Baker v. Carr (1962)

This case addressed the issue of legislative apportionment and established the principle that federal courts could intervene in and decide legislative apportionment cases.

The case originated in Tennessee, where the state legislature had not redrawn district lines since 1901, despite significant population shifts. As a result, urban areas were severely underrepresented compared to rural areas.

Definition: Legislative apportionment refers to the process of dividing a state into districts for the purpose of electing representatives to the legislature.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, ruled that federal courts had jurisdiction to consider challenges to state legislative apportionment schemes under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Quote: Justice William Brennan wrote in the majority opinion, "The question here is the consistency of state action with the Federal Constitution. We have no question decided, or to be decided, by a political branch of government coequal with this Court."

This decision overturned the Court's previous stance that apportionment issues were "political questions" beyond the scope of judicial review.

Highlight: Baker v. Carr paved the way for a series of "one person, one vote" decisions that dramatically reshaped the political landscape in the United States.

The case had far-reaching consequences, leading to the redistricting of state legislatures and congressional districts across the country to ensure more equal representation based on population.

Example: Following Baker v. Carr, the Supreme Court decided Reynolds v. Sims (1964), which established the principle that state legislative districts must be roughly equal in population.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

This case, also known as the "Pentagon Papers" case, addressed the issue of prior restraint on the press and reaffirmed the importance of freedom of the press in the face of national security concerns.

The case arose when the New York Times and Washington Post began publishing excerpts from a classified Department of Defense study on U.S. involvement in Vietnam, known as the Pentagon Papers. The Nixon administration sought to prevent further publication, citing national security concerns.

Definition: Prior restraint refers to government action that prohibits speech or other expression before it can take place.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled against the government, holding that its attempts to prevent publication of the Pentagon Papers were unconstitutional prior restraints and violated the First Amendment.

Quote: Justice Hugo Black wrote in a concurring opinion, "The press was protected so that it could bare the secrets of government and inform the people. Only a free and unrestrained press can effectively expose deception in government."

The Court's per curiam opinion emphasized that any system of prior restraints comes to the Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity.

Highlight: New York Times Co. v. United States reaffirmed the principle that the government bears a heavy burden in justifying prior restraints on publication, even in matters of national security.

This case is considered a landmark victory for freedom of the press and has had lasting implications for the relationship between the media and the government.

Example: The Pentagon Papers case has influenced subsequent debates about government secrecy and press freedom, such as the publication of classified information by WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden's disclosures about NSA surveillance programs.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

This landmark case addressed the issue of abortion rights and established a constitutional right to privacy that encompasses a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy.

The case originated when Norma McCorvey, under the alias "Jane Roe," challenged Texas's abortion laws, which prohibited abortion except when necessary to save the mother's life.

Definition: The right to privacy, while not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as being protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extends to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's interests in protecting potential life and women's health.

Quote: Justice Harry Blackmun wrote in the majority opinion, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

The Court established a trimester framework for regulating abortion:

1. First trimester: The decision must be left to the woman and her doctor.
2. Second trimester: The state can regulate abortion only to protect the woman's health.
3. Third trimester: The state can regulate or prohibit abortion to protect potential life, except when necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Highlight: Roe v. Wade was a controversial decision that has had a profound impact on American law, politics, and society.

The case has been the subject of ongoing debate and legal challenges, with subsequent cases modifying but not overturning its central holding.

Example: In Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the central holding of Roe but replaced the trimester framework with an "undue burden" test for evaluating abortion regulations.