Welcome to Reading the Law with Marnie, where we dive into the 100 most important constitutional law cases that have shaped American history. In each episode, I’ll walk you through the stories behind the decisions, the doctrines they established, and the debates they continue to spark. Whether you’re a law student, a curious citizen, or just someone who loves good courtroom drama, this podcast will bring the Constitution to life—one case at a time.

In this episode, we’re covering Cases 21 through 30, a stretch that spans from 1969 to 1976. These decisions reflect a period of profound social change—marked by protest movements, political scandal, and the expansion of civil rights. The Supreme Court responded by simultaneously affirming core liberties and drawing new limits around the scope of constitutional protections. We’ll see how the Justices addressed free speech in schools, campaign finance, abortion, affirmative action, and more.

We begin with a case that emerged not from Congress or the White House—but from the quiet defiance of a group of schoolchildren. In the midst of the Vietnam War, they chose black armbands over silence—and took their message all the way to the Supreme Court.

Case 21: Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969)

Opinion by: Justice Abe Fortas – 7–2 decision

Famous Quote:

“It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”

Background:

Three teenagers were suspended for wearing black armbands to school in silent protest of the Vietnam War. The Court held that students do not lose their First Amendment rights when they enter school grounds, so long as their speech doesn’t substantially disrupt the educational environment.

Doctrines:

First Amendment – Symbolic Speech

Scholarly Commentary:

One of the leading scholars on student rights, Professor Catherine J. Ross of George Washington University Law School, has described Tinker as the “high-water mark of student speech.” Her work explores the tension between school discipline and constitutional freedom, and she has warned that later cases have undermined the dignity Tinker tried to preserve. Her contributions are especially relevant today, as debates over speech in public schools reignite.

Freedom of expression continued to evolve, and in Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court offered one of its strongest protections for inflammatory political rhetoric—even from groups like the Ku Klux Klan. The line between dangerous speech and protected advocacy was about to be redrawn.

Case 22: Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

Per curiam – Unanimous

Famous Quote:

“The constitutional guarantees of free speech… do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force… except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action.”

Background:

Clarence Brandenburg was a KKK leader convicted under an Ohio law for giving a fiery speech. The Court ruled that only speech intended—and likely—to incite imminent lawless action could be restricted.

Doctrines:

First Amendment – Incitement Doctrine

Scholarly Commentary:

Geoffrey R. Stone, a First Amendment scholar at the University of Chicago, has called Brandenburg “the most speech-protective standard the Court has ever adopted.” Stone served as a law clerk to Justice Brennan and has written extensively on the evolution of free speech from Schenck to Brandenburg, emphasizing how the latter sharply curtailed the state’s ability to criminalize political dissent.

But while Brandenburg expanded liberty, the next case sought to set limits—this time on the entanglement of government and religion. The Court would create a framework that would dominate Establishment Clause cases for nearly fifty years.

Case 23: Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren Burger – 8–0 decision

Famous Quote:

“Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years.”

Background:

Rhode Island and Pennsylvania laws reimbursed religious schools for secular education services. The Court struck them down and introduced the “Lemon Test,” requiring any law touching religion to (1) serve a secular purpose, (2) neither advance nor inhibit religion, and (3) avoid excessive government entanglement.

Doctrines:

First Amendment – Establishment Clause

Scholarly Commentary:

Douglas Laycock, professor at the University of Virginia and one of the nation’s foremost church-state scholars, praised Lemon as a “principled attempt to codify years of case law,” but recognized it became “increasingly unstable.” His careful analysis tracks how Lemon shaped the constitutional boundary between state neutrality and hostility toward religion—until it was dismantled in Kennedy v. Bremerton (2022).

Religion and speech rights weren’t the only liberties on the Court’s docket. In Roe v. Wade, the justices confronted the question of bodily autonomy and reproductive privacy—ushering in decades of constitutional and political turmoil.

Case 24: Roe v. Wade (1973)

Opinion by: Justice Harry Blackmun – 7–2 decision

Famous Quote:

“This right of privacy… is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.”

Background:

A Texas law criminalizing abortion was struck down by the Court, which grounded the right to choose in the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection of personal liberty. The Court established a trimester framework balancing state interests and individual rights.

Doctrines:

Fourteenth Amendment – Substantive Due Process (Privacy)

Scholarly Commentary:

Few cases have been more debated than Roe. John Hart Ely—former Stanford dean and a major figure in constitutional theory—famously wrote that while he agreed with the outcome, the opinion “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Cass Sunstein, by contrast, has defended Roe as a necessary step in judicial protection of fundamental rights amid political inaction. These two voices represent the ongoing tension between moral urgency and doctrinal discipline.

If Roe was an expansion of individual liberty, Rodriguez was a contraction of equality. The Court’s refusal to recognize education as a constitutional right would redefine how public policy is litigated.

Case 25: San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)

Opinion by: Justice Lewis Powell – 5–4 decision

Famous Quote:

“Education… is not among the rights afforded explicit protection under our Federal Constitution.”

Background:

A class of students from low-income districts sued Texas, arguing that school funding based on local property taxes created unconstitutional wealth-based disparities. The Court disagreed, holding that education is not a fundamental right and that wealth is not a suspect class.

Doctrines:

Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection

Socioeconomic Inequality

Scholarly Commentary:

Goodwin Liu, now a California Supreme Court Justice and former Yale professor, called Rodriguez “a case that slammed the federal courthouse doors shut on educational equity.” Alongside legal scholars like James Ryan, he’s pushed for greater reliance on state constitutions and statutes to achieve what the federal judiciary declined to do.

While Rodriguez left inequality intact, the next case struck at the heart of executive privilege. In a moment of historic crisis, the Court made clear that the rule of law applies even to the president.

Case 26: United States v. Nixon (1974)

Opinion by: Chief Justice Warren Burger – 8–0 decision

Famous Quote:

“The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.”

Background:

President Nixon refused to release White House tapes subpoenaed in the Watergate investigation, citing executive privilege. The Court ruled unanimously against him, requiring compliance and reinforcing judicial oversight of the presidency.

Doctrines:

Separation of Powers – Executive Privilege

Scholarly Commentary:

Professor Neal Katyal, who served as Acting U.S. Solicitor General and clerked for Justice Breyer, has held up Nixon as “the textbook example of judicial courage.” Legal historian Maeva Marcus agrees, writing that the case showed the strength of an independent judiciary even amid political trauma. These voices remind us that legal precedent can check political power.

Just two years later, another controversial form of political power—money—came under constitutional scrutiny. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court drew a hard line between spending and corruption, giving birth to the “money as speech” doctrine.

Case 27: Buckley v. Valeo (1976)

Per curiam – divided ruling

Famous Quote:

“A restriction on the amount of money a person or group can spend on political communication… necessarily reduces the quantity of expression.”

Background:

The Federal Election Campaign Act imposed strict limits on campaign donations and candidate spending. The Court upheld limits on contributions but invalidated caps on personal expenditures, reasoning that spending money on one’s own campaign is protected speech.

Doctrines:

First Amendment – Political Speech

Campaign Finance

Scholarly Commentary:

Election law scholar Richard Hasen has called Buckley “the foundation of the modern system of legalized political inequality.” In contrast, Bradley Smith, former FEC chair and law professor, has argued it protects the democratic right to advocate freely. Their opposing commentaries reflect a long-standing division between campaign finance reformers and First Amendment purists.

That same year, the Court returned to questions of race and education. In Bakke, it crafted a fractured and enduring compromise on affirmative action—one that would echo through decades of litigation.

Case 28: Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

Opinion by: Justice Lewis Powell (plurality) – 5–4 decision

Famous Quote:

“Race or ethnic background may be deemed a ‘plus’ in a particular applicant’s file, yet it does not insulate the individual from comparison.”

Background:

Allan Bakke sued after being denied admission to UC Davis Medical School, where a set number of seats were reserved for minority applicants. The Court struck down quotas but allowed race to be considered as one factor in admissions decisions.

Doctrines:

Fourteenth Amendment – Equal Protection

Affirmative Action

Scholarly Commentary:

Harvard’s Randall Kennedy, a leading scholar of race and law, has noted that Bakke both legitimized and limited affirmative action. It created the legal architecture that would later be refined in Grutter, Fisher, and ultimately Students for Fair Admissions. Kennedy’s work is essential to understanding the moral and legal stakes of racial preferences in education.

But equality wasn’t the only constitutional tension surfacing in the 1970s. The Court briefly revived the Tenth Amendment in a case that tried—and failed—to restrain federal power over the states.

Case 29: National League of Cities v. Usery (1976)

Opinion by: Justice William Rehnquist – 5–4 decision

Famous Quote:

“There are attributes of sovereignty attaching to every state government which may not be impaired by Congress.”

Background:

Congress had extended the Fair Labor Standards Act to apply to state employees. The Court struck down the extension, holding that it violated states’ rights under the Tenth Amendment.

Doctrines:

Tenth Amendment – Federalism

Scholarly Commentary:

Federalism expert Ernest Young of Duke University has explained that Usery marked “a brief but important attempt to constitutionalize state autonomy.” Though overturned in Garcia v. San Antonio MTA, it set the stage for the Rehnquist Court’s later federalism revival in Lopez and Morrison.

Finally, we return to the Eighth Amendment. In the wake of Furman v. Georgia, which halted executions nationwide, the Court faced the question: Could the death penalty be fairly imposed?

Case 30: Gregg v. Georgia (1976)

Opinion by: Justice Potter Stewart – 7–2 decision

Famous Quote:

“The punishment of death is not inherently cruel… within the meaning of the Constitution.”

Background:

Georgia revised its capital sentencing process after Furman, introducing a bifurcated trial system with guided discretion. The Court upheld the new system and reinstated the death penalty.

Doctrines:

Eighth Amendment – Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Death Penalty Procedure

Scholarly Commentary:

Siblings and co-authors Carol Steiker (Harvard) and Jordan Steiker (Texas) are two of the nation’s foremost death penalty scholars. They have called Gregg “a procedural green light” that promised fairness but delivered persistent racial and geographic disparities. Their empirical work remains central to contemporary critiques of capital punishment in America.

That wraps up Cases 21 through 30—ten pivotal decisions that reveal how the Constitution was tested and transformed in an era of protest, reform, and political reckoning. From the schoolhouse to the death chamber, from campaign trails to medical school admissions, these rulings continue to shape the boundaries of our rights and the role of government today.

In the next episode, we’ll enter the 1980s and beyond, where debates over gender, religion, sexual privacy, and state power come into sharper focus. As always, we’ll follow not just the opinions, but the voices—judicial and academic—that continue to shape how we read the law.

In Episode 5, we’ll explore new constitutional tensions—on gender, sexual privacy, religious liberty, and the limits of state control in the modern era.

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