Although there will be factual answers here, I am putting this in IMHO because I am expecting opinions and varying point views here. From my simple and basic understanding of our government, the purpose of the U.S. Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution of the United States.
In what situations and circumstances has the Supreme Court of the United States misinterpreted the Constitution?
The Supreme Court supported Franklin D. Roosevelts Executive Order 9066 at the begining of WWII. Making it “legal” to hold Japanese-Americans in detainment camps. I can’t find more info here at work, but A People’s History of the Supreme Court is an excellent resource.
Kelo v. New London in recent memory.
I believe the Dred Scott decision is also one that has not held up under the harsh light of history.
Plessy vs Ferguson stands out.
Plessy v Ferguson
Since the OP is asking about decisions that arguably misinterpret the Constitution, not simply those that have been harshly judged in the light of history, how about the grandaddy of them all – Marbury v. Madison? Although the principle of judicial review has become fundamental to our way of government, the Consitution does not identify the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of a legislative act’s constitutionality.
I don’t want to start a partisan shitstorm, but I’ll nominate Roe v. Wade (and the cases subsequently interpreting it, e.g. Casey).
In my opinion, the SCOTUS could have put the whole abortion debate to bed. Instead, they produced an opinion that relies on questionable Constitutional analysis and bizarre logic. Penumbras? Are you serious? It would have been much better and IMO sounder to have based the whole case on an unenumerated right to privacy illustrated by the Ninth Amendment.
Please note: I am trying really hard to avoid discussing whether the end result of Roe was “correct” or “incorrect” so as not to hijack the heck out of this thread. I’m just arguing that the reasoning of the opinion is IMO so bizarre as to be a potential misinterpretation of the Constitution.
To everyone so far. I appreciate what has been submitted so far, it is teaching me a lot.
Doctor Who, the reason I kept this out of GQ is because I figured a lot of these cases will still be considered correct decisions in the minds of some, and will probably create some sort of debate.
It may not be the most popular thing to say, but Brown v. Board of Education is laughable in its application of the Constitution. Because segregation imposes psychological harm on kids it is unconstitutional? Segregation may have been unconstitutional (and there is a lot of debate about this), but if it was unconstitutional, it’s ridiculous to say it was because of its psychological effects on kids.
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Without researching Bush v. Gore, I recall that this vote was strictly along ‘party’ lines in the Supreme Court. If the case were reversed, i.e. Gore v. Bush, would it still have been along party lines and Gore would have won the state?
Bowers v Hardwick (upholding sodomy laws)
Baker v Nelson (“no federal question” raised by same-sex marriage suit)
The Dred Scott decision.
Chief Justice Roger Taney, a southerner, used the case as a springboard for a sweeping justification for slavery. However, from what I understand, his decision was inconsistent with the law and extended way beyond the actual scope of the case.
Two aspects of Taney’s opinion were prima facie absurd. One was his finding that Congress had no power to ban slavery in the territories, despite the Constitution’s explicit grant of power to make “all needful rules and regulations” for such. The other was his insistence that an African American, whether enslaved or free, could never be a citizen of the United States, which he conjured out of thin air.
Neither finding was necessary to decide the case, even for a judge determined to decide it against Scott.
Perhaps you could do a bit of research. Here’s Wikipedia’s summary, as background: Bush v. Gore - Wikipedia
This is from an opinion piece:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/sunstein/chapter9.html
Surely there are essays out there proving that Bush v. Gore was a shining moment in jurisprudence. Perhaps someone else will post one for you.
Admittedly a second-tier outrage, and you’ll want a lawyer to expound on this, but in two cases in the 1870’s-'80’s SCOTUS established a precedent for considering [public only? or all?] corporations as “legal persons”. This paved the way for many regrettable excesses of corporate power.
To quote America: The Book, prior to Marbury SCOTUS only had the power to check laws for spelling and punctuation.
Eight of the thirteen colonies incorporated judicial review into their constitutions by about 1790, which suggests that the Framers do not mention judicial review because it was implicitly accepted.
Remember, Congress can, in theory, withdraw the Court’s appellate jurisdiction over just about anything if it so wishes, thanks to the Exceptions Clause.
Sorry if I sounded extra ignorant on the matter. I am sure I could do a lot of research on all of the cases, but I was unable to at the time (work). As I read the posts, I am researching each case.
Knowledge is power.
If nothing else, Bush v. Gore should be suspect because neither Thomas nor Scalia reclused themselves (at the time, Thomas’ wife was working on Bush Administration applications, and Scalia’s sons were lawyers working for Bush).
I recommend A Layman’s Guide to the Supreme Court Decision in Bush v. Gore as a starting point.
Taney also established the precedent of the Supreme Court having the broad power to overturn acts of Congress. While the Marbury decision had established the legal foundation for this power, it had only been used invoked in a very limited way and had laid dormant for decades (the Dred Scott decision was the first decision since Marbury to invoke it). Taney’s decision revived the practice and greatly expanded it. Every person who’s complained about judical activism since then has Taney to thank.