You may know about a few, but I bet you don’t know about ALL these influential Supreme Court rulings!
The Supreme Court started hearing appeals in 1789. And in all the years since its beginning, the highest court of appeals in the land has made many decisions about cases that changed the very fabric of our modern society.
To this date, the court has heard cases affecting our taxation, social divisions, civil rights, freedoms, the legal industry, freedom of choice, gender, race, social class, and many more.
They ruled on cases that deeply affected our legal system, setting lasting and powerful precedents that help ensure our rights and freedom are protected under the letter of the law.
Do you know about them? If not, here are 16 of the most influential Supreme Court rulings in history that helped shape the United States as a nation.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Roe v. Wade
After the failed efforts of twenty-one-year-old Norma McCorvey to receive an abortion in 1969, a legal challenge was formed to challenge the strict anti-abortion laws in her home state of Texas.
Victorious at both the District and Appellate levels, a Fifth Circuit court unanimously stated that the Texan law was unconstitutional and violated the Ninth Amendment. Reaching the US Supreme Court following a government appeal in 1971, Jay Floyd opened arguments with what has since evolved into the “worst joke in legal history.”
Making an incredibly prejudiced remark about his two female counterparts representing McCorvey, the offensive comment resulted in observers thinking Chief Justice Warren Burger may even drop from the bench to hit Floyd.
Entering into a lengthy period of deliberation, including a second arguing of the case, the Supreme Court didn’t issue an opinion until January 1973.
Ruling in favor of McCorvey, known at the time by the moniker Roe, the court expressed the right to a person’s privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which afforded women the right to decide whether or not to get an abortion before the viability of the fetus.
This influential Supreme Court ruling changed the fate of many women for decades to come.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Dred Scott v. Sandford
Dred Scott, an enslaved African American, sued for the freedom of himself and his family, which included his wife and their two daughters. Scott argued that because they lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal, they should be emancipated.
The Supreme Court not only decided that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional, for it would “improperly deprive Scott’s owner of his legal property,” but also held any person of African ancestry to be ineligible to claim citizenship in the US and that without citizenship Scott had no standing to even sue in a federal court.
Hoped by Chief Justice Roger Taney to settle the ongoing slavery question, his decision would trigger a massive tremor in American politics. Initiating outrage across the nation, except among slaveholding states, the Supreme Court was condemned like never before because of this.
Serving as an indirect trigger for the American Civil War, prompting abolitionists in the North to become noticeably more extreme in their opposition to the institution of slavery while the South decried attacks on slavery as unlawful assaults on the stated law of the land, the influential Supreme Court ruling also aided in the Panic of 1857 as financial markets flared into chaos.
Nowadays, that influential Supreme Court ruling is widely considered one of the worst ever made by the Supreme Court.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Brown v. Board
Following legal acceptance by the Supreme Court of racial segregation in the now famous case of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896, racial separation evolved as a systemic aspect of American society. Increasingly damaging the image of the US abroad, the court’s Justices gradually vocalized resistance to the institution and invited legal battles.
Culminating in a collective suit led by the NAACP regarding, most famously, the case of Oliver Brown’s daughter, who was denied enrollment at a nearby school based on her race, a series of lesser courts upheld the ruling by the Board of Education of Topeka citing Plessy v. Ferguson.
Once arriving at the United States Supreme Court, though, the Justices issued a rare unanimous verdict declaring “separate but equal” unconstitutional for educational institutions because they were “inherently unequal.”
Declaring that all such facilities violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, the US Supreme Court issued a succeeding order as part of Brown II for all states to desegregate “with all deliberate speed.”
Met with resistance and anger throughout much of the South, the overturning of Plessy v. Ferguson paved the way for racial integration and the Civil Rights Movement despite the intense opposition this influential Supreme Court ruling obtained.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Chisholm v. Georgia
In 1792, the estate of Robert Farquhar attempted to sue the State of Georgia in South Carolina. Farquhar, a trader, had supplied Georgia during the Revolutionary War but had never received payment for services provided.
Reaching the Supreme Court, the US Attorney General represented the Farquhar estate, while the State of Georgia, arguing that it was a sovereign entity, refused to appear because it declared that it had immunity and couldn’t be sued without first granting permission.
Ruling in favor of Farquhar, the Supreme Court decided that states didn’t have sovereign immunity under the Constitution and gave federal courts the power to hear these disputes. Justice Iredell issued a dissenting opinion that provoked uproar within the US, strongly opposing his colleagues’ judgments.
Surprised and frightened by their sudden change in assumed legal status, several states began aiming to retaliate in order to protect themselves from lawsuits.
Proposing a constitutional amendment in 1794, in less than twelve months, the 11th Amendment had been ratified by 12 states to become part of the US Constitution, specifying the influential Supreme Court ruling that a state can only be sued with their consent or if, following passage of the 14th Amendment, Congress uses its remedial powers.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Mapp v. Ohio
Getting an anonymous tip about the operations of an illegal gambling racket, police officers from Cleveland, Ohio, tried to search the home of Dollree Mapp in May 1957. Dollree refused the officers entry without a warrant, and a host of them returned a few hours later and forced entry.
Presenting a piece of the paper declared to be a warrant, taken from Mapp’s custody following her arrest and never seen again, the police searched her property. Charged with various crimes, the woman was ultimately sentenced to a year in prison after declining to testify against her alleged collaborators.
Appealing to the US Supreme Court on the grounds that the authorities didn’t have probable cause to suspect her involvement, Dollree’s lawyers approached the case citing the 4th Amendment.
Seized books couldn’t be used as evidence at the trial of illegal gambling because they were acquired without a warrant and, therefore, illegally recovered. The Supreme Court ended up siding with Mapp.
Overturning her conviction, the court issued this influential Supreme Court ruling that articles seized unlawfully by federal or state authorities must be excluded from evidence at trial as opposed to the previous understanding of only concerning federal legal scenarios.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Plessy v. Ferguson
After the Separate Car Act was passed in 1890 in Louisiana, which mandated separate accommodations for races on all railroads, including the use of different railway cars, a man named Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths of European descent and just one-eighth African, consequently being designated as “colored,” served as the plaintiff trying to overturn the discriminatory legislation.
He was arrested after taking his seat in a first-class whites-only railway car. Plessy pursued legal action under the 13th and 14th Amendments, stipulating equal treatment by law. But, not getting the response he hoped for at the state level, Plessy appealed to the US Supreme Court in 1896.
Represented by white supremacist Milton Cunningham, Louisiana defended itself energetically against the man’s claims. And ruling in Louisiana’s favor, the court dismissed any relevance of the 13th Amendment, determining it only provided the most basic provisions of legal equality to ensure freedom from slavery.
Also, the Supreme Court determined that laws demanding racial separation didn’t imply any racial inferiority but were instead provisions of essential policing powers needed by a state to function.
Provided services treated customers as “separate but equal,” the court reasoned this influential Supreme Court ruling by citing that no crime was being committed by a state in segregating people by race.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Nixon v. United States
After the Watergate scandal, the second special prosecutor investigating the ordeal, Leon Jaworski, subpoenaed President Nixon, trying to obtain a selection of papers and tapes regarding meetings between the president and people indicted by a grand jury.
Submitting edited transcripts of 43 exchanges, Nixon instructed his attorney, James St. Clair, to destroy the subpoena. But, arguing before the US District Court for the District of Columbia, St. Clair’s view that the president “is as powerful as a monarch…and is not subject to the processes of any court in the land except the court of impeachment” was decisively refused.
Nixon was ordered to submit the tapes in full and appealed to the Supreme Court. Arguing that this case was political and not judicial, Nixon also used a sweeping claim of executive privilege to maintain protections over the tapes.
Issuing a unanimous decision in under 3 weeks after hearing arguments, this influential Supreme Court ruling found the subpoena was valid and accurate thanks to the “sufficient likelihood” of criminal contents.
Most importantly, the court stated that even though presidential privilege did exist, Nixon’s claims of an “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity” were incorrect. Ordering delivery of the tapes to the District Court, Nixon resigned a mere 16 days later.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Marbury v. Madison
After the defeat of the Federalists in the presidential election of 1800, the ungracious, outgoing John Adams and his supporters aimed to load federal offices with “anti-Jeffersonians.”
Nominating almost 60 people to circuit judge positions in March 1801, which was two days before the end of his term, these so-called “Midnight Judges” were confirmed collectively by the Senate, and summons were sent out confirming their appointments.
But, with Jefferson taking office on March 4th, not all of these notices reached everyone in time. Jefferson immediately canceled all those outstanding, declaring the offers were void. William Marbury, a fervent supporter of Adams, was refused his seat by the new Secretary of State, James Madison.
He filed a suit against Madison in December 1801 for his refusal to deliver his commission. While they sided with Marbury, citing Madison’s refusal to provide the commission was illegal, the Supreme Court didn’t order his submission.
Instead, Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the law that allowed the court to examine the situation had extended the court’s jurisdiction beyond constitutional limits.
Striking down the foundational law, this influential Supreme Court ruling affirmed the now-famous power of judicial review to invalidate laws that violate the US Constitution.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Engel v. Vitale
After legislation was passed in New York encouraging students to start the school day with the Pledge of Allegiance and a distinct prayer, a group of parents, led by Steven Engel, filed suit against the school board president William Vitale Jr.
Arguing that the encouraged but not required prayer opposed their religious beliefs, the families challenged the constitutionality of the written prayer under the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment as utilized in the states under the 14th Amendment.
Supported by the New York Court of Appeals, with the aid of twenty-two state governments alongside that of New York’s, the group turned to the US Supreme Court for help. Issuing a historical statement, Justice Hugo Black defined this influential Supreme Court ruling in detail on the importance of the separation of church and state in the United States of America.
Providing a detailed, long history, beginning with the religious discrimination of sixteenth-century England, Black fluently remarked specifying any spiritual activity in school for children violated the Constitution.
Most remarkably, the court rejected the arguments that the traditional heritage of the American nation was religious and the prayer was non-specific and voluntary, instead maintaining that the promotion of even the idea of religion is sufficient to meet the standard of a violation.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Loving v. Virginia
A standard part of US history, anti-miscegenation laws were plentiful until the mid-twentieth century, and while dropping, in 1967, 16 states still maintained legislation prohibiting interracial marriage.
Aiming to evade Virginia’s Racial Integrity Act of 1924, Richard and Mildred Loving crossed into the District of Columbia to be married in June 1958.
Yet, upon being ransacked by the police the next month, who were hoping to find them engaging in coupling, an act which was illegal under Virginian law also, the couple was arrested under the Virginia Code, which outlawed interracial couples from being married out of state and thereafter returning.
Failing to defeat appeals at the state level, which invariably upheld the anti-miscegenation laws and the couple’s resultant convictions, they desperately filed with the US Supreme Court. Overturning the Lovings’ convictions in a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court also overruled the precedent set in Pace v. Alabama, from 1883.
Ordering the end of all race-based legal limitations on marriage in the US, the court ruled that a person’s freedom to marry is a constitutionally protected liberty and any lack of it violated the Due Process Clause.
This historic influential Supreme Court ruling was recently cited once more as part of the legalization of gay marriage in 2013 in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Schenck v. United States
After the US entered World War One, American society was deeply divided about the country’s role in the conflict overseas. Resisted by those belonging to the radical left, mainly persons of German and Irish origin, the Wilson Administration passed a broad criminal enforcement campaign against rebels.
As General Secretary of the Socialist Party, Charles Schenck supervised the printing and mailing of over 15,000 fliers to people selected for recruitment, encouraging them to reject military service.
Convicted under Section Three of the Espionage Act of 1917, he appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that a punitive measure like this was contrary to his rights under the 1st Amendment.
But, issuing a unanimous statement written by Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., this influential Supreme Court ruling reasoned that Schenck’s criminal conviction was constitutionally good. Arguing the 1st Amendment isn’t unlimited in the conditions it offers.
Holmes asserted, “When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight,” claiming Schenck’s actions posed a “clear and present danger” to any war efforts.
Most famously, his statement offered the example of “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing panic,” an often used example since then to explain the limits of free speech in a civil society.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Gideon v. Wainwright
After being arrested for a burglary at the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida, in June 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with breaking and intent to commit petty larceny.
Incapable of paying for legal counsel, therefore requesting it be provided, upon appearing in court, Gideon was informed that under Florida law, the state only appoints counsel to represent an individual charged with a capital offense.
Forced to serve as his own counsel, Gideon ended up being convicted and sentenced to 5 years in prison. Appealing to the US Supreme Court from Florida State Prison, using the penitentiary’s library to inform himself, he sued the Secretary of the Florida Department of Corrections.
Declaring he had been denied counsel in violation of his 6th Amendment rights, the Supreme Court, in an indication of their perspective on the subject, assigned Gideon one of the finest lawyers in the nation, Abe Fortas, to represent him.
Issuing a unanimous judgment in favor of Clarence, the Supreme Court ruled that the assistance of counsel, should a defendant want it, was a fundamental legal right and necessary for a fair trial. Freeing about two thousand people in Florida alone, Gideon was subjected to a new trial.
Represented by a lawyer the second time around, Gideon was acquitted after a mere hour of deliberations by the jury, thanks to this influential Supreme Court ruling.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: McCulloch v. Maryland
A matter of significant controversy during the presidency of George Washington was formed in 1791 by Congress at the request of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and the First Bank of the United States.
Designed to handle the American currency and manage national economic issues, advocates of states’ rights strongly resisted the bank, worrying it would seize the power of the states and consolidate it within the federal government.
Expiring in 1811, the Second Bank was created in 1816 in an attempt to fix the economic upheaval following the War of 1812. Looking to deter the bank’s operations, the Maryland General Assembly passed a law imposing a $15,000 tax on any bank operating within the state not chartered by itself.
The legislation slammed the institution’s existence, with only the Second Bank of the United States fitting the limited description. Declining to pay, the Maryland Court of Appeals claimed that “the Constitution is silent on the subject of banks, ” therefore ruling the Second Bank unconstitutional.
Yet, a different interpretation was set in the Supreme Court with McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. Ruling the “Necessary and Proper” Clause of the Constitution gave the federal government suggested powers not expressly stated.
The court equally made the influential Supreme Court ruling that the federal government was superior to the states and, therefore, couldn’t be checked in a valid exercise of power.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
Even though the Supreme Court had banned segregation in schools in the 50s, including the ordering of school districts to take proper steps to integrate students, the case of voluntary affirmative action (as in, the positive use of race as part of school admissions in an attempt to make up for past prejudice) remained murky following the procedural dismissal of DeFunis v. Odegaard in 1974.
In ’73, Allan Bakke, a thirty-something white male, strived for admission to 13 medical schools, facing rejection from all except one despite his exceptional candidature.
Following rejection by the University of California, the man, believing he was being unlawfully discriminated against in favor of minorities, contested the constitutionality of the school’s affirmative action program. Cracking the court, the controversial issue was addressed by 6 different opinions from the nine justices.
Eventually, ruling affirmative action was permissible within limits, with race allowed to serve as one of many aspects in college admissions, the court decided clear racial quotas, like those used at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine, weren’t lawful.
Davis had previously instituted a quota of sixteen out of one hundred seats for minority students, and following this influential Supreme Court ruling, the system was removed, and Bakke ordered admission to study.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Korematsu v. United States
Born in 1919 in Oakland, California, Fred Korematsu was the third son of Japanese parents who had relocated to the US in 1905. Denied by the US Navy when called for military service under the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, Korematsu trained as a welder to help with the war effort instead.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor, the man was fired from his place of work for his racial heritage. He underwent plastic surgery on his eyelids in an attempt to pass as a Caucasian man.
Korematsu unsuccessfully aimed to evade capture and was forcibly held by American authorities for the remainder of World War Two under Executive Order 9066. Appealing his incarceration, Korematsu was denied at every step, with his case eventually reaching the US Supreme Court in 1944.
Ruling against Korematsu, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, registered by Justice Hugo Black, affirmed the need to protect the nation against the potential of espionage outweighed the rights of American citizens of Japanese descent and supported Roosevelt’s executive order.
Described as an “odious and discredited artifact of popular bigotry,” Korematsu’s conviction for failing to stick to the exclusion order was ultimately voided by a Californian court in 1983, and the influential Supreme Court ruling was explicitly rejected by the Supreme Court in 2018 in Trump v. Hawaii.
Influential Supreme Court ruling: Miranda v. Arizona
In March 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested by the Phoenix Police after circumstantial evidence linked him to the kidnapping and assault of an 18-year-old woman. After a couple of hours of interrogation, when there wasn’t an attorney present, Miranda signed a confession, which included a comment that he was fully aware of his rights.
Nevertheless, throughout the process, Miranda had never been informed that he had the right to legal counsel, nor was he notified of the right to remain silent or that his comments during interrogation could be used against him in court.
Convicted and ultimately sentenced to 20-30 years in prison, Miranda’s trial lawyer, Alvin Moore, petitioned the Arizona Supreme Court on grounds that his client’s confession wasn’t voluntary because it was made while unaware of his rights and therefore should be inadmissible.
Denied, the United States Supreme Court took the case. Ruling in Miranda’s favor, the court reasoned that a confession couldn’t be admissible under the 5th and 6th Amendments unless a suspect had been entirely made aware of their rights.
Overturning Miranda’s conviction, this influential Supreme Court ruling now specifies the famous “Miranda Rights” that must be read to a suspect and mandates that interrogations must cease upon the request for an attorney.
How many of these influential Supreme Court rulings did you know about? Please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.
And if you enjoyed this article, I highly recommend also reading about the 21 Celebrity Political Figures Who Traded Fame for Office