Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)

Holding: Established the 11th Amendment.

Following the death of Robert Farquhar, his estate’s executor, Alexander Chisholm—who, like Farquhar, was a South Carolina resident—sued the state of Georgia to collect money Georgia owed Farquhar for goods it purchased during the American Revolution. Georgia claimed that sovereign immunity protected it from Chisholm’s suit. However, the Supreme Court held that Article III Section 2 gave citizens the right to sue a state, finding against Georgia. The Court’s ruling proved so controversial that it resulted in the 1794 passage of the Eleventh Amendment, which specifically prohibited U.S. or foreign citizens from filing a lawsuit against a state (with certain exceptions).

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Holding: Established the doctrine of judicial review.

In the Judiciary Act of 1789, Congress gave the Supreme Court the authority to issue certain judicial writs. The Constitution did not give the Court this power. Because the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, the Court held that any contradictory congressional Act is without force. The ability of federal courts to declare legislative and executive actions unconstitutional is known as judicial review.

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)

Holding: The Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Maryland imposed a tax on the Bank of the United States and questioned the federal government's ability to grant charters without explicit constitutional sanction. The Supreme Court held that the tax unconstitutionally interfered with federal supremacy and ruled that the Constitution gives the federal government certain implied powers.

Gibbons v. Ogden (1823)

Holding: The Federal Government holds the right when it comes to regulating interstate commerce.

Thomas Gibbons and Aaron Ogden were partners in a steamboat business that ferried people between New York and New Jersey. Ogden had purchased a license granting him a monopoly under New York law. After the partners suffered a disagreement and split up, Gibbons applied for and received a federal permit to run a similar business. Ogden sued Gibbons for violating Ogden’s monopoly. In a unanimous decision, Marshall held that Congress’ interstate regulatory power under the Commerce Clause had “no limitations other than are prescribed in the Constitution.” Gibbons’ federal permit trumped Ogden’s state-granted monopoly.

Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857)

Holding: The federal government lacked authority to prohibit slavery in any new territory that was not originally part of the United States (Holding overturned with the 14th Amendment).

Dred Scott was a slave purchased by John Emerson in the 1820s and who at various points lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory, both of which prohibited slavery. In 1853, Scott sued his then-owner John Sanford for his freedom. The Supreme Court ruled that no African-American—slave or free— was a citizen of the United States, and that therefore Scott lacked standing to initiate a lawsuit in the first place. In addition, the Court found the Missouri Compromise to be unconstitutional, holding that Congress lacked authority to prohibit slavery in any new territory that was not originally part of the United States.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Holding: “Separate but Equal” is upheld.

Homer Plessy (an octoroon) bought a first- class ticket on the East Louisiana Railway. He sat in the whites-only car in violation of an 1890 Louisiana law mandating separate accommodations. He was convicted, but appealed to the Supreme Court against John Ferguson, a Louisiana judge. The court upheld the law provided that "separate but equal" facilities were provided. John Marshall Harlan issued a famous dissent claiming "Our constitution is color-blind."

Schenck v. U.S (1919)

Holding: First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a “clear and present danger”.

The Espionage Act of 1917 prohibited—among other things—any attempt to inhibit recruitment by the U.S. Armed Forces. Charles Schenck was a Socialist who opposed conscription and distributed literature urging readers to resist the draft. Following his arrest and conviction, he appealed, claiming that his advocacy was protected speech covered by the First Amendment. Writing for a unanimous court, Justice Holmes claimed the First Amendment does not protect speech that creates a “clear and present danger,” and that “the most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting ‘fire’ in a theatre.”

Brown v. Board of Education (1954)

Holding: Separate is not equal. Plessy v. Ferguson overturned.

In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the Supreme Court sanctioned segregation by upholding the doctrine of "separate but equal." The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People disagreed with this ruling, challenging the constitutionality of segregation in the Topeka, Kansas, school system. In 1954, the Court reversed its Plessy decision, declaring that "separate schools are inherently unequal."

U.S. v. Nixon (1974)

Holding: The President is not above the law.

The special prosecutor in the Watergate affair subpoenaed audio tapes of Oval Office conversations. President Nixon refused to turn over the tapes, asserting executive privilege. The Supreme Court ruled that the defendants' right to potentially exculpating evidence outweighed the President's right to executive privilege if national security was not compromised.

Bush v. Gore (2000)

Holding: There will not be a recount vote for the Election of 2000.

It resolved the dispute surrounding the 2000 presidential election. The ruling was issued on December 12, 2000. On December 9, the Court had preliminarily halted the Florida recount that was occurring. Eight days earlier, the Court unanimously decided the closely related case of Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board. The Electoral College was scheduled to meet on December 18, 2000, to decide the election.

Citizens United v. FEC (2010)

Holding: Independent expenditures for political campaigns cannot be restricted by the Government.

A landmark U.S. constitutional law, campaign finance, and corporate law case dealing with regulation of political campaign spending by organizations. The United States Supreme Court held (5–4) on January 21, 2010 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for communications by nonprofit corporations, for-profit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.