Introduction
The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review, which allows it to declare acts of Congress and the executive branch unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made significant decisions in thousands of cases since it was established in 1789, and these rulings have influenced decisions in the United States (Volkomer 14). This essay will examine some of the most significant Supreme Court cases in U.S. history, their associated constitutional principles, decisions made, dissents, and significance.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
New London, Connecticut, used its eminent domain power to purchase private land for the city’s economic development in the case known as Kelo v. City of New London. Homeowners sued the city, claiming it had violated their rights under the Constitution, and lost (Volkomer 93). In this case, the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution came into play (Kelo v. City of New London, 545). Private property shall not be taken for public use without appropriate compensation, as guaranteed by this clause of the Constitution.
The question before the court was whether or not the government could utilize eminent domain to take private land for public purposes. For economic development purposes, the Supreme Court found that the government’s use of eminent domain did not run afoul of the clause (Kelo v. City of New London, 545). As economic development initiatives help the economy expand and new employment is created, the court reasoned that this qualifies as a public use under the Takings Clause.
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote a dissenting opinion in which she stated that the Court’s decision would allow the government to seize private property without due process. As a significant decision, Kelo v. City of New London has spurred discussion regarding the extent to which the government might appropriate private property for the sake of economic development (Burrus et al. 84). As the verdict allows the government to seize private property, some people feel it is wrong.
United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995)
United States v. Lopez was a case in which a high school student in San Antonio, Texas, was charged with violating the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. Due to the events of this case, gun possession in a school zone is now illegal on a federal level (United States v. Lopez, 514). The Commerce Clause, which grants Congress authority to regulate interstate commerce, was the underlying constitutional principle in dispute.
To what extent the federal government may legislate on firearms in educational institutions was the question before the Court. The Supreme Court found that Congress did not provide the federal government the authority to prohibit firearms in schools (Volkomer 23). The Court reasoned that the Commerce Clause grants Congress the power to regulate commerce among the states, but that the regulation of firearms in schools does not qualify as “economic activity” that substantially affects interstate commerce.
Justice Breyer wrote a dissenting opinion, claiming that Congress has the authority to regulate activities that influence interstate commerce like gun control in schools because it is vital to ensure a safe educational environment. United States v. Lopez is significant because it limited Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and reaffirmed the importance of federalism in the United States (United States v. Lopez, 514). The judgment has been referenced in a variety of other contexts after it was made public.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004)
The case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld arose after American citizen Yaser Esam Hamdi was detained as an enemy combatant in Afghanistan. According to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Hamdi contested his incarceration and said he was entitled to due process (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542). This case involved the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Supreme Court was petitioned to rule on whether the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process for a U.S. citizen detained as an enemy combatant. According to the judgment by the Supreme Court, a United States citizen held as an enemy soldier has a right to a fair trial under the Fifth Amendment (Volkomer 47). The Court reasoned that detaining a citizen without legal procedure violates the Constitution.
Justice Scalia dissented, writing that the majority’s ruling gave the executive branch too much power and thus ran counter to the Constitution’s language and history (Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542). The Hamdi decision is significant because it affirmed the principle that even in times of war, the government cannot deprive citizens of their constitutional rights without due process of law.
Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
Grutter v. Bollinger was a case in which, Barbara Grutter, was denied admission to the University of Michigan Law School. Grutter claimed that the school’s policy of using race as a consideration in admissions choices was illegal (Grutter v. Bollinger, 306). The constitutional principle in question was the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the government from discriminating on the basis of race.
The question before the Court was whether the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court held a decision that the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action policy was constitutional because it served a compelling state interest in achieving a diverse student body (Grutter v. Bollinger, 306). The Court reasoned that diversity was a compelling interest in higher education because it fostered cross-racial understanding and prepared students for leadership in a diverse society.
Justice Scalia wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority’s decision was inconsistent with the text and history of the Equal Protection Clause since the use of race in admissions decisions is inherently discriminatory (Grutter v. Bollinger, 306). The Grutter decision is significant because it reaffirmed the principle that affirmative action programs can be constitutional if they serve a compelling state interest, such as the diversity of parties involved.
Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)
Miranda v. State of Arizona was a case in which a suspect, Ernesto Miranda, was arrested and interrogated by police officers without being informed of his rights. Miranda confessed to the crimes and was convicted based on his confession (Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384). Miranda later argues that his confession was obtained in violation of his right against self-incrimination. The constitutional principle in question was the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right against self-incrimination.
The question before the Court was whether the police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before interrogating them. The Supreme Court held the decision that the police must inform suspects of their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination (Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384). The Court reasoned that the failure to inform suspects of their rights could result in coerced confessions and that informing suspects of their rights would protect the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Conclusion
Justice Harlan wrote a dissenting opinion, arguing that the majority’s decision was not supported by the text or history of the Constitution. The Miranda decision is significant because it established the principle that suspects must be informed of their rights before being interrogated by police (Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384). The decision has become a cornerstone of American criminal procedure and has been cited in numerous subsequent cases.
Works Cited
Burrus, Trevor, and Sam Spiegelman. “Will the Supreme Court Overturn the Infamous Takings Decision of Kelo v. City of New London?” Policy Commons, 16 April. 2021,
Supreme Court of the United States. Grutter v. Bollinger, 306. UScourts.Gov, 2003
Supreme Court of the United States. Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542. UScourts.Gov, 2004
Supreme Court of the United States. Kelo v. City of New London, 545. UScourts.Gov, 2005
Supreme Court of the United States. Miranda v. State of Arizona, 384. UScourts.Gov, 1966
Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Lopez, 514. UScourts.Gov, 1995
Volkomer, W. E. American Government. Pearson, 2021.