SCOTUS Canon: Marbury to Dobbs
The forty-odd cases every pre-law student, Hill staffer, AP Gov teacher, and political journalist should be able to recall on demand — facts, holdings, and why they still matter.
Founding Era
Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Facts: In the waning hours of the Adams administration, William Marbury was commissioned as a justice of the peace but never received his papers. He sued Secretary of State James Madison directly in the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Holding: Marbury had a right and a remedy, but the Judiciary Act provision purporting to give the Court original jurisdiction over the case exceeded Article III and was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Marshall thereby established judicial review of federal statutes. Why it matters: every later constitutional ruling — from Brown to Dobbs — rests on the premise that the Court has the final word on what the Constitution means.
Key Points
- Birth of judicial review of federal statutes.
- Marshall declined jurisdiction while expanding judicial power — a masterclass in strategic restraint.
- Cooper v. Aaron (1958) doubled down: court interpretations themselves bind the other branches.
McCulloch v. Maryland (1819)
Facts: Maryland tried to tax the Second Bank of the United States out of existence; cashier James McCulloch refused to pay. Holding: Congress could charter the Bank under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and Maryland could not tax a federal instrumentality because 'the power to tax involves the power to destroy.' Why it matters: McCulloch established broad congressional means-ends authority and federal supremacy over conflicting state law — the doctrinal backbone of the modern administrative and regulatory state.
Key Points
- Necessary and Proper Clause read expansively: 'let the end be legitimate.'
- Supremacy Clause bars states from taxing federal instrumentalities.
- Foundational text for implied powers and the federal-state hierarchy.
Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)
Facts: New York granted Aaron Ogden a steamboat monopoly on its waters; Thomas Gibbons ran a competing federally licensed line. Holding: 'Commerce' includes navigation, and the federal commerce power reaches activity within state borders when it is part of interstate trade. The state monopoly was preempted. Why it matters: Gibbons is the foundation of the modern Commerce Clause and of every subsequent expansion (and limit) on federal economic regulation.
Key Points
- First major Commerce Clause case — defines 'commerce' broadly.
- Established the dormant Commerce Clause in embryonic form.
- Set the stage for Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and Lopez (1995).
Civil War & Reconstruction
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Facts: Dred Scott, an enslaved man, sued for freedom after living with his enslaver in free territory. Holding: People of African descent — enslaved or free — were not 'citizens' within the meaning of the Constitution and could not sue in federal court. The Missouri Compromise was also held unconstitutional. Why it matters: widely judged the worst decision in Supreme Court history. It hastened the Civil War and was directly repudiated by the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Key Points
- Held Black Americans could not be citizens.
- Struck down the Missouri Compromise — only the second federal statute ever invalidated.
- Repudiated by the Reconstruction Amendments (13th, 14th, 15th).
The Slaughter-House Cases (1873)
Facts: Louisiana butchers challenged a state-granted slaughterhouse monopoly under the new Fourteenth Amendment. Holding: The Privileges or Immunities Clause protected only a narrow set of federal rights (e.g., interstate travel, access to seaports), not the broader civil rights people associated with citizenship. Why it matters: Slaughter-House gutted the Privileges or Immunities Clause for 150 years, forcing all incorporation of the Bill of Rights to run through the Due Process Clause instead. Justice Thomas has repeatedly called for revisiting it.
Key Points
- Read the Privileges or Immunities Clause nearly out of existence.
- Forced civil-rights litigation into Due Process and Equal Protection frames.
- McDonald v. Chicago (2010) revived but did not overrule it.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Facts: Homer Plessy, classified as Black under Louisiana law, was arrested for sitting in a whites-only railway car. Holding: Racial segregation in public accommodations was constitutional so long as facilities were 'separate but equal.' Justice Harlan's lone dissent declared the Constitution 'color-blind.' Why it matters: Plessy legitimized Jim Crow for nearly six decades until Brown v. Board overruled it.
Key Points
- Constitutionalized 'separate but equal.'
- Justice Harlan's dissent is one of the most-cited dissents in US history.
- Overruled in Brown v. Board (1954).
Progressive & New Deal
Lochner v. New York (1905)
Facts: New York limited bakers to 60-hour weeks. Holding: The law violated 'liberty of contract' protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Why it matters: 'Lochner' is now shorthand for judicial activism in defense of laissez-faire economics. The 'Lochner era' (roughly 1905-1937) saw the Court strike dozens of labor, minimum-wage, and economic-regulation statutes before West Coast Hotel ended it.
Key Points
- Invented 'liberty of contract' as a fundamental right.
- Justice Holmes's dissent — 'the Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics' — became canonical.
- Repudiated, but the 'Lochner trap' still haunts substantive due process debates.
Schechter Poultry v. United States (1935)
Facts: A Brooklyn kosher poultry company was prosecuted under the National Industrial Recovery Act's 'live poultry code.' Holding: The NIRA unconstitutionally delegated legislative power to the executive and exceeded the Commerce Clause as applied. Why it matters: Schechter is one of only two modern statutes struck on pure non-delegation grounds. It precipitated FDR's court-packing plan and remains the touchstone case for any revival of the non-delegation doctrine.
Key Points
- Killed a centerpiece of the early New Deal.
- Non-delegation doctrine high-water mark.
- Triggered FDR's 1937 court-packing proposal.
West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937)
Facts: Washington State's minimum-wage law for women was challenged under Lochner-era liberty-of-contract precedent. Holding: The Court upheld the minimum wage, abandoning the Lochner framework. Why it matters: This is the famous 'switch in time that saved nine' — the doctrinal pivot that ended the Lochner era and accommodated the New Deal, defusing FDR's court-packing plan.
Key Points
- End of the Lochner era.
- Established deferential review for economic legislation.
- Cleared the path for Wickard v. Filburn (1942) and the modern regulatory state.
Civil Rights Era
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Facts: Linda Brown was denied admission to her neighborhood white school in Topeka. Holding: Segregation in public education violates the Equal Protection Clause — 'separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.' Brown II (1955) ordered desegregation 'with all deliberate speed.' Why it matters: Brown ended de jure segregation, repudiated Plessy, and legitimized the Court as an engine of civil rights — the model later cited in Loving, Bolling, and Obergefell.
Key Points
- Overruled Plessy v. Ferguson (1896).
- Unanimous opinion — Chief Justice Warren built consensus deliberately.
- Companion case Bolling v. Sharpe (1954) applied the rule to DC via the Fifth Amendment.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961)
Facts: Cleveland police searched Dollree Mapp's home without a warrant and found obscene materials. Holding: The Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Why it matters: Mapp marked the beginning of the Warren Court's criminal-procedure revolution and remains the foundation of every motion to suppress in state court.
Key Points
- Incorporated the exclusionary rule against the states.
- Started the Warren Court's criminal-procedure revolution.
- Modified later by good-faith exceptions (US v. Leon 1984) but still controls.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
Facts: Clarence Earl Gideon, charged with felony breaking and entering in Florida, was denied appointed counsel. Holding: The Sixth Amendment right to counsel is incorporated against the states; indigent defendants must be provided counsel in felony cases. Why it matters: Gideon created the modern public defender system and is the single most consequential criminal-procedure case for ordinary defendants.
Key Points
- Right to appointed counsel in felony cases.
- Extended to misdemeanors carrying jail time in Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972).
- Underfunded public defender systems remain a perennial constitutional crisis.
Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
Facts: Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape during a two-hour interrogation without being advised of his rights. Holding: Before custodial interrogation, suspects must be warned of their rights to silence and counsel. Why it matters: 'Miranda rights' are the most famous Supreme Court holding in American popular culture. Dickerson v. United States (2000) reaffirmed Miranda as a constitutional rule Congress could not legislate around.
Key Points
- Created the now-universal warnings: right to remain silent, right to counsel.
- Affirmed in Dickerson v. US (2000).
- Narrowed by exceptions: public safety (Quarles 1984), invocation requirements (Berghuis 2010).
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Facts: Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple legally married in DC, were convicted under Virginia's Racial Integrity Act. Holding: Bans on interracial marriage violate both the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause's protection of the fundamental right to marry. Why it matters: Loving is the textual root of every later marriage-rights case — Zablocki v. Redhail (1978), Turner v. Safley (1987), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
Key Points
- Struck anti-miscegenation laws nationwide.
- Foundation of the fundamental right to marry.
- Directly cited in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015).
Modern Liberties
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Facts: A Connecticut law banned contraceptives; Planned Parenthood's executive director was prosecuted for advising married couples. Holding: A 'right to marital privacy' lives in the 'penumbras' of the Bill of Rights. Why it matters: Griswold launched modern substantive due process privacy jurisprudence — Eisenstadt (1972), Roe (1973), Lawrence (2003), and Obergefell (2015) all build on it. Justice Thomas's Dobbs concurrence flagged Griswold for future reconsideration.
Key Points
- First modern privacy decision.
- Penumbras-and-emanations reasoning is famously contested.
- Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972) extended the right to unmarried couples.
Roe v. Wade (1973)
Facts: 'Jane Roe' challenged Texas's near-total abortion ban. Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects a woman's right to choose abortion, structured by a trimester framework. Why it matters: Roe was the most politically consequential constitutional decision of the second half of the twentieth century and was overruled by Dobbs in 2022.
Key Points
- Created a constitutional abortion right under substantive due process.
- Trimester framework replaced by 'undue burden' in Casey (1992).
- Overruled by Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022).
Regents v. Bakke (1978)
Facts: Allan Bakke, a white applicant, was rejected from UC Davis Medical School which reserved 16 of 100 seats for minority applicants. Holding: Racial quotas in admissions are unconstitutional, but race may be considered as one factor among many. Why it matters: Bakke set the framework for race-conscious admissions for 45 years (refined by Grutter v. Bollinger 2003 and Fisher v. Texas 2016), until SFFA v. Harvard (2023) ended the practice entirely.
Key Points
- Allowed race as a 'plus factor' in admissions but banned quotas.
- Justice Powell's diversity rationale was the controlling opinion.
- Overruled in practical effect by SFFA v. Harvard (2023).
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992)
Facts: Pennsylvania imposed waiting periods, informed-consent rules, and spousal-notification requirements on abortion. Holding: Reaffirmed Roe's 'central holding' but replaced the trimester framework with the 'undue burden' standard. Why it matters: Casey was the operative abortion doctrine for thirty years and produced one of the most-cited stare decisis discussions in Supreme Court history — language that Dobbs (2022) then turned against it.
Key Points
- Established 'undue burden' standard for abortion regulations.
- Joint opinion by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter.
- Spousal-notification provision struck; others upheld.
Speech & Press
New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)
Facts: An Alabama police commissioner sued the Times over a civil-rights advertisement with minor factual errors. Holding: Public officials suing for defamation must prove 'actual malice' — knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Why it matters: Sullivan is the constitutional foundation of American press freedom. Justices Thomas and Gorsuch have publicly questioned it; defenders argue investigative journalism is impossible without it.
Key Points
- Created the 'actual malice' standard for defamation by public officials.
- Extended to public figures in Curtis Publishing v. Butts (1967).
- Currently under sustained originalist pressure.
New York Times v. United States (1971) — the Pentagon Papers
Facts: The Nixon administration sought to enjoin publication of a classified Defense Department history of the Vietnam War. Holding: The government failed to meet the 'heavy presumption against' prior restraints. Why it matters: The most important prior-restraint case in American history; it set the constitutional ceiling on the government's ability to suppress publication on national-security grounds.
Key Points
- Heavy presumption against prior restraint.
- Per curiam opinion with six separate concurrences — doctrine lives in the concurrences.
- Cited in every subsequent national-security press case.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)
Facts: Students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War; the school suspended them. Holding: Students do not 'shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.' Schools may restrict speech only if it would 'materially and substantially' disrupt school operations. Why it matters: Tinker is the foundational student-speech case, narrowed by Bethel (1986), Hazelwood (1988), Morse v. Frederick (2007), and refined for off-campus speech in Mahanoy Area v. B.L. (2021).
Key Points
- Substantial-disruption test for student speech.
- Off-campus social-media speech largely protected (Mahanoy 2021).
- Schools have broader authority over school-sponsored speech (Hazelwood).
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Facts: A nonprofit wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton during the 2008 primaries in violation of campaign-finance restrictions on corporate electioneering. Holding: Corporations and unions have First Amendment rights to make independent political expenditures. Why it matters: Citizens United, together with SpeechNow.org v. FEC (DC Cir 2010), enabled Super PACs and reshaped American campaign finance. It overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and parts of McConnell v. FEC (2003).
Key Points
- Independent corporate political expenditures are protected speech.
- Did not strike contribution limits to candidates and parties.
- Enabled the rise of Super PACs and dark-money groups.
Federalism Revival
United States v. Lopez (1995)
Facts: A 12th-grader was prosecuted under the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act for bringing a handgun to a Texas high school. Holding: The statute exceeded the Commerce Clause because possession of a gun near a school is not economic activity substantially affecting interstate commerce. Why it matters: First Commerce Clause invalidation since 1936. Lopez signaled the Rehnquist Court's federalism revival and gave us the modern three-category test.
Key Points
- First Commerce Clause invalidation in 60 years.
- Three categories: channels, instrumentalities, and substantial-effects.
- Required regulated activity to be economic in nature.
United States v. Morrison (2000)
Facts: A Virginia Tech student sued her attackers under the civil-remedy provision of the Violence Against Women Act. Holding: VAWA's civil remedy exceeded both the Commerce Clause and Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Why it matters: Morrison reinforced Lopez's economic-activity requirement and limited Congress's Fourteenth Amendment Section 5 enforcement power, building on City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).
Key Points
- Gender-motivated violence is not 'economic' activity.
- Section 5 enforcement power must target state action, not private conduct.
- Read alongside City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).
NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)
Facts: 26 states and others challenged the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate and Medicaid expansion. Holding: Mandate exceeded the Commerce Clause but was valid as a tax; Medicaid expansion as written was unconstitutionally coercive. Why it matters: NFIB modernized both the Commerce Clause and Spending Clause limits, while letting the ACA survive — a structural compromise that has defined Chief Justice Roberts's tenure.
Key Points
- Commerce Clause cannot compel inactivity into activity.
- Conditional spending becomes coercive when it threatens existing funds.
- Effectively made the ACA's Medicaid expansion optional for states.
21st Century Pivots
Bush v. Gore (2000)
Facts: Florida's manual recount in the contested presidential election lacked uniform standards. Holding: The recount violated Equal Protection; remedy was to halt the recount, effectively awarding Florida and the presidency to George W. Bush. Why it matters: One of the most controversial Supreme Court interventions in American political history; the opinion expressly limited itself to 'the present circumstances,' but its election-law principles have been invoked in every contested election since.
Key Points
- Equal Protection applied to recount standards.
- Self-limiting opinion — not 'precedent' in the usual sense.
- Reawakened scrutiny of election administration that culminated in Moore v. Harper (2023).
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
Facts: DC banned handguns and required other firearms to be kept disassembled. Holding: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms unconnected to militia service. Why it matters: Heller is the first Supreme Court case to recognize an individual Second Amendment right; McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated it against the states, and Bruen (2022) transformed the analytical framework.
Key Points
- Individual right to bear arms, not just collective militia right.
- Incorporated against states in McDonald v. Chicago (2010).
- Bruen (2022) replaced means-end balancing with history-and-tradition analysis.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Facts: Same-sex couples challenged state bans on marriage and recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages. Holding: The Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license and recognize same-sex marriages. Why it matters: Constitutionalized marriage equality nationwide. The Respect for Marriage Act (2022) provides statutory backup if Obergefell is ever revisited — a real possibility flagged in Justice Thomas's Dobbs concurrence.
Key Points
- Marriage equality grounded in Due Process and Equal Protection.
- Justice Kennedy's last great civil-rights opinion.
- Statutory backup: Respect for Marriage Act (2022).
Janus v. AFSCME (2018)
Facts: An Illinois state employee challenged mandatory union 'agency fees' for non-members. Holding: Compelling public-sector workers to pay agency fees violates the First Amendment by forcing subsidization of union political speech. Why it matters: Janus overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977) and reshaped public-sector unionism nationally; combined with right-to-work expansion, it has eroded the financial base of public-sector unions.
Key Points
- Overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977).
- Bans mandatory agency fees in the public sector.
- Major political-economy consequence — weakened public-sector unions.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health (2022)
Facts: Mississippi's 15-week abortion ban was challenged under Roe and Casey. Holding: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled. Why it matters: The most consequential overruling of the modern era. Dobbs returned abortion regulation to the states, triggered trigger-ban laws in roughly half the country, and made abortion a defining electoral issue in every cycle since.
Key Points
- Overruled Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey (1992).
- Applied the Glucksberg 'deeply rooted in history' test.
- Justice Thomas's concurrence flagged Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell for reconsideration.
NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022)
Facts: New York required a special showing of need to obtain a concealed-carry license. Holding: The Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms in public; gun regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Why it matters: Bruen replaced the post-Heller two-step (text, then means-end scrutiny) with a pure history-and-tradition test, throwing dozens of gun laws into litigation. United States v. Rahimi (2024) clarified that historical analogy is 'analogical,' not requiring a 'twin.'
Key Points
- Right to bear arms outside the home.
- Replaced tiered scrutiny with history-and-tradition analysis.
- Rahimi (2024) softened the test slightly — analogy, not twin.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023)
Facts: SFFA challenged Harvard's and UNC's race-conscious admissions. Holding: Race-conscious admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause (and Title VI as to private universities receiving federal funds). Why it matters: Effectively ended affirmative action in higher education. Admissions offices nationwide restructured around socioeconomic factors and essay-based 'experience' considerations.
Key Points
- Strict scrutiny applied; Bakke/Grutter framework abandoned.
- Applies to private universities via Title VI.
- Service academies temporarily carved out — but later challenged.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
Facts: Atlantic herring fishermen challenged a National Marine Fisheries Service rule requiring them to pay for onboard observers. Holding: Chevron v. NRDC (1984) is overruled; courts must exercise independent judgment in interpreting statutes, with Skidmore respect for agency expertise where warranted. Why it matters: Reshapes every administrative-law dispute. Combined with West Virginia v. EPA (2022) and the major questions doctrine, it shifts interpretive power decisively from agencies to courts.
Key Points
- Overruled Chevron (1984) after 40 years.
- Courts decide statutory meaning de novo.
- Corner Post v. FRB (2024) expanded the litigation window for facial challenges.
Trump v. United States (2024)
Facts: Former President Trump sought to dismiss federal election-interference charges on presidential-immunity grounds. Holding: Former Presidents enjoy absolute immunity for 'core' constitutional acts, presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no immunity for unofficial acts. Why it matters: The first Supreme Court ruling to recognize broad criminal immunity for former Presidents. It reshaped both the pending Trump prosecutions and the structural understanding of executive power.
Key Points
- Absolute immunity for 'core' presidential functions.
- Presumptive immunity for other official acts.
- No immunity for unofficial conduct — but the line is contested.
Continue learning
Explore related MUN guides to deepen your skills.