Eleanor Finch
The US Supreme Court has a history of making landmark decisions that have been overturned or overruled by subsequent rulings. While it is rare for the Supreme Court to overturn its own decisions, there are several notable instances where this has occurred, including Roe v. Wade, which was overturned in 2022. This paragraph will explore some of the most significant Supreme Court rulings that have been overturned or overruled and the impact of these changes on American life.
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Wiretapping without a warrant
In 1928, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Olmstead v. United States that the Fourth Amendment did not extend its protection to telephone conversations in the same way that it did to mailed and sealed letters. The case involved several petitioners, including Roy Olmstead, who challenged their criminal convictions on the basis that evidence obtained from wiretapped private telephone conversations violated their Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights.
Chief Justice William Howard Taft delivered the Opinion of the Court, examining the precedent set by Weeks v. United States, which held that the Fourth Amendment forbade the introduction of evidence obtained in violation of the amendment. Taft distinguished the Olmstead case from the Weeks case by arguing that there was no physical search or seizure of the defendants' premises, as the wiretapping took place on a publicly available telephone network. He suggested that Congress could extend Fourth Amendment protections to telephone conversations by passing legislation prohibiting their use in federal criminal trials.
In a famous dissent, Justice Louis Brandeis stated that the Founding Fathers conferred "the right to be let alone", which he considered the most comprehensive of rights. He argued that every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon the privacy of the individual must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
Forty years later, in 1967, the Supreme Court embraced Brandeis' opinion in Katz v. United States, which overturned the Olmstead decision. The Katz Court held that wiretaps and other types of electronic surveillance were unconstitutional because they violated individuals' right to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures. This shift in jurisprudence was precipitated by changing technology, which led to a focus on protecting privacy rather than property.
In the year following Olmstead's death in 1966, the Supreme Court vacated his conviction, and the nearly 40-year-old Olmstead precedent was overturned via a new interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. In 1968, Congress passed Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, authorizing wiretapping and microphone surveillance for law enforcement purposes, but requiring a warrant based on probable cause.
The Evolution of New Jersey's Constitution
You may want to see also
Executions of intellectually challenged criminals
The execution of intellectually challenged criminals has been a contentious issue in the United States, with several Supreme Court cases addressing this matter. One notable case is Atkins v. Virginia in 2002, where the Supreme Court ruled that executing intellectually disabled individuals violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision overturned the previous ruling in Penry v. Lynaugh from 1989.
In the Atkins v. Virginia case, the Supreme Court recognized the evolving standards and public consensus against executing intellectually disabled people. Between 1989 and 2002, sixteen states outlawed executing intellectually disabled individuals, bringing the total to eighteen out of the 38 states with the death penalty. The Court also considered public opinion polls, international law, and the vulnerability of intellectually disabled people in the criminal justice system.
The determination of intellectual disability is crucial in these cases. Advocates for the intellectually disabled argue that the decision should be made pre-trial by a judge or an unbiased jury, solely based on evidence of intellectual disability. On the other hand, prosecutors in states like Virginia and Louisiana prefer the decision to be made post-conviction by the jury that determined the guilt of the accused. A pre-trial decision is advantageous as it prevents the state from incurring the high costs associated with a death penalty prosecution if the defendant is found to be intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution.
Intellectually disabled people face unique challenges in the criminal justice system. They may have difficulty understanding their rights and the legal process, making them more vulnerable to wrongful convictions and death sentences. Additionally, they may be more likely to provide false confessions due to their desire to please authorities. The case of Earl Washington, who was sentenced to death in 1983 for a crime he did not commit, highlights the risks intellectually disabled individuals face in the criminal justice system.
Despite the Atkins v. Virginia ruling, there are still concerns about intellectually disabled defendants receiving death sentences and executions. Poor legal representation and onerous state evidentiary requirements contribute to these outcomes. Since 2002, several intellectually disabled individuals have had their death sentences vacated, with 83% of those being people of color. This highlights the ongoing struggle to protect the rights and ensure fair treatment for intellectually disabled defendants facing capital punishment.
Missouri's Constitutional Amendment 4: Understanding the Right to Privacy
You may want to see also
Same-sex sexual conduct laws
In 2003, the Supreme Court's decision in Lawrence v. Texas invalidated a Texas law that criminalized same-sex sexual conduct. The 6-3 ruling, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, cited the Due Process Clause and overturned Bowers v. Hardwick (1986), which had upheld state laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy. The Court held that such laws "'demean the lives of homosexual persons'."
Prior to Lawrence v. Texas, same-sex sexual conduct was illegal in many states, and the Supreme Court's decision in Bowers v. Hardwick had been a significant barrier to the rights of gay and lesbian individuals. The Bowers decision had effectively upheld state action that denied gays and lesbians their fundamental rights, causing pain and humiliation for many.
In Lawrence v. Texas, the Court recognized the urgency of addressing the issue and the need to protect the rights of same-sex couples. The ruling sent a clear message that laws criminalizing same-sex intimacy were unconstitutional and violated the Due Process Clause.
The decision in Lawrence v. Texas was a significant step forward for LGBT rights in the United States. It paved the way for further advancements, including the landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), which legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. In Obergefell, the Court ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to all couples, regardless of sexual orientation, under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
While Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges were pivotal moments in the fight for LGBT equality, there is still work to be done to ensure that the rights of LGBT individuals are respected and protected across the country. The ongoing efforts to secure comprehensive non-discrimination protections at the federal level and to address issues like the impact of anti-LGBT laws on families and children highlight the need for continued advocacy and legal challenges to secure full equality for the LGBT community.
Amending State Constitutions: Understanding the Process and Requirements
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Corporate funding of political broadcasts
The Citizens United v. FEC (2010) Supreme Court decision ruled that the First Amendment did not permit the government to ban corporate funding of independent political broadcasts during election campaigns. This decision overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and parts of McConnell v. FEC (2003).
Citizens United arose in 2007 when a conservative non-profit organization challenged campaign finance rules that prevented it from promoting and airing a film criticizing then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Citizens United was within its First Amendment rights to spend its money disseminating the film. This decision struck down century-old prohibitions on corporate "independent" spending, which does not go directly to a candidate or party.
The Citizens United ruling had a significant impact on political influence, tilting the balance towards wealthy donors and corporations. It led to the creation of super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds, and the expansion of dark money through nonprofits that do not disclose their donors. This resulted in a fusion of private wealth and political power, with massive increases in political spending from outside groups.
The ruling also influenced the outcome of Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett (2011), where the Supreme Court outlawed public funding by states for candidates who were outspent by their opponents with corporate donations. This further contributed to the advantage of corporate-backed candidates and the electoral success of Republican candidates in particular.
Understanding Virginia's Constitutional Amendment 1
You may want to see also
Same-sex marriage
In 2015, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of same-sex marriage in the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges. The ruling determined that the Fourteenth Amendment requires all states to grant and recognise same-sex marriages. This decision built on the 2013 ruling that overturned essential Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provisions, and the 2014 rulings from the Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits that state-level bans on same-sex marriage were unconstitutional.
Obergefell v. Hodges was a landmark decision, guaranteeing the fundamental right to marry for same-sex couples under the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The ruling required all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Insular Areas to perform and recognise same-sex marriages on the same terms as opposite-sex marriages, with equal rights and responsibilities.
However, the decision was not without controversy. The Supreme Court was divided, with four justices dissenting. Chief Justice John Roberts, who dissented, criticised the ruling as "an act of will, not legal judgment" and warned of its implications for religious liberty. In 2025, Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who was found liable for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples on religious grounds, appealed to the Supreme Court to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. Davis argued that the First Amendment protected her religious freedom and that the Obergefell decision was "egregiously wrong".
Despite these challenges, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has had a significant impact on the lives of LGBTQ individuals and their families in the United States. As of 2015, there were an estimated 591,000 married same-sex couples in the country, with nearly one in five of those couples parenting a child under 18. The fight for marriage equality continues to shape the legal and political landscape, with ongoing efforts to protect and expand the rights of LGBTQ individuals and their families.
Massachusetts Constitution Amendments: Ratification Timeline
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
The Fair Labor Standards Act (1938) outlawed child labor nationwide. This overturned Hammer v. Dagenhart (1918), which ruled that a federal law could prohibit the interstate shipment of goods produced by child labor.
The Fourteenth Amendment overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which ruled that segregation was constitutional under the "separate but equal" doctrine.
The Eighth Amendment overturned Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), which ruled that it was permissible to execute intellectually challenged criminals.
