# How many Supreme Court decisions are pivital to US law? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [December 20, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096 "2003-12-20T01:39:42Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 20, 2003, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/1 "2003-12-20T01:39:42Z")
Obviously every case heard by the SCOTUS has some bearing on US law. But discounting dead letters like Dredd Scott, or decisions that are mainly a matter of fine tuning the scope of a law, how many SC decisions are indispensible to understanding current US constitutional law? Things like the original decision establishing the court’s ability to declare laws unconstitutional, or the Commerce Clause case that vastly expanded Federal jurisdiction, or the case that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as applying to state militias, not individuals. In other words, in addition to the letter of the Constitution itself, what SCOTUS decisions would be on a “must know” list to understand American law? ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/2 "2003-12-22T15:05:38Z")
It depends what you mean by pivotal – I can think of a few dozen right off the top of my head, and there are at least a couple important decisions almost every term. It might be possible to get a good list if one were to focus on a specific area of law, but as a general question I think the answer is too numerous to be useful. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![TaxGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b19c9b/32.png) [@TaxGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TaxGuy)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/3 "2003-12-22T16:05:11Z")
Yeah, we need a more rigorous definition of “indispensible to understanding current US constitutional law” before we can really determine whether a case falls within that category or not. Maybe a way to start would be to pick up a con law casebook (the books used in law school) and see which opinions are laid out in full. The writer of the casebook obviously thinks that the student will not fully understand con law unless s/he reads that case. Also, which case are you referring to here: “the case that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as applying to state militias, not individuals”? ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/4 "2003-12-22T18:05:58Z")
You have to realize that U.S. federal law is a huge area, and in almost all areas where there is federal court involvement, there are at least a few pivotal cases. Some important, broad areas of law that the U.S. Supreme Court frequently addresses include: -“Pure” Constitutional law, the powers of and interaction between the branches of federal government and the states. -Constitutional civil rights, those rights guaranteed under the Bill of Rights, 14th Amendment and other Constitutional provisions. -Constitutional criminal law, rights of those accused of crime. -Federal civil rights statutes, claims against governmental and other actors for abuse of civil rights laws, including anti-discrimination laws. -Federal laws in specific areas, including tax, securities, environmental, health care, commerce, etc. ---
**Author:** ![constantine](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/3bc359/32.png) [@constantine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/constantine)\ **Post date:** [December 22, 2003, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/5 "2003-12-22T23:07:26Z")
As others have already noted, the question is sort of hard to answer as phrased. And, as **Bildo** has noted, much of the Supreme Court’s caseload does not involve constitutional questions at all (in other words, the Constitution is not cited in the decision) but interpretations of federal law. With all that said, it might be go some way towards answering your question to look at constitutional law classes in law schools. At my school, they taught three, one quarter con law classes: 1. a course focusing on the structure of the government under constitution, with a focus on the powers (and limits on the powers) of the three branches of the federal government, and the distribution of powers between the federal government and the states (what **Billdo** called “pure” constitutional law); 2. a course on the first amendment, focusing on freedom of speech cases; and 3. a course civil and criminal rights under the bill of rights (especially the 5th amendment ban on self incrimination and the 4th amendment ban on unreasonable search and seizure) and the 14th amendment. For each of these courses I would say roughly 40 to 50 cases, and I would argue that these cases represent the most important constitutional law cases (at least as reflected in the judgment of case book authors and teachers). So, my answer (more honestly, my wild ass guess at an answer) to your original question is that there are 100 to 150 (maybe at a stretch 200) constitutional cases that would be considered pivotal. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/6 "2003-12-23T00:17:59Z")
Also, it’s the nature of constitutional law that a relatively narrow case winds up having a broader effect. I think a lot of people would say the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision was landmark, but I know a few people more up on the law than I am, who say the real constitutional landmark was an earlier decision that struck down a Connecticut law that banned dispensing birth control. ---
**Author:** ![Northern\_Piper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/northern_piper/32/5304_2.png) [@Northern\_Piper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Northern_Piper)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/7 "2003-12-23T01:42:06Z")
Why don’t we approach this question from a different perspective? Granted, there’s scads of cases out there dealing with constitutional law, civil rights, and so on. But what are the Top 10 cases that a well-informed American citizen should know about, either because 1) they come up so frequently in conversations and political discussions, or 2) they are foundational in nature. So, I propose that we all put forward suggestions for cases that we think are the 10 most important. Everybody can comment on other peoples’ suggestions. If we can reach a consensus, then we will have the “ **SDMB Top 10 Supreme Court Decisions™** ”! Three parameters for suggestions: First, don’t just give a cite; you have to explain why it should be on the list. Second, I’d say the list should normally only include cases that have not been overruled or overturned by constitutional amendment, but I’d make at least one exception: _Dred Scott_, because of its historical importance to the Civil War. Third, I’d be reluctant to put any recent cases (say, within the past 10 years) on the list because they’re still too close. There’s over two centuries of decided cases, so excluding the last ten years just adds historical perspective. Here’s some suggestions that came to me. I’ve only given eight, to allow myself a bit more time for reflection. I think the number one case is obvious: [**Marbury v. Madison** , 1 Cranch 137 (1803)](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Marbury), the grand-daddy of constitutional law. Established the basic principle of judicial review: that the courts have the authority to hold that a federal statute is unconstitutional if it does not comply with the federal Constitution. I’m not that familiar with pure federalism cases, so I’m going to skip straight to [**Dred Scott v. Sandford** , 19 How. 393 (1857)](http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Scott/), the second time the Supreme Court held a federal statute unconstitutional. The holding, that Scott was still a slave, galvanised a lot of popular opinion on the slavery issue immediately, but the reasoning of the Court, which essentially held that the federal government could not prevent slavery from spreading into the western territories, had serious long-term implications that contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War. Overturned by the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, but still a crucial case to understand constitutional developments. Third on my list would be [**Palko v. Connecticut** , 302 U.S. 319 (1937)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=302&invol=319). This case is key because it adopted the principle that the 14th Amendment had selectively incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights and applied them to the states. That decision drastically expanded the scope of federal court jurisdiction to review state actions, and paved the way for all the criminal procedure cases and freedom of speech/establishment of religion cases. Fourth on my list would be [**Brown v. Board of Education** , 347 U.S. 483 (1954)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=347&invol=483), which held that “separate but equal” schools for blacks and whites were unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment. The case started the ball rolling for desegregation, and also set the stage for a lot of the latter civil rights cases. Fifth on my list would be a less well-known case, but essential to understanding the constitutional principles governing criminal cases: [**Mapp v. Ohio** , 367 U.S. 643 (1961)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=367&invol=643). In this case, the Court held that the exclusionary rule was not simply a rule of the federal courts, but constitutionally mandated. It therefore applied in all criminal cases, whether in the state or federal courts, where a constitutional right had been infringed in the course of a criminal investigation/prosecution. The case itself is not well known, but the point of law is the staple of _Law and Order_, which really is all that is needed to justify inclusion on the list. 😛 My sixth case is [**Baker v. Carr** , 369 U.S. 186 (1962)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=369&invol=186), dealing with voting rights. The Supreme Court held that the failure of the State of Tennesee to re-apportion seats in the state house for over 60 years, notwithstanding the major population shifts from the rural areas to the urban areaa, deprived citizens in the urban areas of their equal right to vote. This case was also crucial to the civil rights debate, since it helped to break the white stranglehold on the state governments in the south. One reason I would include it on the list is because Chief Justice Warren, on his retirement, said that it was the most important case that came before the Court during his time as Chief Justice, not _Brown_ or any of the other landmark cases. Seventh on my list is the well-known case of [**Miranda v. Arizona** , 384 U.S. 436 (1966)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=384&invol=436). It elevated the principle of police warnings to detainees in criminal cases to a constitutional requirement, a significant constitutional development, with wide-ranging impact on all state and municipal police forces. (It also qualifies under the _Law and Order_ corollary.) Eighth on my list would be [**Roe v. Wade** , 410 U.S. 113 (1973)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113). True, as **kunilou** comments, in terms of legal principles, it built upon the principles set out in _Griswold v. Connecticut_, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), but in terms of immediate and long-term impact on the political debate in the United States, _Roe_ is one of the most significant. Presidential candidates’ positions on abortion and _Roe_ have become a touchstone for a lot of voters, and the entire issue of appointments to vacancies on the Supreme Court looks back to _Roe_. That’s all for now. (Oh, and but for the 10 year rule, I’d be inclined to cite [Lawrence v. Texas](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=02-102), both for its significance for gay and lesbian equality, and for its substantive due process analysis. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/8 "2003-12-23T02:30:42Z")
I nominate \*\*[Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins\*\*, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)](http://laws.findlaw.com/us/304/64.html). Many decades prior to **Erie** , there was a case called _Swift v. Tyson_, which held that, in federal courts, the court was not bound by the common law of any state, but rather had great leeway in deciding the case based upon its own judgment, which led to the building of a “federal common law” separate from state common law. This led to many conflicts, since federal common law could and often did conflict with state common law, which led to bitter arguments concerning in which court (and under which law) a case should be tried and decided. **Erie** did away with the confusion. Allow me to quote: > [@](#): > > Except in matters governed by the Federal Constitution or by acts of Congress, the law to be applied in any case is the law of the state. And whether the law of the state shall be declared by its Legislature in a statute or by its highest court in a decision is not a matter of federal concern. **There is no federal general common law.** That’s some powerful stuff right there. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/9 "2003-12-23T02:41:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by TaxGuy \* > \*\*Also, which case are you referring to here: “the case that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as applying to state militias, not individuals”? \*\* Sorry I don’t know the name, but it was the case that ruled that owning a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_Torque](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/10 "2003-12-23T03:58:35Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Lumpy \* > \*\*Sorry I don’t know the name, but it was the case that ruled that owning a sawed-off shotgun was not protected by the 2nd Amendment. \*\* Sounds like you’re thinking of [**U.S. v. Miller** , 307 U.S. 174 (1939)](http://laws.findlaw.com/us/307/174.html). I don’t know that I’d consider that one of the ten most significant, but in terms of sheer amount of post-decision argument, it’s gotta be right up there. And I’d like to point out that how you framed the decision (“the case that interpreted the 2nd Amendment as applying to state militias, not individuals”) is not correct, but don’t want to launch that debate in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/11 "2003-12-23T07:31:20Z")
Remember… “Constitutional” is anything but an absolute. Virtually every possible practice which you can be prosecuted for today may be legal tomorrow, and vice versa. All it takes is a little time, a test case the Court feels like hearing this year, and a fairly gifted lawyer (or team thereof). ---
**Author:** ![Otto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Otto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Otto)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/12 "2003-12-23T14:36:27Z")
Although it violates the ten year rule, I nominate [Romer v Evans](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10179), which overturned Colorado’s Amendment 2 and for the first time held that homosexuals are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. It laid the groundwork for the earlier-suggested Lawrence case. Lawrence wouldn’t have happened without Romer. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/13 "2003-12-23T14:55:09Z")
**McCulloch v. Maryland** , which was I believe the first case to provide the “elastic” in the “Elastic Clause” (the “necessary and proper” clause), ought to be on the list. > [@](#): > > _Originally written by **Chief Justice John Marshall** _: > “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitution, are constitutional.” [**Griswold v. Connecticut**](http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/griswold.html), whether you agree with Mr. Justice Douglas’s construction or not, was the case in which the Court construed a “right to privacy” from the explicit protections of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Though technically dealing exclusively with the right of a married couple to use contraceptives, it is the foundation for _Roe v. Wade_ and _Lawrence v. Texas._ ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/14 "2003-12-23T15:34:11Z")
If we’re making a list, I’d have to add [KATZENBACH v. McCLUNG, 379 U.S. 294 (1964)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/379/294.html) (and its companion case [HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL v. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (1964)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/379/241.html)). These cases confirmed that the the anti-discrimination provisons of that Civil Rights Act of 1964 can extend to all restaurants, hotels and other places of public accomodation, even Ollie’s Barbecue, a small restaurant in Birmingham, Alabama that had virtually no interstate customers because the food served moved in interstate commerce. ---
**Author:** ![Zoff](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/6de8d8/32.png) [@Zoff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zoff)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2003, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-many-supreme-court-decisions-are-pivital-to-us-law/220096/15 "2003-12-23T19:15:03Z")
I’ll nominate _[Wickard v. Filburn](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=317&invol=111)_ which greatly expanded the scope of the Commerce Clause. This increased the activities which Congress can regulate. This one sort of sets the stage for some of the other cases cited in this thread.