The case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire arose when Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for making threatening and offensive comments directed at the general population in New Hampshire. He sued that his arrest was a violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and the case went to the Supreme Court. The court determined that Chaplinsky had forfeited his right to free speech by using “obscene, slanderous, and fighting” language. The case established that there are limits to the First Amendment guarantee of free speech.

The court case Gregg v. Georgia (1976) established that a convicted criminal could be executed under the death penalty without protection from the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. 

Reynolds v. Sims determined “one man, one vote.” The issue in Reynolds was a state (AL) that refused to redistrict its STATE legislative districts (do not confuse these with US Congressional districts) for around half a century. At first blush this may not seem very important, but imagine the following scenario:

Pick a date, let’s say . . . 1800. AL, at this time, is still largely rural (that is most of the population is concentrated outside of the city).

Skip forward 50 years (1850). AL is likely still largely rural

Skip forward another 50 (1900). The civil war is over and gone with, the Industrial Revolution has come and gone, and populations are moving inward to the city

Skip forward another 50 (1950). Populations are now, more than ever, moving inward to the city and (assume) for the first time urbanites (that is, city-dwellers) outnumber the rural occupants—let’s be extreme and say urbanites outnumber the rural folks by a 2:1 ratio.

Now, here’s where redistricting (or the lack thereof) becomes extremely important. Imagine that the AL state legislature refused to redistrict between 1900 and 1950, so the districts of 1900—when urbanites and rural folks were roughly equal—were still the same in 1950—when urbanites outnumbered rural folks 2:1.

Since the districts stayed the same, this means that there are two times as many people voting for one state legislator (in urban areas) as there are in rural areas. Putting this in a more-digestible form, it means that, effectively, every urban voter had half the voting power as every rural voter.

Thus, the Supreme Court held in Reynolds that this ran afoul of the 14th Amendment and established the principle of “one man, one vote”—that each district had to have a roughly equal number of inhabitants.

The Court decided that Richard Nixon did not have the executive privilege to withhold his recordings from Congress regarding the Watergate Scandal.  After giving the court edited notes, the Supreme Court found that the President’s privilege is not absolute, and it is presumed in the Constitution – and the Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.  The President’s executive confidentiality and power were weakened when the Supreme Court demanded the entirety of Nixon’s Watergate tapes. 

In this case, the President’s power of appointment, which includes his selection of Supreme Court justices and Cabinet members, was not directly limited until the fallout from this landmark decision when President Nixon resigned.

In one of the more controversial decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, Korematsu v. United States constitutionally allowed for the internment of Japanese-Americans and the restriction of Japanese-Americans from militarily sensitive areas. In the view of the court, the 1944 decision read that the rights of the petitioner, Korematsu, were outweighed by the need for extended national security during wartime. The Supreme Court was years away at this point from the shifts in judicial review that would contribute to the Civil Rights Era. 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall is credited with imbuing the Supreme Court with power in this landmark decision and powerful argument. Cementing the U.S. Constitution as the supreme law of the land, John Marshall also established the Supreme Court as overseer of the Constitution. This ability to interpret the language within the Constitution, also called judicial review or oversight, rebalanced the power amongst the three branches of government.

This Supreme Court case, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), involves the right of counsel. Gideon had been charged with a crime in Florida, but could not pay the state court fees for his own legal representation– when one cannot pay court fees and thusly has them waived, they appear informa pauperis. The Supreme Court unanimously agreed that this was a violation of Gideon’s right to counsel, and he had deserved and was owed that right when he had been initially forced to represent himself in court.

Originally, the 5^th Amendment only applied at the federal level and not the state level. It wasn’t until the addition of the 14^th Amendment, which contains the Due Process Clause, that the 5^th Amendment became all-encompassing. In Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court’s decision to let the lower court’s ruling stand meant that the 5^th Amendment did not directly apply. Barron’s plea to be compensated for land and property value lost due to Baltimore’s expansion was denied.

Griswold, the head of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut, was charged with a crime under state law when she provided birth control to married couples. When the Supreme Court ruled that couples had the right to privacy, it invalidated the section of Connecticut law that Griswold had been charged under. While the subject matter continues to be controversial, the resulting Constitutional definition of privacy was a titanic legal precedent.

This Supreme Court decision was a massive victory for journalists in the court system, as it established the requirement for actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth to be proven in order for a libel case against public officials to be proven. Beyond the individual freedom of speech, the case also bolstered the freedom of the press in the 1st Amendment. Even though Sullivan had won  from the state court, the burden of proof was the lacking piece there that the Supreme Court had to consider.