The Process of Incorporation

  • Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago

    Chicago, Burlington, and Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Fifth Amendment's "just compensation" requirement (Takings Clause) into the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause
  • Gitlow v. New York

    Gitlow v. New York
    the Supreme Court established that the First Amendment's protections of free speech and freedom of the press, through the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause, also applied to state governments
  • Near v. Minnesota

    Near v. Minnesota
    the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment's protection of freedom of the press to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause,
  • DeJonge v. Oregon

    DeJonge v. Oregon
    In DeJonge v. Oregon, the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment's guarantee of the right of peaceful assembly against the states, meaning state governments cannot violate this right.
  • Cantwell v. Connecticut

    Cantwell v. Connecticut
    In the landmark case of Cantwell v. Connecticut (1940), the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment's free exercise of religion clause against the states
  • Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing

    Everson v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing
    In Everson v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court incorporated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to state law through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
  • In re Oliver

    In re Oliver
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to a public trial to the states
  • Mapp v. Ohio

    Mapp v. Ohio
    the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that under the 4th and 14th Constitutional amendments, illegally seized evidence could not be used in a state criminal trial.
  • Robinson v. California

    Robinson v. California
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment to the states
  • Edwards v. South Carolina

    Edwards v. South Carolina
    the Supreme Court incorporated the First Amendment's protections of freedom of speech, assembly, and petition to the states
  • Gideon v. Wainwright

    Gideon v. Wainwright
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel into the states
  • Malloy v. Hogan

    Malloy v. Hogan
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination to the states
  • Pointer v. Texas

    Pointer v. Texas
    The Sixth Amendment's right to confrontation is incorporated against the states.
  • Ker v. California

    Ker v. California
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures
  • Washington v. Texas

    Washington v. Texas
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment's right to compulsory process against the states
  • Klopfer v. North Carolina

    Klopfer v. North Carolina
    the Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial to the states.
  • Duncan v. Louisiana

    Duncan v. Louisiana
    The Court incorporated the sixth amendment.Gary Duncan, a Louisiana teenager, was charged with simple battery, a misdemeanor, and denied a jury trial by a Louisiana court. Duncan argued that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment, had been violated. The Supreme Court sided with Duncan, holding that the right to a jury trial is a fundamental right that must be protected in state courts.
  • Benton v. Maryland

    Benton v. Maryland
    The Court incorporated the Fifth
    Benton was acquitted of larceny but convicted of burglary. He appealed the burglary conviction, and the state re-indicted him for both larceny and burglary, leading to a retrial where he was convicted of both. He argued that the retrial on the larceny charge after his acquittal violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.The Court agreed, ruling that the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
    Consequences:
  • Schilb v. Kuebel

    Schilb v. Kuebel
    The Supreme Court incorporated the Eighth Amendment.Illinois law allowed for pretrial release through several ways, including depositing a portion of the bail amount with a retention of 1% upon completion of the bail. Schilb challenged the law, arguing the retention of the 1% deposit was an unconstitutional penalty for those acquitted and a violation of equal protection and due process. The Court upheld the Illinois law, finding it to be a reasonable administrative fee rather than a penalty.
  • Rabe v. Washington

    Rabe v. Washington
  • Argersinger v. Hamlin

    Argersinger v. Hamlin
    The Supreme Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. Argersinger was charged with carrying a concealed weapon, a misdemeanor, and tried with no lawyer. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail. Florida Court upheld his conviction, saying that the right to counsel only applied to trials for non-petty offenses. U.S. Court reversed the court's decision, emphasizing that the potential for imprisonment, regardless of the length, is a serious enough concern to require legal representation.
  • McDonald v. Chicago

    McDonald v. Chicago
    This case incorporated the Second Amendment. Otis McDonald challenged the city's strict handgun ban and registration requirements. They said it violated their Second Amendment rights. The question was whether the Second Amendment, which originally limited federal government power, also applied to state and local governments. The Court sided with McDonald. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • Timbs v. Indiana

    Timbs v. Indiana
    This case incorporated the eighth amendment. Timbs was convicted of drug offenses and faced a $10,000 fine. However, the state sought to seize his Land Rover. The question was whether the Excessive Fines Clause applied to state governments.The Court said that the Excessive Fines Clause does apply to states. This was because the Court found that the Clause was "both 'fundamental to our scheme of ordered liberty' and 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' ".