Verification

In Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment does not require a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex, leaving each State free to decline to recognize same-sex marriages lawfully performed elsewhere. (Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015))

Writing for the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. 644 (2013), Chief Justice Roberts held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize such a marriage when lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. (Obergefell v. Hodges, 567 U.S. 644 (2013) (Roberts, C.J.))

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the Supreme Court held that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place in any context and that all racially separate public facilities are inherently unequal. (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954))

In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), Chief Justice Warren, writing for a unanimous Court, concluded that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place and that separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. (Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) (Warren, C.J.))

In Miranda v. Arizona, the Supreme Court held that any statement obtained from a suspect who was not first advised of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel is automatically inadmissible for all purposes in every criminal proceeding, with no exceptions. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Warren, C.J.))

Writing for the Court in Miranda v. Arizona, Justice William J. Brennan held that the prosecution may not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demonstrates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination. (Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Brennan, J.))

In Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), the Supreme Court held that any person too poor to hire a lawyer is constitutionally entitled to appointed counsel in any legal proceeding in which they cannot afford representation. (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963))

In Gideon v. Wainwright, the Court held that an indigent defendant who cannot afford a lawyer cannot be assured a fair trial in a criminal case unless counsel is provided for him. (Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) (Black, J.))

In Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the Government may suppress political speech based on the speaker's corporate identity, upholding restrictions on independent corporate expenditures under the First Amendment. (Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010))

Under Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010), the government is absolutely barred from regulating any form of corporate political spending whatsoever, including direct contributions to candidates and all disclosure requirements. (Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010))

In New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964), the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment categorically bars any public official from ever recovering damages for defamatory falsehoods about their conduct, establishing an absolute immunity for the press when reporting on government affairs. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964))

Writing for the Court in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1971), Justice Felix Frankfurter held that a public official may not recover damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves the statement was made with 'actual malice'—knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard of whether it was false. (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1971) (Frankfurter, J.))

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Justice Clark, writing for the Court, held that evidence obtained through searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution remains admissible in state court proceedings, declining to extend the exclusionary rule to the states. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Clark, J.))

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), Justice Clark, writing for the majority, held that all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by that same authority, inadmissible in a state court, extending the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule to state prosecutions. (Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961) (Clark, J.))

Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Roger Taney declared in 1819 that "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is," establishing the power of judicial review. (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1819) (Taney, C.J.))

The Supreme Court first recognized the federal judiciary's power to strike down unconstitutional statutes in Calder v. Pinckney County Board of Elections, 7 U.S. 219 (1804), where the Court held that "a legislative act contrary to the constitution can have no binding force." (Calder v. Pinckney County Board of Elections, 7 U.S. 219 (U.S. 1804))