# data[].attributes.body
In 1846, an enslaved Black man named Dred Scott and his wife, Harriet, sued for their freedom in St. Louis Circuit Court. They claimed that they were free due to their residence in a free territory where slavery was prohibited.

# data[].attributes.body
Include the year, and explain briefly an overall summary of this landmark case. Ie: "In 1965, this case found Mickey Mouse v. Donald Duck in a case concerning ...."

# data[].attributes.body
How did this case rise to the Supreme Court level?

# data[].attributes.body
Explain the premise of the ISSUE -- what is the conflict that brings this to the Supreme Court level?

# data[].attributes.body
Include the vote and rationale for the majority.

(Ie: By a 5-4 vote, the liberal majority issued their ruling premised on the rationale that ...)

# data[].attributes.body
Often, the justices on the losing side issue a rationale why they felt they were right, even though they lost

# data[].attributes.body
How did this case set precedent for other cases, or procedures in the U.S. since then? Did it create a way of life we now live by? Or is this issue still contested (or overturned). Explain what this case has meant, or continues to mean, for the country.

# data[].attributes.body
"You have the right to remain silent." Few legal phrases are as well known as this one. Yet it did not exist until June 13, 1966, when the U.S. Supreme Court first announced it as a principle of American law in the landmark case of Miranda v. Arizona

# data[].attributes.body
It involved a young Mexican-American man named Ernesto Arturo Miranda who had been arrested in 1963 based on circumstantial evidence he had committed a kidnapping and rape.

# data[].attributes.body
an arrested individual did not state the rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled a 5-4 decision. the rule implemented arrested individual is entitled to rights against self-incrimination and to an attorney under the 5th and 6th Amendments of the United States Constitution

# data[].attributes.body
In the landmark case of Grutter v. Bollinger in 2003, the Supreme Court again addressed the long-debated issue of affirmative action by deciding if the University of Michigan's race-conscious admissions policy was constitutional and their decision ultimately continued the precedent set by Regents of UC v. Bakke.

# data[].attributes.body
Barbara Grutter, a white Michigan resident with a high GPA and LSAT score, was rejected from the University of Michigan Law School. She filed a lawsuit against the university in Dec. 1997 that the university had discriminated against her on the basis of race. The university argued that it had a compelling interest of promoting diversity.

# data[].attributes.body
Grutter argued that the university had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which intends to ensure everyone is treated equally under the law, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination in programs receiving federal financial assistance, including schools.

# data[].attributes.body
By a 5-4 vote on June 23, 2004, the court held that the Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit using race as a factor in admissions as part of a compelling interest. Therefore, they upheld the constitutionality of the use of affirmative action by the University of Michigan.

# data[].attributes.body
The dissent delivered by Justice Thomas declared that the school did not have a compelling interest and that each state is responsible for its own laws and how it ensures equal protection for its residents.

# data[].attributes.body
Grutter v. Bollinger set a precedent for some time that allowed universities to consider race just as a factor in admissions decisions to promote diversity in the student body. However, Grutter v. Bollinger was effectively overturned in 2023 by the Court ruling that affirmative action did, in fact, violate the Equal Protection clause.

# data[].attributes.body
The case of Roe v. Wade is the Constitutional right to have an abortion in the United States without the restriction of the government. It was ruled in 1973 but overturned recently in 2022.

# data[].attributes.body
What appeared to be a straightforward lawsuit between two private parties became an 11-year legal struggle that culminated in one of the most notorious decisions ever issued by the United States Supreme Court. Scott lost his case, which worked its way through the Missouri state courts; he then filed a new federal suit which ultimately reached the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
Norma McCorvey, also known by the name"Jane Roe,” sued Henry Wade, the district attorney of Dallas County, arguing the abortion law violated her constitutional rights.

# data[].attributes.body
The case addressed whether a state law banning abortions except to save the mother's life violated a woman's constitutional right to privacy.

# data[].attributes.body
Roe v. Wade was overturned by the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, which returned the authority to regulate abortion to individual states, ending the federal constitutional right to an abortion.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Roe, protecting a woman's constitutional right to choose

# data[].attributes.body
In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Scott.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court ruled that because Scott was "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves," and thus "[not] a member of the political community formed and brought into existence by the Constitution," Scott was not a citizen and had no right to file a lawsuit in federal court.

# data[].attributes.body
The Planned Parenthood v Casey  case by the US Supreme Court in 1992. It reaffirmed the constitutional right to have an abortion that was established in Roe v. Wade in 1973. It allowed states to regulate abortions and women to have the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion before fetal viability, which is around 24 weeks.

# data[].attributes.body
Planned Parenthood v. Casey reached the Supreme Court after Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act imposed restrictions like informed consent and spousal notification, which Planned Parenthood argued violated Roe v. Wade. Since they questioned the constitution of the ruling, the case was brought to the Supreme Court.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was whether Pennsylvania's abortion restrictions, including informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period, parental consent for minors, and spousal notification, violated the constitutional right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade

# data[].attributes.body
Passed by 5-4 vote, The Court reasoned that the "undue burden" standard struck a balance between a woman's liberty under the Fourteenth Amendment and the state's interest in protecting potential life

# data[].attributes.body
The Scotts argued that when a slave resides in a free state, freedom is entitled to him and cannot be revoked if he returns to a slave state. Also, they argued that Negroes of African descent could be United States citizens

# data[].attributes.body
They believed the Constitution does not guarantee a right to abortion and that such decisions should be left to the states.

# data[].attributes.body
The Planned Parenthood v. Casey ruling significantly influenced future abortion cases by replacing the strict trimester framework of Roe v. Wade with the "undue burden" standard, which became the key test for assessing abortion restrictions.

# data[].attributes.body
The Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling had a significant effect of deepening sectional tensions between the North and South by declaring that enslaved people were not considered citizens and Congress could not ban slavery in the territories, essentially upholding the right to own slaves in all states, which further enraged abolitionists and propelled the country closer to civil war; it is widely considered one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in history.

# data[].attributes.body
Gideon v. Wainwright was a Supreme Court case decided in 1963. The Court ruled that anyone accused of a felony has the right to a lawyer, even if they cannot afford one. This decision expanded the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to state trials.

# data[].attributes.body
Clarence Earl Gideon was charged with burglary in Florida but was denied a public defender because he could not afford one. He represented himself in court, was convicted, and then filed a petition to the Supreme Court arguing that his rights were violated.

# data[].attributes.body
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision that declared the constitutionality of racial segregation in public facilities under the "separate but equal" doctrine, which later on established segregation until it was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

# data[].attributes.body
The main issue in the case was whether the Sixth Amendment's right to counsel applied to state criminal trials or if states were allowed to deny counsel to poor defendants. Gideon argued that not providing him with an attorney violated his constitutional right to a fair trial.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in favor of Gideon.

# data[].attributes.body
The Court, led by Justice Hugo Black, decided on the Sixth Amendment, which states that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense." The Court said a fair trial needs a lawyer and this right also applies to state trials under the Fourteenth Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
There was no minority ruling in this case because the decision was unanimous

# data[].attributes.body
The case originated when Homer Plessy, a mixed-race man, deliberately violated Louisiana's Separate Car Act by sitting in a whites-only train car in 1892. Plessy argued that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1974 due to his connections to the Watergate scandal, President Nixon was subpoenaed by the United States government in a case against him simultaneous to his impeachment trials. Nixon was required to provide tapes of white house conversations which he knew would incriminate himself. Nixon attempted to provide limited transcripts and refused to submit all the tapes but he was charged with obstruction of Justice

# data[].attributes.body
Brown v. Board of Education is one of the most famous Supreme Court cases (1954) and it was unanimously decided by all judges. This determined that racial segregation in schools went against the 14th Amendment (unconstitutional). Showed that things separate were NOT equal.

# data[].attributes.body
Justice Tom C. Clark wrote that the majority's opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties.

# data[].attributes.body
The Supreme Court ruled by the implication of the right to privacy by the 14th Amendment and protected abortion as a fundamental right.

# data[].attributes.body
Bakke is a 1978 Supreme Court case which held that a university's admissions criteria which used race as a definite and exclusive basis for an admission decision violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

# data[].attributes.body
The issue in Plessy v. Ferguson was Louisiana's law requiring racial segregation in public train cars violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The case questioned whether "separate but equal" facilities were truly constitutional or discriminatory.

# data[].attributes.body
The majority, led by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld Louisiana's segregation laws, arguing that the "separate but equal" doctrine did not violate the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. 7–1 decision for Ferguson

# data[].attributes.body
Bakke was a white male who applied to medical school at the University California at Davis. Although his admissions score was well above that of the average admittee and the school had open slots when he applied, his application was rejected because of the school’s racial quota system. Previously, the school implemented a quota system where white applicants could only compete for 84 out of 100 spots, and the remaining 16 were reserved for racial minorities. Bakke sued the school, arguing that the clear-cut racial quota system was unconstitutional and a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

# data[].attributes.body
The Watergate scandal was a series of espionage carried out by the reelection campaign for Richard Nixon, which attempted to sabotage the democratic party. The incident that revealed this scheme was a break-in to the democratic headquarters in an attempt to plant listening devices. An exit door was taped open, leading to suspicion, and the men caught in this incident were found to be connected to Richard Nixon.

# data[].attributes.body
In 1957, Dollree Mapp was suspected of hiding a suspected bomber, so the police searched her house without a proper warrant. While they didn't find the bomber, they found other things in her basement and convicted her off of that. It was ruled on in 1961.

# data[].attributes.body
Minority ruling argued over what stage of abortion the woman was able to have an abortion in, arguing over the safety of the child and the mother.

# data[].attributes.body
Justice John Marshall Harlan was the only dissenting justice. He argued that segregation treated African Americans as inferior and went against the principle of equality in the Constitution.

# data[].attributes.body
Bakke's was rejected by U.C. Davis because he was not a part of a minority group, which raised the question of whether or not U.C. Davis had violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

# data[].attributes.body
Mapp was convicted at the local level despite the prosecutors not having a search warrant. It was then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court, where it was upheld. Finally, it reached the Supreme Court in 1961.

# data[].attributes.body
Mapp believed her 4th amendment rights were violated.

# data[].attributes.body
It set the precedent that any evidence obtained through illegal searches and seizures could not be used in state criminal proceedings. As it was already banned on a federal level, it effectively meant all evidence must be obtained legally.

# data[].attributes.body
With a vote of 6-3 in favor of Mapp, the court ruled that it did, in fact, violate the 4th amendment, and thus evidence obtained in this way couldn't be used in state courts.

# data[].attributes.body
The Plessy v. Ferguson ruling legitimized state-sponsored racial segregation and reinforced Jim Crow laws for nearly six decades. It was later overturned by Brown v. Board of Education (1954), which declared that "separate but equal" facilities are inherently unequal, marking a turning point in the Civil Rights Movement.

# data[].attributes.body
When Nixon turned over the tapes the "smoking gun" tape clearly connected Nixon to the Watergate scandal. In the end, Nixon would resign from the presidency before a ruling could be made for his impeachment; still, Richard Nixon is the closest president to being forcefully removed from his post.

# data[].attributes.body
Profound and lasting impact on law enforcement practices and the criminal justice system in the United States. The decision emphasized the importance of protecting individuals' constitutional rights during the critical phase of police interrogation.

# data[].attributes.body
On February 24, 1969 students retain their First Amendment right to free speech in school, even when expressing controversial views through symbolic acts like wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War, as long as their expression does not "materially and substantially disrupt" the educational process

# data[].attributes.body
The Justices were not in agreement as to why they subpoenaed Nixon but they all agreed that an example must be made and the power of the executive branch must be checked.

# data[].attributes.body
The students involved in the case appealed a ruling against them by the U.S. Court of Appeals

# data[].attributes.body
The case rose to the Supreme Court because families in Kansas challenged segregation in public schools, arguing that separating Black and white students was unfair. Lower courts upheld segregation, so they appealed to the Supreme Court.