In the Supreme Court decision Fletcher v. Peck, the Court found that Georgia’s voided laws that had, when enacted, granted Peck land were not constitutionally allowed to nullify the land deal between Peck and Fletcher. This deal had occurred years after Peck’s original acquisition. The Court noted that bills of attainder and ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, so the legal sale of the estate from Peck to Fletcher was constitutional. This invalidated Georgia’s legislation.

Habeas corpus is protection from unlawful imprisonment, and does not relate to this case.

Miller v. California (1973) is a Supreme Court case that tested the limits of the 1^st Amendment. The Court found that Miller’s distribution of certain materials through the mail qualified as obscene when they used a three-pronged decency test. Much of the Supreme Court’s activity during this era was not only in defence of individual rights, but also in defining the boundaries of those rights – as this case demonstrates.

United States v. Windsor was a landmark ruling for gay rights. DOMA, the Defence of Marriage Act, was legislation that the Court ruled to be in contradiction to the equal protection guaranteed by the 5^th Amendment. This case hinged on the concept of marital taxation exemptions. Windsor was left her spouse’s estate in a will, but the fact that their marriage was not federally recognized (New York did recognize their union) brought the case to the Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court decision McCulloch v. Maryland, the Court found that Maryland did not have the power to tax the national government. Congress has enumerated powers spelled out in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court expounded on the unenumerated, or non-disclosed powers Congress also possesses.

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) was a Supreme Court case that is one of the lesser lights in the Court's history. Dred Scott, a slave, had traveled across the Missouri border with his master to a territory where slavery was unlawful - the Louisiana Territory. Dred Scott later argued in a Missouri court that crossing the border meant he had been freed, but the Supreme Court disagreed at this time. Not only was the issue of slavery at the center of this case, but also the hot-button issue of states' rights, both of which helped pave the road to the Civil War.

When Chaplinsky cursed at an officer, he was arrested for disturbing the peace.  He argued that his 1st Amendment rights had been violated, but the Supreme Court disagreed. They ruled against Chaplinsky because they determined that some forms of expression - like the fighting words that Chaplinsky had said to the officer - are not ideas that are subject to the 1st Amendment's protections.  

This runs parallel to the law that you cannot yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there is no danger - not all words and expressions are completely protected by the Bill of Rights.

The Supreme Court decision of District of Columbia v. Heller resulted in a win for gun rights advocates. The Court determined that the 2^nd Amendment provides the right of gun ownership for an individual, even without military affiliation. The condition on that ruling is that the gun or guns are owned and operated in lawful purposes.

In the case of Lee v. Weisman (1992), the Supreme Court sided with Weisman and declared that the establishment clause was violated when a graduation speaker at a public school included prayer. The establishment clause of the 1^st Amendment protects against the government sponsoring religion and forcing it onto any person.

Buckley v. Valeo (1976) was significant because it was the next evolutionary step after the Federal Election Campaign Act was enacted into law. There was a blanket need for reform in politics – Nixon’s Watergate scandal put solving corruption in politics at a premium – and much of the Federal Election Campaign Act was perceived, by some, to be too extreme. The Supreme Court made impactful rulings in this case, and the debate over these rulings has raged in the Supreme Court to this day. Perhaps the most important judgment from this case was the Court’s decision that a limitation on a candidate’s spending was unconstitutional.

Perhaps the most landmark Supreme Court case in the nation’s entire history is Marbury v. Madison, which was undertaken by the Court in 1803, with lauded Chief Justice John Marshall presiding. Marshall’s historic ruling established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review, which is the Court’s right to assess acts of Congress and the Executive Branch to make certain that they are in line with the Constitution. Judicial review also states that the Court has the complementary ability to declare Congressional and Executive actions unconstitutional and thus null and void. This principle was crucial in establishing the scope and power of the fledgling Supreme Court, thus ensuring that the Court would stand as the final legal interpreter of the Constitution, with the power to prevent actions undertaken by even the President himself.