Isabella Carter
The United States Supreme Court has overturned several landmark decisions over the years, some of which have been overturned by constitutional amendments. For example, in Katz v. United States (1967), the Court overturned two prior decisions, Olmstead v. United States (1928) and Goldman v. United States (1942), by ruling that wiretapping a phone booth without a warrant was a violation of privacy. Similarly, in Janus v. American Federation of State (2018), the Court overturned Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education (1977) by ruling that the state of Illinois violated the First Amendment by collecting agency fees from non-consenting public-sector employees. In some cases, the Supreme Court's decisions have been overturned by constitutional amendments, such as in Roe v. Wade (1973), which was overturned by the Constitution's right to privacy and the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause, allowing states to restrict abortions to protect the lives of women or fetuses.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Number of Supreme Court decisions overturned by constitutional amendments | 16 |
| Supreme Court decisions that overturned more than one earlier decision | Hensley v. Municipal Court, Edelman v. Jordan, Burks v. United States |
| Supreme Court decisions that overturned four earlier decisions | Hensley v. Municipal Court, Edelman v. Jordan, Burks v. United States |
| Supreme Court decisions that overturned previous Supreme Court decisions | Katz v. United States, Brandenburg v. Ohio, Gregg v. Georgia, Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Atkins v. Virginia, Lawrence v. Texas, Citizens United v. FEC, Obergefell v. Hodges, Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey |
| Supreme Court decisions that overturned previous Supreme Court decisions and the year they were made | Katz v. United States (1967), Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), Gregg v. Georgia (1976), Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (2018), Atkins v. Virginia (2002), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Citizens United v. FEC (2010), Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), Roe v. Wade (1973), Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) |
Explore related products
$9.99 $9.99
What You'll Learn
Katz v. United States (1967)
In Katz v. United States (1967), Charles Katz, a sports bettor, was investigated by the FBI for his gambling activities. The FBI recorded his conversations via a covert listening device attached to the outside of a phone booth, and he was subsequently arrested and charged with eight counts of knowingly transmitting wagering information by telephone between US states, which is a federal crime. Katz moved to suppress the FBI's recordings, arguing that the recordings had been made in violation of the Fourth Amendment as the agents did not have a search warrant.
The case made its way to the US Supreme Court, which issued a landmark decision that redefined what constitutes a "search" or "seizure" under the Fourth Amendment. The Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and that it applies to the recording of oral statements and any areas where a person has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This expectation of privacy standard, now known as the Katz test, was formulated in a concurring opinion by Justice John Marshall Harlan II. The Court ruled in Katz's favour, overturning his conviction and invalidating the FBI's wiretap evidence.
The Katz test has since been applied in numerous cases, particularly in the context of technological advances and evolving privacy norms. The decision was praised by some legal scholars as a "bulwark against wiretaps and other emerging forms of surveillance." However, others have criticised the lack of clarity around what makes an expectation of privacy "reasonable."
It is worth noting that the Court acknowledged the legitimate needs of law enforcement and recognised that there are circumstances in which it is reasonable to search without a warrant, such as in cases involving national security.
Legislatures and Constitutional Amendments: Lawmaking Explored
You may want to see also
Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
In the case of Atkins v. Virginia (2002), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that executing people with intellectual disabilities violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The decision was made on the 20th of June 2002, with a 6-3 vote, stating that the executions of mentally retarded criminals are "cruel and unusual punishments" prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
The case involved Daryl Renard Atkins, who was convicted of capital murder and related crimes by a Virginia jury and sentenced to death. During the trial, forensic psychologist Evan Nelson testified that Atkins had an IQ of 59, which is in the range of being mildly mentally retarded. The jury sentenced Atkins to death despite this testimony. The Supreme Court of Virginia affirmed Atkins's conviction but reversed the death sentence on appeal, as the verdict form had not included the option for the jury to impose a life sentence.
At the second sentencing hearing, psychologist Stanton Samenow testified for the prosecution that Atkins was of "average intelligence at least". Samenow assessed Atkins's vocabulary and knowledge of current affairs and testified that he understood cause and effect and could use relatively complex words. The prosecution also persuaded the jury that Atkins posed a risk of future dangerousness based on his record of violent crimes, and the manner of the crime was considered particularly vile. These are aggravating factors that can support a death sentence. Atkins was sentenced to death for the second time, and the Virginia Supreme Court sustained the sentence.
The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari due to the gravity of the concerns expressed by the dissenters and the shift in state legislative landscape over the previous 13 years. The Court held that those mentally retarded persons who meet the law's requirements for criminal responsibility should be tried and punished when they commit crimes. However, due to their disabilities in reasoning, judgment, and control of their impulses, they do not act with the same level of moral culpability as those who commit the most serious adult criminal conduct.
The Tenth Amendment: Powers Reserved to the States
You may want to see also
Roe v. Wade (1973)
The Supreme Court ruled in Roe's favour, with Justice Blackmun's opinion stating that criminalising abortion did not have roots in English common-law tradition. The decision effectively legalised abortion nationwide, allowing women to terminate their pregnancies until the last weeks of the second trimester.
Roe v. Wade has been a highly controversial ruling, with opponents arguing that it lacks a valid constitutional foundation and that the Supreme Court overstepped its authority. Some states have passed laws to maintain the legality of abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, while others have enacted laws that will go into effect if the decision is reversed.
The decision has had a significant impact on abortion access and reproductive rights in the United States, and it continues to be a polarising issue, with consistent challenges and a lack of support from many current members of the Court.
Impeachment Clause: The Constitution's Ultimate Safety Net
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Hensley v. Municipal Court (1973)
In the case of Hensley v. Municipal Court (1973), the United States Supreme Court considered whether restraints imposed on an individual released on their own recognizance constituted "custody" under the federal habeas corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(3), 2254(a). The petitioner, Hensley, had been convicted of a misdemeanor in a California Municipal Court and sentenced to one year in jail and a fine. After unsuccessful appeals and attempts to set aside the conviction, the case reached the Supreme Court.
The Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Brennan and joined by Justices Douglas, Stewart, White, and Marshall, held that the restraints on Hensley did indeed amount to "custody" within the meaning of the habeas corpus statute. This decision was based on the interpretation of the custody requirement, which is designed to preserve the writ as a remedy for severe restraints on individual liberty.
However, Justice Rehnquist dissented, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Powell. Rehnquist emphasized that the Court had expanded the traditional notions of habeas corpus and equated custody with any restraint, no matter how minor. He disagreed with the Court's interpretation of "custody," arguing that release on one's own recognizance did not confer jurisdiction on the District Court.
The Supreme Court's decision in Hensley v. Municipal Court had significant implications for the understanding and application of the habeas corpus statute, and it continues to influence how courts interpret "custody" in legal proceedings.
Understanding the Requirement for Constitutional Amendments
You may want to see also
Citizens United v. FEC (2010)
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC) was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court in 2010. The case centred around Citizens United, a non-profit corporation that produced a film about then-Senator Hillary Clinton, who was a candidate in the Democratic Party's 2008 presidential primary elections. Citizens United wanted to pay cable companies to show the film for free, but this would have fallen under the Federal Election Campaign Act's ban on corporate-funded electioneering communications.
Citizens United argued that this ban on corporate electioneering communications violated their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed, ruling that laws restricting the political spending of corporations and unions were inconsistent with the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The Court's 5-4 ruling in favour of Citizens United overruled earlier decisions that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations and unions. This included overruling parts of Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.
The Citizens United ruling had a significant impact on campaign finance laws, allowing unlimited election spending by corporations and labour unions. This set the stage for the creation of super PACs (political action committees) and influenced the outcome of subsequent cases, such as Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010) and McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which further struck down campaign finance restrictions. The ruling was highly controversial, with critics arguing that it granted disproportionate political power to large corporations.
The decision also had notable consequences for election spending. In the decade following the ruling, election-related spending by non-partisan independent groups increased significantly, jumping to $4.5 billion compared to just $750 million in the previous two decades. Outside spending surpassed candidate spending in 126 races since the ruling, compared to only 15 in the five election cycles prior. The ruling also impacted the transparency of donor contributions, with a notable increase in spending by groups that did not disclose their donors.
Understanding the First Amendment: Freedom and Rights
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes. For example, the Supreme Court decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was overturned by the Fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Bd. of Education (1977) was overturned by the First Amendment.
The process of overturning a Supreme Court decision is rare and can only be done by a subsequent constitutional amendment or by a higher court.
Yes, in Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court overturned two prior Supreme Court decisions: Olmstead v. United States (1928) and Goldman v. United States (1942).
