Understanding Supreme Opinions

“[L]awyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him.” – Justice Harlan

• Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

• Gideon v Wainwright

• Bush v Gore

• Marbury v Madison

“[N]either the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” – Justice Burger

• Bush v Gore

• Marbury v Madison

• US v Nixon

• Miranda v Arizona

“It suffices to say that the issuance of the stay suggests that a majority of the Court, while not deciding the issues presented, believe that the petitioner has a substantial probability of success. The issue is not, as the dissent puts it, whether "counting every legally cast vote can constitute irreparable harm." One of the principal issues in the appeal we have accepted is precisely whether the votes that have been ordered to be counted are, under a reasonable interpretation of Florida law, "legally cast vote[s]." – Justice Scalia

• Bush v Gore

• Marbury v Madison

• US v Nixon

• Plessy v Ferguson

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. ... Certainly, all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void… It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is.” – Justice Marshall

• Marbury v Madison

• Bush v Nixon

• Brown v Board of Education

• In re Gault

“We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?... To separate [children] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely to ever be undone.” – Justice Warren

• Plessy v Ferguson

• Tinker v Des Moines

• In re Gault

• Brown v Board of Education

“The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that he has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him” – Justice Warren

• Miranda v Arizona

• In re Gault

• Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

• DC v Heller

“[S]pecial problems may arise with respect to waiver of the privilege by or on behalf of children, and . . . there may well be some differences in technique -- but not in principle -- depending upon the age of the child and the presence and competence of parents. . . . If counsel was not present for some permissible reason when an admission was obtained, the greatest care must be taken to assure that the admission was voluntary. . . ." – argument of the court

• In re Gault

• Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

• Tinker v Des Moines

• Brown v Board of Education

"It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate… [the school] must be able to show that [their] action was caused by something more than a mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint [that would] materially and substantially interfere with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school” – Justice Fortas

• Tinker v Des Moines

• Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier

• In re Gault

• Plessy v Ferguson

“Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster… [the meaning of the Amendment was to] guarantee an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation “ – Justice Scalia

• DC v Heller

• Plessy v Ferguson

• US v Nixon

• Korematsu v US

Before, the validity of action under the war power must be judged wholly in the context of war. That action is not to be stigmatized as lawless because like action in times of peace would be lawless… The respective spheres of action of military authorities and of judges are, of course, very different. But, within their sphere, military authorities are no more outside the bounds of obedience to the Constitution than are judges within theirs. "The war power of the United States, like its other powers... is subject to applicable constitutional limitations" – Justice Frankfurter“Ther

• Korematsu v the US

• Kelo v New London

• Plessy v Ferguson

• Brown v Board of Education