The Congressional power to regulate interstate commerce has been challenged consistently and often throughout American history. As new technology emerges that allows commerce to be conducted in different ways it is pretty much guaranteed that a court ruling will become necessary to reaffirm Congress’ sole right to regulate interstate commerce. Such as Gibbons v. Ogden (1824) after the invention of the steamboat required a ruling on Congress’ right to regulate interstate commerce along a river.

The Supreme Court case, Miller v. California (1973), centered around the distribution of pornographic material as means to advertise a business. The Court ruling was quite complicated. The Court first ruled that the publishing of extremely obscene material was not protected under the First Amendment, but the Court was uncomfortable undertaking any regulation of any form of expression, so tried to define the legal interpretation of obscenity. Probably the most important factor of it is whether the obscene material has “serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)).

The Simpson-Mazzoli Act, passed in 1986 during the presidency of Ronald Reagan, was designed to reform immigration laws in the United States. It intended to make it more challenging for immigrants to enter the United States illegally and acted to extend legal residence to any immigrant who had arrived illegally prior to 1982, provided they pay back-taxes and demonstrate competent understanding of American society. The success of the act is debated, particularly between liberals and conservatives.

The Supreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), centered around several school children from the Tinker family who wore black wristbands to school to show solidarity for the end of the Vietnam War. Those students were suspended by the school, and their case eventually came before the Supreme Court of The United States. The Court ruled that schools could not violate the First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression of students in public schools unless those rights constituted an overt distraction from educational pursuits.

In the Supreme Court case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), reaffirmed that affirmative action was constitutional, particularly as it applies to college admissions, although the court did also rule that setting aside a specific quota for minority students was not permissible. It helped define what exactly constitutes legal affirmative action and what does not.

The Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010), ruled that the First Amendment prohibits the United States government from preventing unions and nonprofit organizations from funding the promotion of their political views. The case centered around the lobby group, Citizens United, and its attempts to publish a propaganda video that was critical of Hillary Clinton.

The Supreme Court case, Wesberry v. Sanders (1964), ruled that each state had to draw its congressional districts so that the were roughly equal in population distribution. The Court ruled that there was sufficient language in the Constitution that each individual should have fair and equal representation to justify the ruling.

The Supreme Court case, New York Times v. Sullivan (1964), involved a police officer (Sullivan) suing the New York Times for publishing inaccurate and misleading information. The Supreme Court overturned the ruling of the lower courts and found in favor of the New York Times. The case established that, for a libel charge to be brought against a media organization or individual, it had to be proved that the inaccurate comments were not just a mistake, but were deliberately malicious. This greatly expanded the scope of the First Amendment protection of Freedom of the Press.

The Supreme Court case, Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), was a very important court ruling of the Nineteenth Century. It not only established that Congress could not ban slavery in the territory it also ruled that African-Americans, whether free or enslaved, could not be American citizens and therefore did not even have the right to bring a case before the Supreme Court. It was the intention of the Court, led by Chief Justice Taney, to end the question of slavery expansion into the territories that threatened to divide the United States in two. Ultimately the court case provoked such a vehement reaction in the North, especially among the Republican party, that the differences between the two sides were only further entrenched.

The Supreme Court case, Lawrence v. Texas (2003), established that states have no right to make laws regarding the legality of same-sex relationships. It essentially legalized all forms of same-sex relationships across the nation in one-stroke and perhaps paved the way to the current marriage equality reform that is sweeping across the United States.