Welcome to “Reading the Law with Marnie.”

In our second episode, we’re starting our journey with the first 10 cases going through 100 of the most important constitutional law cases in American history. Whether you’re a law student, a lawyer, or just someone curious about how this country’s legal foundation was built, you’re in the right place.

Let’s start with Case One.

Case One: Marbury v. Madison, decided in 1803.

The full case name is William Marbury v. James Madison, Secretary of State of the United States.

It was a unanimous 5–0 decision written by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Here’s a quote that still echoes through every law school classroom:

“It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.”

And another from the same opinion:

“A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”

Background:

William Marbury sued to receive his judicial commission, which had been signed but not delivered. Chief Justice Marshall ruled that while Marbury had a right to the commission, the Court didn’t have jurisdiction to enforce it—because the statute granting them that power was itself unconstitutional.

Doctrine Established:

This is where judicial review was born. It gave the Supreme Court the power to strike down laws that conflict with the Constitution.

Scholarly Commentary:

Yale professor Alexander Bickel praised this case as a wise check on political power.

Harvard’s Mark Tushnet was critical—he saw it as the start of excessive judicial elitism.

And conservative jurist Robert Bork defended it as the foundation of originalist interpretation.

Transitioning now to Case Two…

Case Two: McCulloch v. Maryland, decided in 1819.

This was another unanimous decision, again authored by Chief Justice John Marshall.

Two famous lines from the opinion:

“The power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

And…

“Let the end be legitimate… all means which are appropriate… are constitutional.”

Background:

Maryland tried to tax a branch of the federally chartered Bank of the United States. The Court said no—you can’t tax the federal government—and affirmed that Congress had the power to create the bank in the first place.

Doctrines Established:

This case gave us the idea of implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, and reinforced federal supremacy over the states.

Scholarly Commentary:

Justice Joseph Story wrote extensively in favor of strong federal authority.

President Thomas Jefferson, by contrast, opposed implied powers entirely.

Legal scholar John Hart Ely later praised this decision as essential to a functional federal government.

Let’s keep going. On to Case Three.

Case Three: Gibbons v. Ogden, from 1824.

Opinion by Chief Justice John Marshall, with a concurrence from Justice William Johnson.

Notable quotes:

“The power to regulate commerce is complete in itself, and may be exercised to its utmost extent.” — Chief Justice Marshall

“The Constitution is one of enumeration, not of reservation.” — Justice Johnson

Background:

Aaron Ogden had a New York–granted monopoly on steamboat travel. Thomas Gibbons had a federal license. The Supreme Court sided with Gibbons, affirming that federal law overrides state monopolies when it comes to interstate commerce.

Doctrine:

The Commerce Clause gives Congress full authority over interstate trade.

Scholarly Commentary:

Historian Charles Beard saw this case as a reflection of pro-commerce federalism.

Akhil Amar praised it as reinforcing national unity.

And antitrust expert Herbert Hovenkamp viewed it as a key moment in laying the foundation for regulating monopolies.

Now we turn to one of the darkest chapters: Case Four.

Case Four: Dred Scott v. Sandford, decided in 1857.

Opinion by Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney.

From Taney’s majority opinion:

“[Blacks] had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.”

And from the powerful dissent by Justice Benjamin Robbins Curtis:

“A free negro of the African race… is a citizen of the United States.”

Background:

Dred Scott, a slave, sued for his freedom. The Court ruled that neither he nor any person of African descent could be a U.S. citizen. It also struck down the Missouri Compromise, claiming Congress had no power to ban slavery in U.S. territories.

Doctrines:

• African Americans denied citizenship

• Congressional limits on slavery ruled unconstitutional

Scholarly Commentary:

Historian Eric Foner calls this the Court’s lowest point.

Senator Stephen Douglas defended the ruling at the time—though history has judged that harshly.

And Justice Thurgood Marshall viewed Dred Scott as a judicial disgrace that paved the way for Plessy and segregation.

Case Five takes us into the Jim Crow era.

Case Five: Plessy v. Ferguson, decided in 1896.

Majority opinion by Justice Henry Billings Brown, dissent by Justice John Marshall Harlan.

Here’s Brown:

“Laws permitting, and even requiring, their separation… do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race.”

And Harlan’s iconic dissent:

“Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”

Background:

Homer Plessy, who was seven-eighths white and one-eighth Black, was arrested for sitting in a whites-only railcar. The Court upheld segregation, enshrining the “separate but equal” doctrine.

Doctrine:

“Separate but equal” became the law of the land—until Brown v. Board of Education overturned it in 1954.

Scholarly Commentary:

Charles Black condemned it as a betrayal of the 14th Amendment.

Randall Kennedy explored how its legacy still shapes race and law.

And again, Thurgood Marshall—who argued Brown—called Plessy a blueprint for apartheid.

Let’s take a breath and move into the 20th century. Case Six.

Case Six: Lochner v. New York, from 1905.

Majority by Justice Rufus Wheeler Peckham, with a famous dissent from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Quotes:

“The general right to make a contract… is part of the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.” — Justice Peckham

“The Fourteenth Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer’s Social Statics.” — Justice Holmes, dissenting

Background:

New York passed a law limiting bakers to 60-hour workweeks. The Court struck it down, arguing it violated the freedom of contract.

Doctrine:

This was a high point of substantive due process, where courts used the 14th Amendment to block economic regulations.

Scholarly Commentary:

Cass Sunstein calls it judicial activism for capitalism.

Richard Epstein defends it as a cornerstone of economic liberty.

Roscoe Pound criticized it for ignoring real labor conditions.

Now to Case Seven: Schenck v. United States, 1919.

Opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Famous quotes:

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

“The question… is whether the words… create a clear and present danger.”

Background:

Charles Schenck was convicted under the Espionage Act for distributing anti-draft leaflets. The Court upheld the conviction and introduced the “clear and present danger” test for free speech.

Doctrine:

This case set the standard for limiting speech during wartime.

Scholarly Commentary:

Geoffrey Stone saw this as contextually justified.

Nadine Strossen argued that dissenting speech must be protected.

Noam Chomsky condemned it as state censorship in disguise.

Case Eight: Gitlow v. New York, decided in 1925.

Opinion by Justice Edward Terry Sanford, dissent by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Louis Dembitz Brandeis.

Quotes:

“A single revolutionary spark… may burst into a sweeping and destructive conflagration.” — Justice Sanford

“Every idea is an incitement…” — Justice Holmes, dissenting

Background:

Benjamin Gitlow was convicted for publishing a socialist manifesto. The Court upheld the conviction, but for the first time, said that the First Amendment applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Doctrine:

This was the beginning of incorporation—where the Bill of Rights is applied to state governments.

Scholarly Commentary:

Laurence Tribe praised it as a step toward national civil liberties.

Erwin Chemerinsky criticized the weak protection it actually gave Gitlow.

William Brennan later cited it as foundational to civil rights jurisprudence.

We’re almost there. On to Case Nine.

Case Nine: Near v. Minnesota, from 1931.

Opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, with dissents from Pierce Butler and others.

Quotes:

“The liberty of the press… is safeguarded against censorship.” — Chief Justice Hughes

“[Minnesota] was properly protecting public welfare…” — Justice Butler, dissenting

Background:

Jay Near’s scandal sheet accused public officials of corruption. Minnesota tried to shut it down before publication. The Court ruled that kind of prior restraint unconstitutional.

Doctrine:

This case established that prior restraint on the press is almost never allowed.

Scholarly Commentary:

Floyd Abrams called it the cornerstone of press freedom.

Kathleen Sullivan said it protects democracy itself.

Robert Post emphasized its role in maintaining a free public sphere.

And finally for today, Case Ten.

Case Ten: West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, decided in 1937.

Opinion by Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes, dissent by George Sutherland.

Quotes:

“The Constitution does not speak of freedom of contract.” — Chief Justice Hughes

“Arbitrary restraints upon economic freedom are intolerable.” — Justice Sutherland, dissenting

Background:

Elsie Parrish sued for back pay under Washington’s minimum wage law. The Court upheld the law, marking the end of the Lochner era and ushering in greater deference to state economic regulations.

Doctrine:

This case signaled the Court’s retreat from substantive economic due process and the beginning of the modern regulatory state.

Scholarly Commentary:

William Leuchtenburg called it a New Deal triumph.

Randy Barnett said it abandoned economic liberty.

Bruce Ackerman viewed it as a constitutional transformation.

I’m Marnie, and this is Reading the Law.

In ink and oath, the law was cast,

A shield to guard, a truth to last.

Not born of kings, nor forged by might—

But penned to keep our freedoms bright.

That wraps up our first 10 cases. On the next episode of Reading the Law with Marnie, we’ll continue our journey through the next landmark decisions—cases that shaped everything from education and privacy to civil rights and presidential power.

Get full access to Marnie’s Substack at marniekhaw.substack.com/subscribe