User:Simon Dodd/Sandbox/SCOTUS

History
Eras of the history of the Supreme Court are named after the Chief Justice of that time.

Earliest beginnings to Marshall
Under Chief Justices Jay, Rutledge, and Ellsworth (1789–1801), the Court heard few cases; its first decision was West v. Barnes (1791), a case involving a procedural issue. The Court lacked a home of its own and had little prestige, a situation not helped by the highest-profile case of the era, Chisholm v. Georgia, which was immediately repudiated by the Eleventh Amendment.

The Court's power and prestige waxed during the Marshall Court (1801–1835). Under Marshall, the Court established the principle of judicial review, including itself as the supreme expositor of the Constitution (Marbury v. Madison) and made several important constitutional rulings giving shape and substance to the balance of power between the federal government and the states (prominently, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, McCulloch v. Maryland and Gibbons v. Ogden).

The Marshall Court also ended the practice of each justice issuing his opinion seriatim, a remnant of British tradition, and instead issuing a single majority opinion. Also during Marshall's tenure, although beyond the court's control, the failed impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-0805 helped cement the principle of judicial independence.

From Taney to Taft
The Taney Court (1836–1864) made several important rulings, such as Sheldon v. Sill, which held that while Congress may not limit the subjects the Supreme Court may hear, it may limit the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts to prevent them from hearing cases dealing with certain subjects. Nevertheless, it is primarily remembered for its ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford, which may have helped precipitate the Civil War. In the Reconstruction era, the Chase, Waite, and Fuller Courts (1864–1910) interpreted the new Civil War amendments to the Constitution, and developed the doctrine of substantive due process (Lochner v. New York; Adair v. United States).

Under the White and Taft Courts (1910–1930), the substantive due process doctrine reached its first apogee (Adkins v. Children's Hospital), and the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment applied some provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Incorporation doctrine.

The New Deal era
During the Hughes, Stone, and Vinson Courts (1930–1953), the court gained its own accommodation in 1935 and changed its interpretation of the Constitution, giving a broader reading to the powers of the Federal Government in order to facilitate President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal (most prominently West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Darby and United States v. Butler''). During World War II, the court continued to favor government power, upholding the internment of Japanese citizens (Korematsu v. United States) and the mandatory pledge of allegiance (Minersville School District v. Gobitis). Nevertheless, Gobitis was soon repudiated (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnett) and the Steel Seizure Case restricted the pro-government trend.

Warren and Burger
The Warren Court (1953–1969) dramatically expanded the force of Constitutional civil liberties. It held that segregation in public schools violates equal protection (Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, and Green v. County School Bd.), and that traditional legislative district boundaries violated the right to vote (Reynolds v. Simms). It created a general right to privacy (Griswold v. Connecticut), limited the role of religion in public school (most prominently Engel v. Vitale and Abington School District v. Schempp), incorporated most guarantees of the Bill of Rights to the States—prominently Mapp v. Ohio (the exclusionary rule) and Gideon v. Wainwright (right to appointed counsel),  —and required that criminal suspects be apprised of all these rights by police (Miranda v. Arizona); At the same time, however, the court limited defamation suits by public figures (New York Times v. Sullivan), and supplied the government with an unbroken run of antitrust victories.

The Burger Court (1969–1986) expanded Griswold's right to privacy to strike down abortion laws (Roe v. Wade), but divided deeply on affirmative action (Regents of the University of California v. Bakke) and campaign finance regulation (Buckley v. Valeo), and dithered on the death penalty, ruling first that most applications were defective (Furman v. Georgia), then that the death penalty itself was not unconstitutional (Gregg v. Georgia).

Rehnquist and Roberts
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism, directly (New York v. United States and Printz v. United States), and by emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, Alden v. Maine, City of Boerne v. Flores),  Alden v. Maine). It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas), the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), state-imposed term limits on federal legislatures (US Term Limits v. Thornton), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws. The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court. Some of its prominent rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), of the Eighth (Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana), Fourth (Georgia v. Randolph and Hudson v. Michigan), and First (Garcetti v. Ceballos, Morse v. Frederick, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) amendments,  federal preemption, (Wyeth v. Levine), the status of military detainees (Boumediene v. Bush), and racial discrimination (Parents v. Seattle). and civil procedure (Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Ashcroft v. Iqbal''). The Roberts court also dealt seriously with the Second Amendment for the first time (District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago).

Rehnquist and Roberts
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism, emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores). Alden v. Maine). It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas), and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws. The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court. Some of its prominent rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), of the Eighth (Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana), Fourth (Georgia v. Randolph and Hudson v. Michigan), Second, (Heller-McDonald). and First (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission) amendments, and civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal).

Rehnquist and Roberts
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism, emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores). It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas), and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court. Some of its prominent rulings so far have been in the areas of abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), of the First (Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), Second (Heller-McDonald), and Eighth amendments (Baze v. Rees and Kennedy v. Louisiana), of federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine) and of civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal).

Rehnquist and Roberts (variant with amendments stated for Magidin)
The Rehnquist Court (1986–2005) was noted for its revival of judicial enforcement of federalism, emphasizing the limits of the Constitution's affirmative grants of power (United States v. Lopez) and the force of its restrictions on those powers (Seminole Tribe v. Florida, City of Boerne v. Flores). It struck down single-sex state schools as a violation of equal protection (United States v. Virginia), laws against sodomy as violations of substantive due process (Lawrence v. Texas), and the line item veto (Clinton v. New York), but upheld school vouchers (Zelman v. Simmons-Harris) and reaffirmed Roe's restrictions on abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v. Casey). The court's decision in Bush v. Gore, which ended the electoral recount during the presidential election of 2000, became controversial.

The Roberts Court (2005–present) is regarded by some as more conservative than the Rehnquist court. Some of its major rulings have concerned federal preemption (Wyeth v. Levine), civil procedure (Bell-Iqbal), abortion (Gonzales v. Carhart), and the bill of rights, prominently Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (First Amendment), Heller-McDonald (Second Amendment), and Baze v. Rees (Eighth Amendment), amendment, of.