-
Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
determined the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required states to provide just compensation for seizing private property. -
Gitlow v. New York
In Gitlow v. New York (1925), the Supreme Court established the principle of incorporation, meaning the First Amendment's protections of free speech and press apply to state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. -
DeJonge v. Oregon
In De Jonge v. Oregon, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause protects freedom of assembly from state statutes, overturning Dirk De Jonge's conviction for participating in a peaceful Communist Party meeting under Oregon's criminal syndicalism law. -
Cantwell v. Connecticut
In the landmark case of Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment's protection of religious freedom, specifically the Free Exercise Clause, applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, meaning states cannot infringe on religious freedom. -
In re Oliver
"In re Oliver," a 1948 Supreme Court case (333 U.S. 257), established that the Sixth Amendment's right to a public trial and due process applies to state criminal proceedings, meaning a witness in a one-man grand jury hearing in Michigan was entitled to notice and the opportunity to seek counsel before being convicted and sentenced. -
Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
n the landmark 1947 case, Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled that a New Jersey law reimbursing parents for transportation costs to both public and private schools, including Catholic schools, did not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. -
Edwards v. South Carolina
In Edwards v. South Carolina (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that South Carolina violated students' First Amendment rights by dispersing a peaceful protest against segregation, establishing that states cannot criminalize the peaceful expression of unpopular views. -
Mapp v. Ohio
In the landmark 1961 case Mapp v. Ohio, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures applies to state governments, requiring the exclusion of illegally obtained evidence in state court proceedings, a principle known as the exclusionary rule. -
Robinson v. California
In the landmark case of Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment prevents states from criminalizing a status, like drug addiction, rather than an act or conduct. -
Gideon v. Wainwright
n Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel is fundamental and applies to the states, meaning that states must provide legal representation to indigent defendants in criminal cases. -
Ker v. California
In the 1963 case Ker v. California, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable search and seizure, and the exclusionary rule, apply to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, effectively incorporating these protections into state law. -
Malloy v. Hogan
In the 1964 case Malloy v. Hogan, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination, which originally applied only in federal court, also applies to state criminal proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. -
Pointer v. Texas
In the 1965 case Pointer v. Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to confront witnesses, including the right to cross-examine, is a fundamental right applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, meaning a defendant in state court cannot be denied this right. -
Washington v. Texas
The Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process is so fundamental that it is incorporated in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Washington was denied that right in this case. Justice John M. Harlan concurred in the result, writing that Washington’s right to due process was violated, but the compulsory process clause played no role in his decision. -
Benton v. Maryland
In Benton v. Maryland (395 U.S. 784 (1969)), the Supreme Court ruled that the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause applies to state court criminal proceedings, effectively incorporating it into state governments through the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision overruled Palko v. Connecticut. -
Schilb v. Kuebel
Kuebel is a case decided on December 20, 1971, by the United States Supreme Court holding that the Illinois bail system did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The case concerned the constitutionality of an Illinois bail statute. -
Argersinger v. Hamlin
In Argersinger v. Hamlin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applies to all criminal prosecutions, including misdemeanor cases, where a defendant faces the possibility of imprisonment. -
McDonald v. Chicago
In the 2010 case McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment's right to bear arms, as affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller, applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, meaning states cannot ban firearms. -
Timbs v. Indiana
In the landmark case of Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Excessive Fines Clause applies to state and local governments, not just the federal government, meaning states cannot impose punishments exceeding constitutional protections against excessive fines.