WASHINGTON — A jury convicted Dayonta McClinton of robbing a CVS pharmacy but acquitted him of murder. A judge gave McClinton an extra 13 years in prison for the killing anyway.
In courtrooms across America, defendants get additional prison time for crimes that juries found they didn’t commit.
The Supreme Court is being asked again to put an end to the practice. It’s possible that the newest member of the court and a former federal public defender, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, could hold a pivotal vote.
Alex Brandon, Associated Press
Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson testifies March 23 during her Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington.
McClinton’s case and three others just like it are scheduled to be discussed when the justices next meet in private on Friday.
Sentencing a defendant for what’s called “acquitted conduct” has gone on for years, based on a Supreme Court decision from the late 1990s. And the justices have turned down numerous appeals asking them to declare that the Constitution forbids it.
The closest the court came to taking up the issue was in 2014, when Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg provided three of the four votes necessary to hear an appeal.
“This has gone on long enough,” Scalia wrote in dissent when the court rejected an appeal from defendants who received longer prison terms for conspiring to distribute cocaine after jurors acquitted them of conspiracy charges.
Scalia and Ginsburg have since died, while Thomas remains on the court. But two other justices, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, have voiced concerns while serving as appeals court judges. “Allowing judges to rely on acquitted or uncharged conduct to impose higher sentences than they otherwise would impose seems a dubious infringement of the rights to due process and to a jury trial,” Kavanaugh wrote in 2015.
Jackson, who also previously served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, could provide a fourth vote to take up the issue, said Douglas Berman, an expert on sentencing at the Ohio State University law school.
“She is someone who we’d have good reason to believe would be troubled by the continued use of acquitted conduct,” said Berman, who filed a brief calling on the court to take up McClinton’s case.
Jackson replaced Justice Stephen Breyer, who generally favored giving judges discretion in imposing prison terms. Reining in the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing would restrict judicial discretion.
McClinton, then 17, was part of an armed group that robbed a CVS pharmacy in Indianapolis in 2015 in search of prescription medicines, including opioids. The take was meager, about $68 worth of drugs, McClinton’s lawyers said in court papers. After one member of the group refused to share the proceeds, he was fatally shot in the back of the head at close range.
The reputed leader and other members of the group testified against McClinton at trial, as part of their bid for reduced prison terms, McClinton’s lawyers wrote.
Even with the testimony, jurors acquitted McClinton of the most serious charges against him. He should have faced six years in prison, at most.
Instead, the trial judge gave McClinton 19 years, finding that it was more likely than not that McClinton was responsible for the killing. The legal standard in a jury trial is higher: proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Upholding McClinton’s prison term, Judge Ilana Rovner wrote for a unanimous three-judge panel of the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that lower-court judges are bound by a 1997 Supreme Court ruling that “a jury’s verdict of acquittal does not prevent the sentencing court from considering conduct underlying the acquitted charge, so long as that conduct has been proved by a preponderance of the evidence.”
But Rovner noted that a growing number of federal judges “have questioned the fairness and constitutionality of allowing courts to factor acquitted conduct into sentencing calculations.”
Seventeen former federal judges also signed on to a brief in support of McClinton.
McClinton’s lawyers argue that the high court’s intervention is past due. “Unless this Court resolves this issue, tens of thousands of criminal defendants will continue to be sentenced using sentencing practices that are impossible to square with the Constitution,” they wrote.
The Justice Department urged the court to reject the appeal, as it did in similar cases in the past.
There’s no certainty about what the justices will do. Berman said there are reasons the court could take a pass again, including a preference for Congress to deal with the issue by legislation or for the Sentencing Commission to address it.
Neither has over more than two decades, though the House in March passed legislation prohibiting punishment of acquitted conduct. The Senate has not taken any action.
Another reason for caution, Berman said, is that some justices might feel they would craft a rough rule with the potential for unintended consequences that include restricting judicial discretion more than they want.
Jackson also might have to weigh whether this is a topic she wants to take on in her first term, already filled with consequential cases on race, elections and the latest dispute involving people with religious objections to same-sex marriage.
-
Canva
From issues concerning freedom of speech to college admission, many Supreme Court cases that shape the daily lives of U.S. citizens were not decided by a landslide but rather by a single vote.
The Supreme Court can decide appeals on all federal or state court rulings dealing with federal law. The Supreme Court hears less than 1% of appeals—typically those where courts across the country have ruled differently on a particular issue or when a court may have made a significant error that affected the outcome of a case.
With nine justices, there will always be either a conservative or liberal majority. While justices are supposed to be impartial interpreters of the constitution and not shapers of policy based on personal beliefs—"to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat," as Justice John Roberts analogized during his confirmation hearing—political ideology continues to influence the country's highest court.
It has been generally accepted that ideology will determine how a justice will vote. According to an analysis of Supreme Court votes in more than 8,500 cases since World War II, when a justice casts the deciding vote, their personal beliefs factor into their decision significantly more than when it is not a pivotal vote. This effect is even more pronounced when a justice's ideology is extremely left- or right-leaning.
Stacker compiled a list of influential Supreme Court decisions decided by one vote using a variety of news, government, and legal sources.
You may also like: Iconic presidential photos from the year you were born
Canva
From issues concerning freedom of speech to college admission, many Supreme Court cases that shape the daily lives of U.S. citizens were not decided by a landslide but rather by a single vote.
The Supreme Court can decide appeals on all federal or state court rulings dealing with federal law. The Supreme Court hears less than 1% of appeals—typically those where courts across the country have ruled differently on a particular issue or when a court may have made a significant error that affected the outcome of a case.
With nine justices, there will always be either a conservative or liberal majority. While justices are supposed to be impartial interpreters of the constitution and not shapers of policy based on personal beliefs—"to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat," as Justice John Roberts analogized during his confirmation hearing—political ideology continues to influence the country's highest court.
It has been generally accepted that ideology will determine how a justice will vote. According to an analysis of Supreme Court votes in more than 8,500 cases since World War II, when a justice casts the deciding vote, their personal beliefs factor into their decision significantly more than when it is not a pivotal vote. This effect is even more pronounced when a justice's ideology is extremely left- or right-leaning.
Stacker compiled a list of influential Supreme Court decisions decided by one vote using a variety of news, government, and legal sources.
You may also like: Iconic presidential photos from the year you were born
-
U.S. Supreme Court, circa 1866 // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Chase Court
Date decided: April 14, 1873
Decisions: The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to national citizenship, not to state citizenship
Louisiana passed a law that allowed a monopoly on slaughterhouses, angering local butchers who said they could no longer practice their trade. The case was the first time the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, which says no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
U.S. Supreme Court, circa 1866 // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Chase Court
Date decided: April 14, 1873
Decisions: The Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to national citizenship, not to state citizenship
Louisiana passed a law that allowed a monopoly on slaughterhouses, angering local butchers who said they could no longer practice their trade. The case was the first time the Supreme Court interpreted the 14th Amendment, which says no state "shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
-
robert kelly // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Fuller Court
Date decided: April 17, 1905
Decisions: The Bakeshop Act violated the "liberty of contract" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
The court struck down the New York law that set a workday limit of 10 hours, specifically in the baking trade. The majority held that the employee and employer should be able to agree on their own contract, and working long hours would not be detrimental to a baker's health. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' dissent stated that maximum work hours were constitutional, an interpretation held today.
robert kelly // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Fuller Court
Date decided: April 17, 1905
Decisions: The Bakeshop Act violated the "liberty of contract" protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment
The court struck down the New York law that set a workday limit of 10 hours, specifically in the baking trade. The majority held that the employee and employer should be able to agree on their own contract, and working long hours would not be detrimental to a baker's health. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes' dissent stated that maximum work hours were constitutional, an interpretation held today.
-
Jon S // flickr
Decided by: Hughes Court
Date decided: June 1, 1931
Decisions: Under the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment, and with limited exceptions, the government may not censor or prohibit a publication in advance
Minnesota officials wanted a permanent injunction against The Saturday Press after the Minneapolis paper accused local officials of associating with gangsters. Officials claimed the story violated the Public Nuisance Law because it was "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory."
Jon S // flickr
Decided by: Hughes Court
Date decided: June 1, 1931
Decisions: Under the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment, and with limited exceptions, the government may not censor or prohibit a publication in advance
Minnesota officials wanted a permanent injunction against The Saturday Press after the Minneapolis paper accused local officials of associating with gangsters. Officials claimed the story violated the Public Nuisance Law because it was "malicious, scandalous, and defamatory."
-
daveynin // flickr
Decided by: Vinson Court
Date decided: Feb. 10, 1947
Decisions: The New Jersey law reimbursing parents for transportation costs to parochial schools did not violate the Establishment Clause
Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion on this case, which involved a New Jersey law that allowed school boards to reimburse transportation costs to and from private schools. The court determined it did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause—which prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion"—because it did not pay money to or directly support parochial schools. Instead, the money assisted parents of all religions who needed to transport their children to school. Parochial Catholic schools made up 96% of the private schools that benefitted from this decision.
daveynin // flickr
Decided by: Vinson Court
Date decided: Feb. 10, 1947
Decisions: The New Jersey law reimbursing parents for transportation costs to parochial schools did not violate the Establishment Clause
Justice Hugo Black wrote the opinion on this case, which involved a New Jersey law that allowed school boards to reimburse transportation costs to and from private schools. The court determined it did not violate the First Amendment's Establishment Clause—which prohibits the government from making any law "respecting an establishment of religion"—because it did not pay money to or directly support parochial schools. Instead, the money assisted parents of all religions who needed to transport their children to school. Parochial Catholic schools made up 96% of the private schools that benefitted from this decision.
-
-
Gerald L. Nino // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Warren Court
Date decided: June 13, 1966
Decisions: The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody
The decision in Miranda v. Arizona led to the creation of the Miranda Warning, in which suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and obtain an attorney before interrogation. If someone isn't read their rights, any evidence obtained is inadmissible in court. Justice Thomas C. Clark dissented, arguing that the ruling is a strict reading of the Fifth Amendment and puts too much burden on police officers.
You may also like: Where US first ladies went to college
Gerald L. Nino // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Warren Court
Date decided: June 13, 1966
Decisions: The Fifth Amendment requires that law enforcement officials advise suspects of their right to remain silent and to obtain an attorney during interrogations while in police custody
The decision in Miranda v. Arizona led to the creation of the Miranda Warning, in which suspects must be informed of their right to remain silent and obtain an attorney before interrogation. If someone isn't read their rights, any evidence obtained is inadmissible in court. Justice Thomas C. Clark dissented, arguing that the ruling is a strict reading of the Fifth Amendment and puts too much burden on police officers.
You may also like: Where US first ladies went to college
-
Ken Piorkowski // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 29, 1972
Decisions: The imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution
A per curiam opinion was present for Furman v. Georgia, meaning all concurring justices contributed to the majority opinion instead of a single justice. Justice Potter Stewart wrote that the death penalty was "cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual." The decision temporarily halted the death penalty, noting that there weren't set standards used to decide when the death sentence should be imposed and that there tended to be a racial bias against Black defendants.
Ken Piorkowski // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 29, 1972
Decisions: The imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution
A per curiam opinion was present for Furman v. Georgia, meaning all concurring justices contributed to the majority opinion instead of a single justice. Justice Potter Stewart wrote that the death penalty was "cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual." The decision temporarily halted the death penalty, noting that there weren't set standards used to decide when the death sentence should be imposed and that there tended to be a racial bias against Black defendants.
-
Canva
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 21, 1973
Decisions: Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened
The court held that the First Amendment does not protect the mailing of obscene materials, but the ruling narrowed the broad definition of obscenity defined in Memoirs v. Massachusetts. To be criminally obscene, the material must satisfy three factors: the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; the work depicts or describes sexual conduct or excretory functions, as defined by state law, in an offensive way; and the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
Canva
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 21, 1973
Decisions: Obscene materials are not protected by the First Amendment, but the definition of "obscene material" is lessened
The court held that the First Amendment does not protect the mailing of obscene materials, but the ruling narrowed the broad definition of obscenity defined in Memoirs v. Massachusetts. To be criminally obscene, the material must satisfy three factors: the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; the work depicts or describes sexual conduct or excretory functions, as defined by state law, in an offensive way; and the work as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
-
U.S. Department of Agriculture // flickr
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 15, 1982
Decisions: Illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded 14th Amendment protections
The court struck down a Texas state law that denied education to the children of illegal immigrants because it did not serve a "compelling state interest." The case was decided with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children, which challenged a Texas statute that prohibited the use of state funds to educate immigrant children who are not "legally admitted" to the United States. Since the 1982 decision, lawmakers have moved away from using the term "illegal alien."
U.S. Department of Agriculture // flickr
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 15, 1982
Decisions: Illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded 14th Amendment protections
The court struck down a Texas state law that denied education to the children of illegal immigrants because it did not serve a "compelling state interest." The case was decided with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children, which challenged a Texas statute that prohibited the use of state funds to educate immigrant children who are not "legally admitted" to the United States. Since the 1982 decision, lawmakers have moved away from using the term "illegal alien."
-
Everyone Sinks Starco // flickr
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: Jan. 18, 1983
Decisions: The sale of the videotape recorders to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of Universal's copyrights
Known as "The Betamax Case," Universal Studios sued Sony for copyright infringement because consumers could use Sony's VCR system to record programming released by Universal to "time-shift" when they watched network television. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion, stating that the public's use of videotape recorders did not violate the Copyright Act. Without the Supreme Court's decision, consumers wouldn't have been able to watch programming whenever they wanted—hard to fathom in an age driven by DVRs and on-demand digital content.
Everyone Sinks Starco // flickr
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: Jan. 18, 1983
Decisions: The sale of the videotape recorders to the general public does not constitute contributory infringement of Universal's copyrights
Known as "The Betamax Case," Universal Studios sued Sony for copyright infringement because consumers could use Sony's VCR system to record programming released by Universal to "time-shift" when they watched network television. Justice John Paul Stevens delivered the opinion, stating that the public's use of videotape recorders did not violate the Copyright Act. Without the Supreme Court's decision, consumers wouldn't have been able to watch programming whenever they wanted—hard to fathom in an age driven by DVRs and on-demand digital content.
-
-
Benson Kua // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 30, 1986
Decisions: There was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices
This case came to the Supreme Court after a Georgia police officer saw Michael Hardwick engaging in consensual sex with another man in Hardwick's private bedroom. The court upheld the Georgia law that barred sodomy, which refers to certain sexual acts regardless of gender, but is associated mostly with criminalizing homosexuality. The court overturned the ruling in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the Texas statute that made it a crime for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in certain intimate acts. The court stated, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided [and] it is not correct today."
You may also like: Can you solve these 'Jeopardy!' clues about U.S. presidents?
Benson Kua // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Burger Court
Date decided: June 30, 1986
Decisions: There was no constitutional protection for acts of sodomy, and that states could outlaw those practices
This case came to the Supreme Court after a Georgia police officer saw Michael Hardwick engaging in consensual sex with another man in Hardwick's private bedroom. The court upheld the Georgia law that barred sodomy, which refers to certain sexual acts regardless of gender, but is associated mostly with criminalizing homosexuality. The court overturned the ruling in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down the Texas statute that made it a crime for two consenting adults of the same sex to engage in certain intimate acts. The court stated, "Bowers was not correct when it was decided [and] it is not correct today."
You may also like: Can you solve these 'Jeopardy!' clues about U.S. presidents?
-
Canva
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: April 21, 1987
Decisions: Anticipating lethal force is not enough to satisfy the "intent to kill" requirement, but the Tisons' major participation in the felony along with reckless indifference to human life may be
The court sent Tison v. Arizona back to lower courts to decide if Ricky and Raymond Tison had acted with reckless indifference to human life when, in an attempt to help their father escape from prison, a family was killed by their accomplice. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arizona decided their involvement was enough of an "intent" to qualify them for the death penalty. Justice William J. Brennan dissented, citing that capital punishment is often arbitrary and that the death penalty is always cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and 14th Amendments.
Canva
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: April 21, 1987
Decisions: Anticipating lethal force is not enough to satisfy the "intent to kill" requirement, but the Tisons' major participation in the felony along with reckless indifference to human life may be
The court sent Tison v. Arizona back to lower courts to decide if Ricky and Raymond Tison had acted with reckless indifference to human life when, in an attempt to help their father escape from prison, a family was killed by their accomplice. Consequently, the Supreme Court of Arizona decided their involvement was enough of an "intent" to qualify them for the death penalty. Justice William J. Brennan dissented, citing that capital punishment is often arbitrary and that the death penalty is always cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth and 14th Amendments.
-
jnn1776 // flickr
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 21, 1989
Decisions: Gregory Lee Johnson's burning of a flag was a protected expression under the First Amendment
The court held that just because an audience is offended by how someone expresses themselves—like burning an American flag—it doesn't mean their freedom of speech should be limited. The court held that the government could not prohibit someone from expressing an idea just because society finds it disagreeable.
jnn1776 // flickr
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 21, 1989
Decisions: Gregory Lee Johnson's burning of a flag was a protected expression under the First Amendment
The court held that just because an audience is offended by how someone expresses themselves—like burning an American flag—it doesn't mean their freedom of speech should be limited. The court held that the government could not prohibit someone from expressing an idea just because society finds it disagreeable.
-
Wellcome Images // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 25, 1990
Decisions: While individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights
Nancy Beth Cruzan was left in a "persistent vegetative state" after a car accident and was kept alive with an artificial feeding tube. Missouri state officials refused to let her parents take her off life support without court approval. In this right-to-die case, the court ruled that family members might not always act in the best interest of incompetent patients—people who lack the legal ability to make decisions for themselves—and withdrawing treatment couldn't be undone. Without "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan wanted to die, her parents couldn't withdraw the feeding tube. The case spurred the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act, which states that most health care institutions must give patients written information about advance directives, explaining which right-to-die options are available under their state law.
Wellcome Images // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 25, 1990
Decisions: While individuals enjoyed the right to refuse medical treatment under the Due Process Clause, incompetent persons were not able to exercise such rights
Nancy Beth Cruzan was left in a "persistent vegetative state" after a car accident and was kept alive with an artificial feeding tube. Missouri state officials refused to let her parents take her off life support without court approval. In this right-to-die case, the court ruled that family members might not always act in the best interest of incompetent patients—people who lack the legal ability to make decisions for themselves—and withdrawing treatment couldn't be undone. Without "clear and convincing" evidence that Cruzan wanted to die, her parents couldn't withdraw the feeding tube. The case spurred the passage of the Patient Self-Determination Act, which states that most health care institutions must give patients written information about advance directives, explaining which right-to-die options are available under their state law.
-
Eric Fisher // flickr
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: April 26, 1995
Decisions: The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
After high school senior Alfonso Lopez carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act does not allow "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows … is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. The court ruled that Congress had unconstitutionally exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Eric Fisher // flickr
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: April 26, 1995
Decisions: The possession of a gun in a local school zone is not an economic activity that might, through repetition elsewhere, have a substantial effect on interstate commerce
After high school senior Alfonso Lopez carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio school, he was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act does not allow "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows … is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months of imprisonment and two years of supervised release. The court ruled that Congress had unconstitutionally exceeded its power to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
-
-
Andrew Horne // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 23, 2003
Decisions: The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the majority opinion in this case, saying the school's policy to consider race in admissions is narrowly tailored and does not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Equal Protection Clause. She wrote, "[In] the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."
You may also like: 50 inventions you might not know were funded by the US government
Andrew Horne // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 23, 2003
Decisions: The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit the University of Michigan Law School's narrowly tailored use of race in admissions decisions to further a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor delivered the majority opinion in this case, saying the school's policy to consider race in admissions is narrowly tailored and does not violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Equal Protection Clause. She wrote, "[In] the context of its individualized inquiry into the possible diversity contributions of all applicants, the Law School's race-conscious admissions program does not unduly harm nonminority applicants."
You may also like: 50 inventions you might not know were funded by the US government
-
Shelka04 // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: March 1, 2005
Decisions: Standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the case's opinion, referencing that most state legislatures and the international community opposed executing minors. The decision overturned Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that offenders older than 16 could be subject to capital punishment. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas, all dissented.
Shelka04 // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: March 1, 2005
Decisions: Standards of decency have evolved so that executing minors is "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment
Justice Anthony Kennedy delivered the case's opinion, referencing that most state legislatures and the international community opposed executing minors. The decision overturned Stanford v. Kentucky, which held that offenders older than 16 could be subject to capital punishment. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, as well as Justices Antonin Scalia, Sandra Day O'Connor, and Clarence Thomas, all dissented.
-
Paul Sableman // flickr
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 23, 2005
Decisions: The city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause
Even though the city of New London, Connecticut, used eminent domain to take private property and sell it for private land development, the court ruled in favor of the city. The purchase was part of an economic development plan, the court held, so the city did not have to use the land literally for public use.
Paul Sableman // flickr
Decided by: Rehnquist Court
Date decided: June 23, 2005
Decisions: The city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause
Even though the city of New London, Connecticut, used eminent domain to take private property and sell it for private land development, the court ruled in favor of the city. The purchase was part of an economic development plan, the court held, so the city did not have to use the land literally for public use.
-
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 25, 2007
Decisions: School officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use
Citing Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a student's right to free speech was violated when he was suspended for displaying a pro-marijuana sign at a school-sponsored event. The court reversed the Ninth Court's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion held that while students have rights to political speech, they do not extend to messages that might harm other students, like the promotion of drug use. The dissent argued that while the principal who suspended the student should have qualified immunity, the majority was "deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students."
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 25, 2007
Decisions: School officials can prohibit students from displaying messages that promote illegal drug use
Citing Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Ninth Circuit ruled that a student's right to free speech was violated when he was suspended for displaying a pro-marijuana sign at a school-sponsored event. The court reversed the Ninth Court's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion held that while students have rights to political speech, they do not extend to messages that might harm other students, like the promotion of drug use. The dissent argued that while the principal who suspended the student should have qualified immunity, the majority was "deaf to the constitutional imperative to permit unfettered debate, even among high-school students."
-
Hmaag // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 26, 2008
Decisions: The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment
This was the first time since the 1939 United States v. Miller case that the court took a deeper look into the Second Amendment. The court held that banning the registration of handguns and requiring them to be nonfunctional violated the Second Amendment and people's ability to protect their homes. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer wrote separate dissents saying the Second Amendment was not aimed at protecting the right to bear arms for civilians without restriction.
Hmaag // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 26, 2008
Decisions: The ban on registering handguns and the requirement to keep guns in the home disassembled or nonfunctional with a trigger lock mechanism violate the Second Amendment
This was the first time since the 1939 United States v. Miller case that the court took a deeper look into the Second Amendment. The court held that banning the registration of handguns and requiring them to be nonfunctional violated the Second Amendment and people's ability to protect their homes. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen G. Breyer wrote separate dissents saying the Second Amendment was not aimed at protecting the right to bear arms for civilians without restriction.
-
-
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: Jan. 21, 2010
Decisions: 1. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker's corporate identity; 2. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restrictions on advertisements regarding Citizens United's film "Hillary" do not violate the First Amendment
Two opinions were written by the justices on this infamous case, with a vote of 5-4 each. The majority held that political speech is vital to a democracy, even from a corporation. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that corporations aren't people and their influence in elections should be limited.
You may also like: States with the most pothole complaints
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: Jan. 21, 2010
Decisions: 1. The First Amendment protects the right to free speech, despite the speaker's corporate identity; 2. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's restrictions on advertisements regarding Citizens United's film "Hillary" do not violate the First Amendment
Two opinions were written by the justices on this infamous case, with a vote of 5-4 each. The majority held that political speech is vital to a democracy, even from a corporation. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that corporations aren't people and their influence in elections should be limited.
You may also like: States with the most pothole complaints
-
Andrew Magill // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 28, 2010
Decisions: The 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states
Otis McDonald, among others, filed a suit against the city of Chicago and neighboring Oak Park to challenge their gun bans after the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the court held that the District of Columbia's handgun ban violated the Second Amendment and that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was a "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
Andrew Magill // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 28, 2010
Decisions: The 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense applicable to the states
Otis McDonald, among others, filed a suit against the city of Chicago and neighboring Oak Park to challenge their gun bans after the Supreme Court ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the court held that the District of Columbia's handgun ban violated the Second Amendment and that the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense was a "fundamental" and "deeply rooted" right. Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, arguing that owning a personal firearm was not a "liberty" interest protected by the Due Process Clause.
-
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 28, 2012
Decisions: 2. The Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to legislate the individual mandate; 3. The Taxing and Spending Clause empowers Congress to legislate the individual mandate; 5. Absent the threat to withdraw Medicaid support, the Medicaid expansion remains permissible
The court's decision to uphold the individual mandate and expand Medicaid was a win for the Affordable Care Act. The court held that the individual mandate is a tax and not one that is too severe or coercive. Some were surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts supported the ACA provisions.
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 28, 2012
Decisions: 2. The Commerce Clause does not empower Congress to legislate the individual mandate; 3. The Taxing and Spending Clause empowers Congress to legislate the individual mandate; 5. Absent the threat to withdraw Medicaid support, the Medicaid expansion remains permissible
The court's decision to uphold the individual mandate and expand Medicaid was a win for the Affordable Care Act. The court held that the individual mandate is a tax and not one that is too severe or coercive. Some were surprised that Chief Justice John Roberts supported the ACA provisions.
-
Dsw4 // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 25, 2013
Decisions: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional
The court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which is aimed at protecting voter rights in districts with a history of racial discrimination, was outdated and unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, adding that Section 5, which says states must get official approval before changing voting laws, was also unconstitutional because it put an undue burden on the states. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying there was still enough evidence of discrimination to justify the burden on the states. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined in her dissent.
Dsw4 // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 25, 2013
Decisions: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional
The court held that Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act, which is aimed at protecting voter rights in districts with a history of racial discrimination, was outdated and unconstitutional. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred, adding that Section 5, which says states must get official approval before changing voting laws, was also unconstitutional because it put an undue burden on the states. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented, saying there was still enough evidence of discrimination to justify the burden on the states. Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined in her dissent.
-
Davidlud // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 26, 2013
Decisions: The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage, which are available to other couples with legal marriages under state law
The court's decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that the federal government couldn't discriminate against gay and lesbian married couples when determining federal benefits and protections. The ruling paved the way for other advances in gay rights, including not being excluded from jury selection based on sexual orientation.
Davidlud // Wikimedia Commons
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 26, 2013
Decisions: The Defense of Marriage Act denies same-sex couples the rights that come from federal recognition of marriage, which are available to other couples with legal marriages under state law
The court's decision ruled that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional and that the federal government couldn't discriminate against gay and lesbian married couples when determining federal benefits and protections. The ruling paved the way for other advances in gay rights, including not being excluded from jury selection based on sexual orientation.
-
-
outcast104 // flickr
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 30, 2014
Decisions: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows for-profit companies to deny contraception coverage to employees based on a religious objection
With this decision, the court's majority struck down the Affordable Care Act mandate that required employers to cover FDA-approved contraceptives for their female employees. Houses of worship and companies with five or fewer people who control a majority share are exempt from the mandate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent held that for-profit corporations shouldn't be considered religious entities. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan joined the dissent.
You may also like: History of the NRA
outcast104 // flickr
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 30, 2014
Decisions: The Religious Freedom Restoration Act allows for-profit companies to deny contraception coverage to employees based on a religious objection
With this decision, the court's majority struck down the Affordable Care Act mandate that required employers to cover FDA-approved contraceptives for their female employees. Houses of worship and companies with five or fewer people who control a majority share are exempt from the mandate. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent held that for-profit corporations shouldn't be considered religious entities. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Stephen G. Breyer, and Justice Elena Kagan joined the dissent.
You may also like: History of the NRA
-
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 26, 2015
Decisions: The 14th Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same-sex couples
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion that held that the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the right to marry—a fundamental liberty—to same-gender couples. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent arguing that since the Constitution does not directly address same-gender marriage, the court can't decide whether states have to recognize or issue licenses for them. Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas also said the court did not have jurisdiction over what they viewed as a state matter.
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 26, 2015
Decisions: The 14th Amendment requires both marriage licensing and recognition for same-sex couples
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote the opinion that held that the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause guarantees the right to marry—a fundamental liberty—to same-gender couples. Chief Justice Roberts wrote a dissent arguing that since the Constitution does not directly address same-gender marriage, the court can't decide whether states have to recognize or issue licenses for them. Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas also said the court did not have jurisdiction over what they viewed as a state matter.
-
Jeff Gunn // flickr
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 23, 2016
Decisions: The race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of the suit is legal under the Equal Protection Clause
After being denied admission to the University of Texas-Austin, a white woman named Abigail Fisher sued the school, claiming that considering race in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the majority opinion, stating that the University of Texas' use of race as an admissions factor was constitutional because the school had set specific goals for the diversity of its student body that could not be achieved in any other way. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision because she did work related to the case during her time as solicitor general.
Jeff Gunn // flickr
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 23, 2016
Decisions: The race-conscious admissions program in use at the time of the suit is legal under the Equal Protection Clause
After being denied admission to the University of Texas-Austin, a white woman named Abigail Fisher sued the school, claiming that considering race in the admissions process violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy delivered the majority opinion, stating that the University of Texas' use of race as an admissions factor was constitutional because the school had set specific goals for the diversity of its student body that could not be achieved in any other way. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the decision because she did work related to the case during her time as solicitor general.
-
Erika Wittlieb // pixabay
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 21, 2018
Decisions: A state may require sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax for goods sold within the state
The decision reversed a 1992 ruling on Quill Corp. v. North Dakota that said sellers only had to collect state sales taxes if they had a warehouse or office in the state. Now online sellers like Amazon and Etsy will have to collect and remit sales tax, regardless of whether they have a physical store in the state. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that "modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence" defined in the previous ruling." Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion stating that "any alteration to those rules with the potential to disrupt such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by Congress."
Erika Wittlieb // pixabay
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 21, 2018
Decisions: A state may require sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales tax for goods sold within the state
The decision reversed a 1992 ruling on Quill Corp. v. North Dakota that said sellers only had to collect state sales taxes if they had a warehouse or office in the state. Now online sellers like Amazon and Etsy will have to collect and remit sales tax, regardless of whether they have a physical store in the state. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that "modern e-commerce does not align analytically with a test that relies on the sort of physical presence" defined in the previous ruling." Chief Justice John Roberts filed a dissenting opinion stating that "any alteration to those rules with the potential to disrupt such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by Congress."
-
skeeze // pixabay
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 22, 2018
Decisions: The government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records constituted a search violating the Fourth Amendment
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion holding that the government's warrantless acquisition of Timothy Ivory Carpenter's cell-site records violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all filed dissenting opinions.
skeeze // pixabay
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 22, 2018
Decisions: The government's acquisition of Carpenter's cell-site records constituted a search violating the Fourth Amendment
Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the opinion holding that the government's warrantless acquisition of Timothy Ivory Carpenter's cell-site records violated his Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch all filed dissenting opinions.
-
-
Fibonacci Blue // flickr
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 27, 2018
Decisions: The State of Illinois' extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed, 431 US 209 (1977), which held otherwise, is overruled
This 2018 decision overturned a 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which allowed a public employer whose employees were represented by a union to require employees who did not join the union—but benefitted from collective bargaining—to pay fees. The current ruling, supported by conservative justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch, states that "agency fees" violate the First Amendment.
You may also like: States where food stamps are used the most
Fibonacci Blue // flickr
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 27, 2018
Decisions: The State of Illinois' extraction of agency fees from nonconsenting public-sector employees violates the First Amendment; Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Ed, 431 US 209 (1977), which held otherwise, is overruled
This 2018 decision overturned a 1977 ruling in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which allowed a public employer whose employees were represented by a union to require employees who did not join the union—but benefitted from collective bargaining—to pay fees. The current ruling, supported by conservative justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Neil Gorsuch, states that "agency fees" violate the First Amendment.
You may also like: States where food stamps are used the most
-
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 30, 2022
Decisions: The Department of Homeland Security's memoranda to end the Migrant Protection Protocols program was upheld as a lawful action by the agency
At the heart of the 5-4 ruling was the Migrant Protection Protocols program introduced by the Trump administration in 2018. Under the MPP program, migrants who arrived in the U.S. by land through Mexico without proper U.S. citizenship were returned to Mexico to await their court proceedings. Under the Biden administration, the Department of Homeland Security ended the MPP program in 2021. Texas and Missouri sued in response and won, arguing that ending the program violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. A district court reinstated the MPP program and ruled that DHS violated the APA by not explaining its decision to end the program. The Biden administration appealed the ruling with the Supreme Court in 2022. On June 30, the court ruled to uphold the dissolution of the MPP program as a lawful action consistent with the APA and federal immigration law.
Canva
Decided by: Roberts Court
Date decided: June 30, 2022
Decisions: The Department of Homeland Security's memoranda to end the Migrant Protection Protocols program was upheld as a lawful action by the agency
At the heart of the 5-4 ruling was the Migrant Protection Protocols program introduced by the Trump administration in 2018. Under the MPP program, migrants who arrived in the U.S. by land through Mexico without proper U.S. citizenship were returned to Mexico to await their court proceedings. Under the Biden administration, the Department of Homeland Security ended the MPP program in 2021. Texas and Missouri sued in response and won, arguing that ending the program violated federal immigration law and the Administrative Procedure Act. A district court reinstated the MPP program and ruled that DHS violated the APA by not explaining its decision to end the program. The Biden administration appealed the ruling with the Supreme Court in 2022. On June 30, the court ruled to uphold the dissolution of the MPP program as a lawful action consistent with the APA and federal immigration law.
