy rights defined in Katz extend to the workplace.
  • Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, ' Individuals may sue federal government officials who have violated their Fourth Amendment rights even though such a suit is not authorized by law. The existence of a remedy for the violation is implied from the importance of the right that is violated.
  • United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, ' Government officials must obtain a warrant before beginning electronic surveillance even if domestic security issues are involved. The "inherent vagueness of the domestic security concept" and the potential for abusing it to quell political dissent make the Fourth Amendment's protections especially important when the government spies on its own citizens.
  • Illinois v. Gates, ' The totality of the circumstances, rather than a rigid test, must be used in finding probable cause under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Nix v. Williams, ' Creates the inevitable discovery exception to the Fourth Amendment, under which evidence that might otherwise be suppressed as unconstitutionally obtained can be included if the state can demonstrate that it would reasonably have been found in any event.
  • New Jersey v. T. L. O., ' The Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches applies to those conducted by public school officials as well as those conducted by law enforcement personnel, but public school officials can use the less strict standard of reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause.
  • O'Connor v. Ortega, ' In the absence of reasonable workplace policy to the contrary, the Fourth Amendment applies to searches of public employees, their belongings or workplaces by their superiors if done with reasonable suspicion for administrative reasons.
  • Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, ' Schools may implement random drug testing upon students participating in school-sponsored athletics.
  • Ohio v. Robinette, ' The Fourth Amendment does not require police officers to inform a motorist at the end of a traffic stop that they are free to go before seeking permission to search the motorist's car.
  • Board of Education v. Earls, ' Coercive drug testing imposed by school districts upon students who participate in extracurricular activities does not violate the Fourth Amendment.
  • Georgia v. Randolph, ' Police cannot conduct a warrantless search in a home where one occupant consents and the other objects.
  • In re Directives, ' According to the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement exists when surveillance is conducted to obtain foreign intelligence for national security purposes and is directed against foreign powers or agents of foreign powers reasonably believed to be located outside the United States.
  • United States v. Jones, ' Attaching a GPS device to a vehicle and then using the device to monitor the vehicle's movements constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment.
  • Riley v. California, ' Police must obtain a warrant in order to search digital information on a cell phone seized from an individual who has been arrested.
  • Carpenter v. United States, Government acquisition of cell-site records is a Fourth Amendment search, and, thus, generally requires a warrant.

Right to counsel

Other rights regarding counsel

  • Strickland v. Washington, ' To obtain relief due to ineffective assistance of counsel, a criminal defendant must show that counsel's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness and that counsel's deficient performance gives rise to a reasonable probability that, if counsel had performed adequately, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
  • Padilla v. Kentucky, ' Criminal defense attorneys are duty-bound to inform clients of the risk of deportation under three circumstances. First, where the law is unambiguous, attorneys must advise their criminal clients that deportation "will" result from a conviction. Second, where the immigration consequences of a conviction are unclear or uncertain, attorneys must advise that deportation "may" result. Finally, attorneys must give their clients some advice about deportation—counsel cannot remain silent about immigration consequences.

Right to remain silent

Competence

  • Dusky v. United States, ' A defendant has the right to a competency evaluation before proceeding to trial.
  • Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 The competence of a committed patient is presumed until he or she is adjudicated incompetent.
  • Ford v. Wainwright, ' A defendant has the right to a competency evaluation before being executed.
  • Godinez v. Moran, ' A defendant who is competent to stand trial is automatically competent to plead guilty or waive the right to legal counsel.
  • Sell v. United States, ' The Supreme Court laid down four criteria for cases involving the involuntary administration of medication to an incompetent pretrial defendant.
  • Kahler v. Kansas, The Constitution's Due Process Clause does not necessarily compel the acquittal of any defendant who, because of mental illness, could not tell right from wrong when committing their crime.

Detention of terrorism suspects

Capital punishment

Other criminal sentences

  • Apodaca v. Oregon, ' The Sixth Amendment does not require a unanimous decision for conviction in jury trials. '
  • Morrissey v. Brewer, ' The Supreme Court extended Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to the parole revocation process, hold that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires a "neutral and detached" hearing body such as a parole board to give an evidentiary hearing prior to revoking the parole of a defendant and spelled out the minimum due process requirements for the revocation hearing.
  • Gagnon v. Scarpelli, ' The Supreme Court issued a substantive ruling regarding the rights of individuals in violation of a probation or parole sentence. It held that a previously sentenced probationer is entitled to a hearing when his probation is revoked. More specifically the Supreme Court held that a preliminary and final revocation of probation hearings are required by Due Process; the judicial body overseeing the revocation hearings shall determine if the probationer or parolee requires counsel; denying representation of counsel must be documented in the record of the Court.
  • Wolff v. McDonnell, ' In administrative proceedings regarding discipline, prisoners retain some of their due process rights. When a prison disciplinary hearing might result in the loss of good-time credits, due process requires that the prison notify the prisoner in advance of the hearing, afford him an opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, and furnish him with a written statement of the evidence relied on and the reason for the disciplinary action.
  • Bearden v. Georgia, ' A sentencing court cannot properly revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and make restitution, absent evidence and findings that he was somehow responsible for the failure or that alternative forms of punishment were inadequate to meet the State's interest in punishment and deterrence.
  • Apprendi v. New Jersey, ' Other than the fact of a prior conviction, any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
  • Blakely v. Washington, ' Mandatory state sentencing guidelines are the statutory maximum for purposes of applying the Apprendi rule.
  • Graham v. Florida, ' A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be imposed on juvenile non-homicide offenders.
  • Miller v. Alabama, ' A sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole may not be a mandatory sentence for juvenile offenders.
  • Ramos v. Louisiana, The Sixth Amendment right to jury trial is read as requiring a unanimous verdict to convict a defendant of a serious offense and is an incorporated right to the states.

Other areas

  • United States v. Hudson, ' Congress must pass laws criminalizing activities. Common law crimes do not exist on the federal level.
  • Hurtado v. California, ' State governments, as distinguished from the federal government, need not use grand juries in criminal prosecutions.
  • Moore v. Dempsey, ' Mob violence at criminal trials, such as those that followed the Elaine Race Riot, is a violation of due process. First 20th-century case where the Court protected the rights of Blacks in the South, and one of its first to review a criminal conviction for constitutionality.
  • Sorrells v. United States, ' Entrapment is a valid defense to a criminal charge.
  • Brown v. Mississippi, ' Confessions obtained through physical force and torture are inadmissible at trial.
  • Chambers v. Florida, ' Confessions compelled by police through duress are inadmissible at trial.
  • United States v. Morgan, ' The writ of coram nobis is the proper application to request federal post-conviction judicial review for those who have completed the conviction's incarceration in order to challenge the validity of a federal criminal conviction.
  • Thompson v. City of Louisville, ' Criminal convictions are unconstitutional when no element of the offense has been proven.
  • Robinson v. California, ' Punishing a person for a medical condition is a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The protection from cruel and unusual punishment is incorporated against the states.
  • Brady v. Maryland, ' The prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense.
  • Barker v. Wingo, ' The Supreme Court laid down a four-part case-by-case balancing test for determining whether the defendant's speedy trial right under the Sixth Amendment has been violated.
  • Aleman v. Circuit Court of Cook County, 138 F.3d 302 A defendant who is found after acquittal to have benefited from corrupt or undue influence on the trier of fact can be retried for the offense after such corruption has been discovered; the state has a right to an honest trial. A retrial in these circumstances does not constitute double jeopardy since the defendant was never truly in jeopardy during the first trial; this is one of only two circumstances where the same jurisdiction may retry a defendant who has been acquitted.
  • Crawford v. Washington, ' The Supreme Court held that the admission of "testimonial" hearsay in a criminal trial violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him unless the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.
  • City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, Local ordinances penalizing camping on public land do not constitute cruel and unusual punishment towards homeless people.

Federalism

Native American law

First Amendment rights

General aspects

Freedom of speech and of the press

Freedom of religion

Freedom of association

Freedom of petition

Second Amendment rights

Third Amendment rights

Fourteenth Amendment rights

Separation of powers

Administrative law

Executive power

Domestic

Foreign

Other areas

Voting and Redistricting

Takings Clause

  • United States v. Causby, ' The ownership of property does not extend infinitely upward, and navigable airspace is public domain.
  • Berman v. Parker, ' Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, private property can be taken for a public purpose as long as just compensation is paid to whom the property was taken from.
  • Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, ' Whether a regulatory action that diminishes the value of a claimant's property constitutes a "taking" of that property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment depends on several factors, including the economic impact of the regulation on the claimant, particularly the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations, as well as the character of the governmental action.
  • Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, ' Established the "total takings" test, i.e. has the owner been deprived of all possible beneficial use of the property, in determining whether a regulation limiting use of the property constitutes a regulatory taking.
  • Dolan v. City of Tigard, ' A government agency may not take property in exchange for benefits that are unrelated to the agency's interest in the property.
  • Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., ' Contrary to the holding of Agins v. City of Tiburon, which held that a government regulation of private property effects a taking if such regulation does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, the test of whether a governmental regulation substantially advances a legitimate state interest is irrelevant to determining whether the regulation effects an uncompensated taking of private property in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
  • Kelo v. City of New London, Local governments may seize property for economic development purposes. Noted for converting the "public use" requirement of the Takings Clause to "public purpose."

Businesses/Corporations/Contracts

Copyright/Patents

Other