Talk:List of landmark court decisions in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gitlow v. N.Y.

You should strongly consider adding Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925). The 1st case in in which the Court utilized the 14th Amendment to nationalize the Bill of Rights. Basically set the table for the activism of the past 60 years. Hshudgins (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Summaries

This article requires careful review. In a few cases the summaries mischaracterized the decisions. For example, U.S. v. Lopez was described as a federalism case prohibiting federal interference with local school operations, whereas in fact it was a commerce clause case with nothing to do with state or local government. Each case should be reviewed carefully. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Slaughter- House Cases

The Slaughter-House Cases should be included in landmark decisions. Argueably one of the most pivotal cases in the late 19th century limiting the impact of the 14gth ammendment. 66.189.99.58 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gonzales v. Raich

It seems to me that this case ought to be added to the list of federalism cases, as it set an extremely wide boundary on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. chrylis (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Mispelling

The Dred Scott court case has been referred to as Dred Scott vs Sandford and Dred Scott vs Sanford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aw091 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 September 2009

Klan case

i forget which case it was but there was something about the Klan right to march in some town in Il (if memory serves) and the ACLU (and a jewish lawyer) took up their case which they won. There was another case they had vs. San Antonio where they won the right to march but the city closed the 2 roads besides it so no one would be at their march to preserve the peace. Pretty cases on free expression these 2.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Reversion of Perry v. Schwarzenegger

Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not yet a landmark case. First, it was cited as 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010), which is incorrect. That cite goes to the 9th Cir. mandamus hearing on a protective order in the case, and is not the cite to be used for the actual case at the District Court level. The actual cite will look something like this: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ___ F.Supp. ___, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Calif., 2010).

Second, it is a district court decision, and those are not landmark decisions, those being almost exclusively U.S. Supreme Court decisions, with some Circuit Court decisions and some state Supreme Court decisions. I can think of no District Court decisions that are landmark cases.

Be patient. This case will go to the 9th Circuit and then to SCOTUS. Until then, it is simply not a landmark case.

Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, my bad about the citation, thanks! About being a landmark, I made the addition after I saw the New York Times editorial board call the case "an instant landmark in American legal history" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?ref=californias_proposition_8_samesex_marriage). (The Wikipedia entry for the case also happens to say that "The case is widely regarded as a landmark case...") Like you I also thought that landmarks are almost exclusively Supreme Court cases, but I deferred to the NY Times source here. But now I defer to you--looks like you've been doing this longer than I have. Just want it to be clear that I acknowledge the validity of what you're saying and that I was not, however, just using myself (so to speak) as a source.Goingforthetruth (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem on my part. CBS News said the same thing, but on some issues the media isn't the best place to look for legal analysis... :D It will get to the Supremes, and either way they decide, it will be a landmark. I was actually concerned that I would offend you - this is a controversial area, and I didn't want to cause any ill will. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 04:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

You were so polite and thoughtful. That really came across. :) Just a second ago by the way I came across a respected (I think) source of legal analysis - SCOTUSblog - calling the decision landmark (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/08/thursday-round-up-42/#more-23649). But that still doesn't really change things I suppose. You were very clear about your reasoning for the editing. It's all good.Goingforthetruth (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

SCOTUSBlog is a good resource, I use is a lot. They're wrong in this context though. It'll take a while, and no one really listens to the District Court on this - not when both sides will continue to appeal it as far as they can. The trial judge did do a good job though - his findings of fact are detailed and meticulous, and the appellate courts have to accept those as gospel. They will only rule on issues of law, not fact. GregJackP Boomer! 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hollingsworth v. Perry (the new title of the case) was effectively dismissed, but the court did rule in United States v. Windsor. Should the latter be added as a landmark case, since SCOTUS overturned Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act? --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 01:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC) Someone took care of it already. --Delta1989 (talk/contributions) 02:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there standards for this list?

It seems there are some cases that aren't on here that should be (Ex Parte Young, Ex Parte Milligan, Slaughter-House, and Erie, the no federal common law one, not the nude dancing one, just to name some obvious ones off the top of my head), especially in light of some of the really trivial cases on here (like the aforementioned nude dancing case), but I don't know if they can just be added unilaterally based on one editor's opinion of what cases are "landmarks". As a whole, this case is badly biased towards Constitutional cases about substantive rights (obviously an important area, but hardly the only important area of law), as well as towards recent cases. 71.116.66.31 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there are huge inconsistencies in the list, with many trivial cases included and Landmark ones not mentioned. The Federalism Section, for instance has absolutely nothing related to the New Deal and crucial interpretations of the Commerce Clause. Edit boldly here, I say. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Began by adding Wickard v. Filburn. Obviously a lot more work to be done here. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Added Steward Machine Company v. Davis. Federalism section still missing key cases. Work here would be appreciated. Nwlaw63 (talk) 05:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Unless there are objections, I'll be editing down the McCulloch v. Maryland case description. Seems a bit excessive, and has unsourced commentary about implied powers that seems inappropriate in this kind of a list article. Nwlaw63 (talk) 22:44, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

In order to avoid the specter of original research, we should limit the list to decisions that have been referred to by reliable third-party sources as "landmark" decisions (or at least some equivalent term). bd2412 T 00:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Mischaracterization of Miller

The summary of United States v. Miller says the Court "Held that a sawed-off shotgun did not constitute a weapon suitable for militia use"; yet it did no such thing. As the United States v. Miller article explains, they held that unless that weapon could be shown to be militia-related, it was not necessarily protected by the second amendment. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine that question.

I'm unable to come up with a good rewording of this summary, or I would have fixed the summary myself. ScottJ (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lawrence v. Texas

It is my understanding that the Supreme Court's majority opinion stated that Texas' statute violated the Due Process Clause and that substantive due process... "liberty"... and not an Equal Protection argument was at hand here and that all forms of sodomy prohibition were unconstitutional. Therefore, it seems to me that this case is not really based on sexual orientation but rather on privacy. Though it is clear that Texas' statue solely applied the homosexuals, the Court's opinion goes further than that. As we know, all sodomy laws in the States are unconstitutional... not just homosexual sodomy laws (unless Justice O'Conner had gotten her way). Please correct me if I'm wrong and if I'm not, I believe the article should be moved to privacy and the word "homosexual" should be removed.
Blindman shady 03:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Salinas v. Texas

My edits on Salinas v. Texas have been recently reverted by user TobiisNOTmadara1291 without stating any reason. @ TobiisNOTmadara1291: Please state your reason(s) for doing so, so that edit warring can be prevented. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 11:51, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Your edit to the end of the first sentence is incorrect. It should say "arrested and given the Miranda warning" not "arrested or given the Miranda warning". Being arrested and being given the Miranda warning go hand in hand. One does not happen without the other. Also, the second and third sentences are unnecessary because they basically repeat the description of Berghuis v. Thompkins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps is the wording wrong in the first sentence wrong, but that's not my fault. My edits derived from this source. Here the question "Does the Fifth Amendment’s Self-Incrimination Clause protects a defendant’s refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before he has been arrested or read his Miranda rights?" (emphasis added) is answered with no. So I edited and reverted accordingly. The second and third sentences maybe repeat the description of Berghuis v. Thompkins, but the Berghuis v. Thompkins entry at this page deals with suspects and not with witnesses as Salinas v. Texas does at this page. Based on the foregoing remarks I propose the following compromise:

The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination does not protect an individual's refusal to answer questions asked by law enforcement before this individual has been arrested or given the Miranda warning. A witness can not invoke the privilege by simply standing mute. Instead it must be expressly invoked by the witness.

Are you okay with this wording? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, but "cannot" is one word, not two — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for cannot advice. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Selle v. Gibb

My readding of Selle v. Gibb has been undone by by user TobiisNOTmadara1291. @ TobiisNOTmadara1291: Please state your reason(s) for doing so.

Hollingsworth v. Perry

What's wrong with the addition of Hollingsworth v. Perry to the List of landmark court decisions in the United States? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Hollingsworth v. Perry did not establish any new law. The Supreme Court dismissed the case because the petitioners did not have standing. Nothing was said about the merits of the case (meaning Proposition 8). It was a high-profile case because of what could have happened (legalize same-sex marriage in all 50 states), but in the end the only thing that actually happened was a dismissal on standing grounds. In other words, this case ended up being a dud. Its lack of creation of new law combined with its failure to live up to expectations kill any chance this case had of being called "landmark". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. And by the way: Thank YOU very much for your outstanding work on this page.

Schmerber v. California

I propose adding Schmerber v. California to the list. By all accounts, it was a landmark case in the development our nation's Fourth and Fifth Amendment jurisprudence (see Kelsey P. Black, Undue Prot. Versus Undue Punishment: Examining the Drinking & Driving Problem Across the United States, 40 Suffolk U.L. Rev. 463, 469 (2007) (describing Schmerber v. California as a "watershed case" in the nation's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence)). What are your thoughts? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Who decides? What criteria?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I like this list, but how do you justify it under WP guidelines? It seems to be people listing their favorite cases, without giving their criteria. It seems to be WP:OR.

It's as if somebody were to make a list of "Favorite music albums" by listing his personal favorites and the favorites of his friends.

Aren't there any WP:RS that list landmark cases? Is there an objective way to identify them, like Shepherd's Citations? --Nbauman (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this concern that was also mentioned above in 2010. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: I'm late to this party but I agree: this list is clearly WP:OR. It should probably be deleted and the "landmark" word/link removed from all of the case articles. If a particular case is truly a "landmark" case, the relevant reliable sources will make that clear.  White Whirlwind  咨  06:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I likewise agree that the list is inherently subjective and necessarily both under- and over-inclusive by any set of objective standards. I add this now (although this same point has been made for some ten years about this article) having come upon it from the recent addition of "landmark" to an article about a particular case that I follow, and which I thought was unwarranted.PDGPA (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty

Can we add this case to the list? I observed that Im5yrsold attempted to put in the article page for this case that it belong in the category of SCOTUS landmark cases here. It certainly is arguable that it is a landmark case. I have seen it described as such in some RS which I can provide. Since none of the other cases have secondary RS to back up why they are here, it seems finding RS secondary sources (law reviews for example) that describe it as landmark should be sufficient to include it? --David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

American Legion v. American Humanist Association -- remove?

It might be a good idea to remove American Legion v. American Humanist Association from this article. While the case received a lot of media attention, the decision was narrow and did not create any new precedent or legal doctrine. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Fixing This Article

From 2014 to 2016, I cleaned up this article as best as I could. Although I did a lot of work, I acknowledge that it wasn't enough, and that this article has major problems. Today, this article looks like a dumping ground for notable cases, with no principles guiding which cases to include. Also, I think that this article is organized and structured poorly. I would like to do a complete overhaul. But I imagine that if I do it alone, it will face opposition. So I would like to hear your suggestions about how this article can be fixed. --TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You made a general clean up at the List of landmark court decisions in the United States article on August 25, 2020. In this respects I have some questions and proposals:

1. Civil Rights Cases: You deleted this content: "(superseded by Civil Rights Act (1964))." I would like to readd this content with tis alternative wording: "Neither the Thirteenth nor the Fourteenth Amendment empower Congress to safeguard blacks against the actions of private individuals. Congress subsequently used other of its powers to pass civil rights laws like Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which was passed under the Commerce Clause of Article I instead of the 14th Amendment and confirmed as constitutional by the Court in Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States." Is this okay?
2. Korematsu v. United States: Korematsu was overruled by Trump v. Hawaii (2018). Sources for this were deleted. Why the deletion? What speaks against the inclusion of the sources?
3. SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories: You wrote "Prosecutors may not use peremptory challenges to dismiss jurors based on their sexual orientation." Does this also apply to the others than prosecutors? If so, can we reword the content independent of prosecutors and the opposite party of them (Sorry for the wording, but I don't know the exact term for the opposite party of prosecutors) My proposal is this: "The Equal Protection Clause prohibits peremptory strikes to dismiss jurors based on their sexual orientation." Is this okay?
4. Corfield v. Coryell: I think content regarding the creation of new, nontextual extra-Constitutional rights through the Privileges or Immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was deleted because there are no sources for the content. Some content seems for me noteworthy, but better be placed at the Slaughter-House Cases. I would like to add this sentence: "The clause lay dormant for over a century after the Slaughter-House Cases, but the clause received new attention at Supreme Court proceedings in the 2010s years starting with the 2010 McDonald v. City of Chicago case." Is this okay? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

1. I deleted the "superseded by" addendum because the Civil Rights Cases remain good law and also because no statute can supersede a constitutional decision. I propose that the cases in the section called "Power of Congress to enforce civil rights" be placed into the "Discrimination based on race and ethnicity" section in order to address later developments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights legislation.
2. I view this article as a directory. Thus, I oppose the use of outside sources in this article. If readers want more information about a case, then they can go to its Wikipedia article or look up the ruling itself using the provided citation. In other words, the citations and corresponding Wikipedia articles are the sources. Outside sources are therefore superfluous. There are almost none in this article to begin with.
3. Yeah, that's fine.
4. Again, that is the sort of extraneous information that belongs in the corresponding Wikipedia article. As I view this article as a directory, the holdings should be short and succinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TobiisNOTmadara1291 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. My comments to your feedback:

1. Civil Rights Cases: I think the section called "Power of Congress to enforce civil rights" should remain a seperate section, but I agree with your assessment that there is a necessity "to address later developments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights legislation." I moved the section called "Power of Congress to enforce civil rights" under the sections "Discrimination based on race and ethnicity", "Discrimination based on sex" and Discrimination based on sexual orientation" to emphase better later developments regarding the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other civil rights legislation.
2. Korematsu v. United States: I transfered quotes from the deleted sources into the Trump v. Hawaii to preserve the aforementioned quotes.
3. SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories: Added the proposed and accepted rewording.
4. Corfield v. Coryell: I agree with your opinion that "the holdings should be short and succinct". Accordingly I retract my proposed sentence. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Compiled record of standards regarding what constitutes a "landmark" case.

I've looked at the commentary from this article's deletion discussion in 2012 as well as other commentary on this page itself, including the criteria specified on the article, and I've compiled all of it into an essay which could be of use for the future: WP:LANDMARK. Hope this proves helpful! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ex Parte (talk • contribs) 17:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

How is Marbury v. Madison a federalism case?

It did not concern the relative powers of the federal and state governments. Grover cleveland (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Grover cleveland (talk) I just created a new section called 'Separation of powers,' which relates to the Separation of powers under the United States Constitution. The Marbury v. Madison article states that the decision "established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government." Based on that, I moved it under the new section. If you think some cases under the federalism section or other section fit more with separation of powers, you can move them under the new section. Cheers. Phillip Samuel (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Plyler v. Doe, AFP v. Bonta, & Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid: Landmark cases?

Can the following three cases be considered landmark cases? They're certainly significant/controversial, but I'm not sure whether they rise to the level of landmark per WP:LANDMARK:

• Plyler v. Doe (1982)
• Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021)
• Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Bonta (2021)

--1990'sguy (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Certainly Plyler is landmark. Hassid is more doubtful, and I would at least wait to see (e.g., to what extent courts rely upon it in future cases). I don't think AFPF v. Bonta was much of a legal change from NAACP v. Alabama, but rather a controversial application of it. I would want to know what landmark changes it would have made (and, of course, see some links indicating as much). SilverLocust (talk) 04:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)