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.

The Supreme Court case, Barron v. Baltimore, occurred in 1833. In this case, the Court established that the Bill of Rights, specifically the Fifth Amendment, did not apply to states.

Engel v. Vitale (1962) established that it was a violation of the First Amendment for a state or an organization to require students in a public school to recite a prayer that favored one religion over another.

The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland (1819) upheld the Federal government's right to create a national bank. The case is related to the implied powers, or loose constructionist, interpretation of the Constitution. Essentially, this interpretation grants the government powers that are not specifically outlined in the Constitution.

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.