Welcome back to Reading the Law with Marnie, the podcast and Substack series where we unpack the top 100 most important constitutional law cases in American history — in a way that’s sharp, clear, and built for both deep understanding and long-term recall. Today, we’re covering Cases 11 through 20 — and in this stretch, we’ll see the Supreme Court begin its turn from economic libertarianism toward individual rights, civil liberties, and structural democracy.
We’ll also introduce some of the leading constitutional scholars and critics you’ll hear throughout this series. I’ll be noting who they are, what they’ve contributed to the legal conversation, and why their commentary matters.
Let’s begin with a quiet revolution — a footnote that changed how courts review laws.
Case 11: United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938)
We start with a dispute over federal milk regulation. But what’s revolutionary is what came in Footnote Four — a roadmap for modern constitutional rights. The main case involved whether the federal government could ban “filled milk” (milk mixed with vegetable oils). The Court upheld the law using rational basis review — meaning the law was presumed constitutional as long as it had a reasonable connection to a legitimate government interest.
But in a footnote — literally Footnote Four — Justice Harlan Fiske Stone dropped a constitutional bombshell. Stone said that while courts generally defer to legislatures (especially on economic laws), some types of laws should get more scrutiny, such as:
* Laws that violate specific rights in the Constitution (e.g., free speech or religion)
* Laws that restrict the political process itself (e.g., voting, organizing, petitioning the government)
* Laws that target “discrete and insular minorities” — groups that are politically powerless and thus vulnerable to majoritarian abuse
Full Case Name: United States v. Carolene Products Company
Decision Date: April 25, 1938
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion by: Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone
Decision: 6–1
Famous Quotes:
• Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone: “There may be narrower scope for operation of the presumption of constitutionality when legislation appears on its face to be within a specific prohibition of the Constitution…”
• Associate Justice Harlan Fiske Stone: “Discrete and insular minorities may be a special object of protection.”
Background:
The federal government had banned the interstate shipment of “filled milk” — milk diluted with vegetable oil. Carolene Products was convicted under this law and challenged it as unconstitutional economic regulation. The Court upheld the law under a deferential standard. But in Footnote Four of the opinion, Justice Stone suggested that while courts should defer to legislatures on economic matters, they must scrutinize laws more carefully when they restrict political processes, target minorities, or implicate constitutional rights.
Doctrine:
This case introduced the logic behind tiers of scrutiny. Economic laws would receive rational basis review, but laws affecting fundamental rights or minorities could trigger heightened judicial scrutiny.
Scholarly Commentary:
• Bruce Ackerman, a Yale Law professor and constitutional theorist, called Footnote Four the beginning of a “new constitutional regime” that elevated rights and representation.
• John Hart Ely, former Stanford and Yale law professor and author of Democracy and Distrust, praised Footnote Four as the principled core of modern judicial review.
• Robert Bork, a former D.C. Circuit judge and conservative legal theorist, criticized Footnote Four as an unjustified expansion of judicial power over democratically enacted laws.
The scrutiny logic of Carolene Products would be put to the test during America’s darkest wartime moment — a moment when racial fear overtook reason and civil rights. That moment was Korematsu v. United States.
Case 12: Korematsu v. United States (1944)
This decision stands as a chilling reminder that even fundamental rights can collapse when national security is invoked — and racial prejudice is tolerated.
Full Case Name: Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu v. United States
Decision Date: December 18, 1944
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion by: Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black
Dissenting Opinion by: Justices Murphy, Roberts, and Jackson
Decision: 6–3
Famous Quotes:
• Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black: “All legal restrictions which curtail the civil rights of a single racial group are immediately suspect.”
• Associate Justice Frank Murphy (dissent): “This exclusion of all persons of Japanese ancestry… falls into the ugly abyss of racism.”
Background:
During World War II, President Roosevelt ordered the forced relocation and internment of Japanese Americans. Fred Korematsu defied the order and was arrested. The Court upheld the internment policy, even while acknowledging it was based on race — citing national security concerns.
Doctrine:
This case formally introduced the strict scrutiny standard for race-based classifications — but notoriously failed to apply it in practice.
Scholarly Commentary:
• Peter Irons, a legal historian and civil rights lawyer, helped overturn Korematsu’s conviction decades later and called the decision one of the Court’s greatest betrayals.
• Neal Katyal, former Acting U.S. Solicitor General under President Obama, publicly repudiated Korematsu in legal briefs as a moral and legal failure.
• Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative originalist, famously said, “Korematsu was wrong,” but added, “It could happen again,” warning about judicial capitulation to executive power.
In the next case, the Court would redeem itself. A decade after Korematsu, in Brown v. Board of Education, it unanimously struck down segregation in public schools — issuing perhaps the most morally and legally important opinion of the 20th century.
Case 13: Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
This is the case that shattered the “separate but equal” doctrine and launched the modern civil rights era.
Full Case Name: Oliver Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas
Decision Date: May 17, 1954
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion by: Chief Justice Earl Warren
Decision: Unanimous (9–0)
Famous Quotes:
• Chief Justice Earl Warren: “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.”
• Chief Justice Earl Warren: “To separate them solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority… unlikely ever to be undone.”
Background:
Black families in multiple states challenged the constitutionality of racially segregated public schools. The Court unanimously held that segregation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and overturned Plessy v. Ferguson as it applied to education.
Doctrine:
Racial segregation in public schools is inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause.
Scholarly Commentary:
• Derrick Bell, founder of Critical Race Theory and Harvard Law professor, viewed Brown as symbolically powerful but ultimately limited in impact without structural change.
• Gerald Rosenberg, a University of Chicago political scientist, argued in The Hollow Hope that Brown had little real effect without political and grassroots pressure.
• Jack Greenberg, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund attorney who helped argue Brown, praised the case as a moral and legal watershed.
If Brown addressed who gets to learn, Baker v. Carr tackled who gets to vote. In our next case, the Court brought fairness to the drawing of legislative districts and opened the door to the one-person, one-vote revolution.
Case 14: Baker v. Carr (1962)
This case asked whether malapportioned voting districts were a matter for courts — and the answer changed the balance of political power nationwide.
Full Case Name: Charles W. Baker et al. v. Joe C. Carr, Secretary of State of Tennessee
Decision Date: March 26, 1962
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion by: Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan Jr.
Dissenting Opinion by: Justice Felix Frankfurter
Decision: 6–2
Famous Quotes:
• Associate Justice William Joseph Brennan Jr.: “A citizen’s right to a vote free of arbitrary impairment… is unassailable.”
• Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter (dissent): “The Court’s intrusion here is fundamentally at odds with the principle of separation of powers.”
Background:
Tennessee hadn’t redrawn its legislative districts in over 60 years, even though population growth had radically changed. The Court held that challenges to unequal representation were justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause — clearing the way for courts to require legislative reapportionment.
Doctrine:
This case narrowed the political question doctrine and established that unequal districting could violate the Equal Protection Clause, giving rise to the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Scholarly Commentary:
• Alexander Bickel, a Yale law professor and judicial restraint advocate, worried the Court’s intervention would politicize the judiciary.
• Heather Gerken, Dean of Yale Law School and an expert in election law, praised the decision for making democratic institutions more representative.
• Richard Pildes, NYU law professor and leading voting rights scholar, called Baker the start of the Court’s modern role in safeguarding electoral fairness.
With structural democracy addressed, the Court’s next frontier was criminal justice. Our final case in this set — Gideon v. Wainwright — ensured that the right to a fair trial included the right to a lawyer, no matter your income.
Case 15: Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)
A handwritten petition from a Florida prison cell turned into a landmark ruling that reshaped the rights of the accused.
Full Case Name: Clarence Earl Gideon v. Louie L. Wainwright, Director, Division of Corrections
Decision Date: March 18, 1963
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Opinion by: Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black
Decision: Unanimous (9–0)
Famous Quotes:
• Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black: “Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries.”
• Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black: “The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours.”
Background:
Clarence Gideon was charged with felony theft but denied a lawyer under Florida law. He petitioned the Supreme Court from jail. The Court unanimously ruled that the right to counsel is a fundamental right that applies to the states through the 14th Amendment.
Doctrine:
The Court incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to counsel against the states, requiring public defense for indigent defendants.
Scholarly Commentary:
• Anthony Lewis, New York Times legal journalist and author of Gideon’s Trumpet, told the story of how one man reshaped American justice.
• Bryan Stevenson, founder of the Equal Justice Initiative and author of Just Mercy, saw Gideon as foundational to protecting poor defendants.
• Akhil Reed Amar, Yale constitutional law professor, called Gideon a cornerstone in building a national Bill of Rights through incorporation.
Let’s move deeper into the 1960s and follow the Warren Court as it accelerates its expansion of individual rights. These five cases deal with religious freedom, the rights of the accused, the boundaries of law enforcement, and the emerging concept of privacy. The themes from our last set — equal justice and due process — continue here, but now we add new dimensions of faith, interrogation, and personal autonomy.
Let’s begin with the case that banned school-sponsored prayer in public classrooms.
Case 16: Engel v. Vitale (1962) This was the first major case in which the Supreme Court ruled that prayer in public schools, even if nondenominational and voluntary, violates the Constitution.
Full Case Name: Steven I. Engel et al. v. William J. Vitale Jr., President of the Board of Education Decision Date: June 25, 1962 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Opinion by: Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black Decision: 6–1
Famous Quotes: • Associate Justice Hugo Lafayette Black: "It is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers."
Background: The New York State Board of Regents had composed a short, voluntary prayer for public school students to recite each morning. A group of parents challenged the practice as a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court struck down the practice.
Doctrine: Establishment Clause – Government cannot sponsor or endorse religious exercises in public schools, even if participation is voluntary.
Scholarly Commentary: • Leonard Levy, a Pulitzer Prize-winning constitutional historian, defended the decision as a vital reaffirmation of the wall of separation between church and state. • Michael McConnell, a former federal judge and law professor, criticized the ruling for flattening religious expression in public life. • Kathleen Sullivan, Stanford Law professor and First Amendment expert, saw Engel as a principled stand that protected both religion and government.
While Engel protected students from state-imposed prayer, our next case protected suspects from state-compelled confessions. The issue was coercion in the interrogation room — and the solution would become a household name.
Case 17: Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Here’s the origin of those words you’ve heard in every police drama: "You have the right to remain silent..."
Full Case Name: Ernesto Arturo Miranda v. State of Arizona Decision Date: June 13, 1966 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Opinion by: Chief Justice Earl Warren Decision: 5–4
Famous Quotes: • Chief Justice Earl Warren: "The prosecution may not use statements... stemming from custodial interrogation unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards."
Background: Ernesto Miranda confessed to kidnapping and rape after a lengthy police interrogation, without having been informed of his rights. The Supreme Court reversed his conviction, establishing new rules for police to inform suspects of their rights before questioning.
Doctrine: Miranda Warnings – Suspects in custody must be informed of their rights to remain silent and to an attorney under the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.
Scholarly Commentary: • Yale Kamisar, law professor and “father of Miranda,” defended the decision as essential to protecting dignity and fairness. • Paul Cassell, a federal judge and former prosecutor, has been one of Miranda’s most prominent critics, arguing it hampers law enforcement. • Charles Ogletree, Harvard professor and public defender, praised Miranda for leveling the playing field in criminal justice.
Now that the Court had reinforced procedural safeguards during interrogation, it turned to the front lines of enforcement — what happens when the police enter your home without a warrant?
Case 18: Mapp v. Ohio (1961) This is the case that applied the exclusionary rule to the states, changing criminal procedure nationwide.
Full Case Name: Dollree Mapp v. State of Ohio Decision Date: June 19, 1961 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Opinion by: Justice Tom C. Clark Decision: 6–3
Famous Quotes: • Justice Tom C. Clark: "Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws."
Background: Cleveland police, searching for a fugitive, entered Mapp’s home without a warrant and found obscene materials. She was convicted under state law. The Court reversed, holding that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment is inadmissible in state courts.
Doctrine: Exclusionary Rule Incorporated – Evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment cannot be used in state prosecutions.
Scholarly Commentary: • Norman Dorsen, former ACLU president and NYU law professor, championed Mapp as a victory for civil liberties. • Akhil Reed Amar, Yale constitutional scholar, questioned the exclusionary rule’s costs and advocated alternative remedies. • William Stuntz, Harvard criminal procedure expert, argued that Mapp overemphasized technical rules at the expense of substantive justice.
With criminal protections in place, the Court now turned toward a new frontier: the constitutional right to privacy. The case wasn’t about crime or schools — it was about birth control.
Case 19: Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) This case introduced the right to privacy into American constitutional law.
Full Case Name: Estelle T. Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton v. State of Connecticut Decision Date: June 7, 1965 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Opinion by: Justice William O. Douglas Decision: 7–2
Famous Quotes: • Justice William O. Douglas: "Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees, that help give them life and substance."
Background: A Connecticut law criminalized the use of contraceptives, even by married couples. Estelle Griswold, a Planned Parenthood director, was arrested for providing birth control. The Court struck down the law, recognizing a constitutional "right to privacy" derived from several amendments.
Doctrine: Right to Privacy – The Constitution protects personal decisions in intimate relationships, even if not explicitly enumerated.
Scholarly Commentary: • Ruth Bader Ginsburg, then a law professor and later Supreme Court Justice, linked Griswold to a broader vision of gender equality and autonomy. • Robert Bork, who famously opposed the opinion, called the reasoning judicial fiction. • Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law professor, defended the decision’s logic as consistent with constitutional structure and values.
Our final case in this set involves another privacy decision, but this time with the Court standing back. Before we go there, let’s close with a ruling that showed how expansive the Court’s view of privacy had become in the mid-60s.
Case 20: Katz v. United States (1967) This case updated the Fourth Amendment for the modern age, ruling that privacy doesn’t depend on property lines but on reasonable expectations.
Full Case Name: Charles Katz v. United States Decision Date: December 18, 1967 Court: Supreme Court of the United States Opinion by: Justice Potter Stewart Concurrence by: Justice John Marshall Harlan II Decision: 7–1
Famous Quotes: • Justice Potter Stewart: "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places." • Justice John Marshall Harlan II (concurrence): "There is a twofold requirement: first that a person have exhibited an actual expectation of privacy... and second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable."
Background: Charles Katz was convicted of illegal gambling after the FBI recorded his conversations from a public phone booth without a warrant. The Court ruled the recordings violated his Fourth Amendment rights.
Doctrine: Reasonable Expectation of Privacy – The Fourth Amendment applies wherever a person has a subjective and objectively reasonable expectation of privacy.
Scholarly Commentary: • Orin Kerr, a leading scholar on the Fourth Amendment, called Katz the cornerstone of modern search law. • Stephen Schulhofer, NYU professor, praised the decision for extending rights into the electronic age. • Justice Antonin Scalia, later in Kyllo v. United States, built on Katz to protect homes from thermal imaging without warrants.
We’ve seen how the Constitution began to speak not just to the structures of government, but to the lived experience of the individual — in schools, police stations, bedrooms, and even phone booths for Cases 16 through 20. . In our next episode, we’ll cover the great controversies of the 1970s: abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, and executive power in the wake of Watergate.
As we close out this stretch of the Top 100 Constitutional Law Cases, what unites Cases 11 through 20 is a single, powerful shift: the Constitution, once focused primarily on the powers of government, now became a shield for the dignity and autonomy of individuals.
From Carolene Products, where the Court hinted it would take minority rights more seriously, to Gideon, which made sure the poor weren’t tried without lawyers, the 1940s through 1960s mark the birth of a rights-conscious Court. We watched it stumble in Korematsu, soar in Brown, and then get personal in Griswold and Katz — extending protections to the bedroom and the phone booth.
It’s also the era when law enforcement and government authority were told: “There are limits.” Police couldn’t extract confessions without warning you — Miranda. They couldn’t enter your home without a warrant — Mapp. And they couldn’t wiretap your conversation just because it took place in public — Katz.
What’s striking is that each of these doctrines — incorporation, privacy, procedural safeguards — didn’t come from amendments being rewritten. They came from reinterpretation. The Court looked at the same Constitution and saw new principles, sometimes in “penumbras” and “emanations,” to quote Justice Douglas in Griswold. That flexibility is why defenders call this era transformative — and critics call it activist.
But either way, this is the Supreme Court stepping into its modern role: not just the referee of government structure, but the guardian of individual freedom.
Coming up in Cases 21 to 30, we’ll test those freedoms in the crucible of controversy. Abortion. The death penalty. Affirmative action. Presidential power. The Warren Court fades, the Burger Court takes over, and the backlash begins.
Stay with me — we’re heading into the storm.
Get full access to Marnie’s Substack at marniekhaw.substack.com/subscribe
