b'History U.S. COURT CASES 87U.S. Court Cases NEW! Fall 2025Third EditionReading court cases is important in studying American law. But many readers lack access to a law library. A collection like this three-volume set helps Highly recommended. CHOICERecommended for high school, public, and college libraries. BooklistA comprehensive collection of essays covering nearly1,000 rulings by the U.S. Supreme Court and other federal and state courts. This third edition of U.S. Court Cases, first published in 1999 with a second edition in 2010, pulls together essays from more than a dozen Salem reference works, greatly expanding what may be the largest collection of articles on individual court cases available in any compact reference work. Reviewers of past editions noted that the fact that the set drew its essays from a large number of different resource sets, including the Encyclopedia of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Great Events from History series, gave it a special value.This three-volume set opens with a series of overview essays explaining the historical and legal context in which American courts operate. These overviews include essays on the Anglo-American Legal Systems, Law, Justice, Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, U.S. Judicial System, State and Local Courts, Federal Courts, U.S. Supreme Court, JudicialHISTORYReview, and the Incorporation Doctrine. The second and much longer section ofFREE the set contains many hundreds of articles on individual court cases, arranged Online AccessNEW!FREEalphabetically under the names by which the cases are best known, such as Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson, and Roe v. Wade. Each of these clearly-written articles presents uniform top matter that includes a capsule PRINTED INsummary of the cases significance. FULL COLOR U.S. COURT CASESIn addition to the simple alphabetical arrangement of the cases, U.S. Court Casesoffers several other features to help readers find cases. These include textual cross-references, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford See Scott v. Sandford; See also cross-references at the end of each article; a chronological list of cases; a list of cases by selected categories; and case and general subject indexes. Also, new to the second edition and expanded upon here are three important features: a Timeline of Cases by Year, a List of Cases by Category, and an extensive Glossary.October 2025 | Three Volumes; 1,400 Pages | Print ISBN: 979-8-89179-174-9 | Library Price: $295Roe v. Wadery) were required to obtfederalpreclearanceBrown v. Board of EducationShelby County v. Holderbefore making changes iain their election laws andn g T Roe v. Wadeexcept whenconsulted the S life of t Shelby County v. Holderpolicies.Section 4(b) provided jur isad icovctionerages we rforemBrown v. Board of Educationini rlh, ewr anse nigoht baollrohwooeddtoof attoepnedk ath, eK aalnl-swash.i tHe esrc hpoaor-l C woman. She necessarytwtoopattorneys,rotectarah Wehde- lafo rto determprecininlearancg whiceh. The formula wasobu-li- dington Linda gated seekents did not want her to be bused to the all-blackCnitnaotiuonnc: ed:energeti can fedministssCofftroneegly,dwhoedic awereted t oyoung the c aaunsde C largelyCitationnc: e34May 17, 1 954sch ndn tthhe Ay mfileendd a- A 410J Uan.uSa. r1y1 322, 1973of reproductive freedom for women. McCorvey,C 570J Uun.Se. 25, 2013b t tihaeleulescet ioonf s doisfc1r9im64i-, d:7 U.S. 483 A Anitnaotiuonnc: ed:naastoedryotens tst wdou rivnagr itahbele sp:r efsiirdste,n A TheSupremeCourtsuhito cohl,a wrghinicgh a w vaios lfaatrio fnr oomf pt heo mFoeu, ratoee the SupremeI The Supreme Court ruled that ausing A oting Rights Act; Fifteenth Amendment1968, and 1972; aonpduslaetcioonn dh, aldes sa cthtuaanl fyi ftvyopteedr cienn tt hoefIsnsuneo:u Desegregationm pealed t Ssisgunei:f iAcabortince:on suit in the federal pseudonym court against JaneRoe,Dallas filed distric a clat sattorneys-action S thepSignificance:a ( Coeunrtt. ,W ith wenas t hcoe ncsaoslei dwaates da with similar cases fromwoman has a constitutional right to terminate an Henry Wade, asking for an injunction to stop en-Isisguneisfi:i: cVaf thncee V: Thoet Singu pRighremt Act that pe Court strurockv dideodw nvotingal el-ageections of those years. unanimously hgeladti onthdee pjuubrlei c slcehgoaolllys South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Wash-unwanted pregnancy before the fetus acquires vi- forcemen the part o that partic-presidentimaasn dpartoehdi)b itseedg rbey the equal protection clause of oft th ington, D.C. The cases were listed in alphabeticalabilitythurteenthunder thethe statut O inw order, so that the name Brown v. Board of Edu-Fifth and and Fo at a fetus Am is endments.not a persontrict courttdeofclared the abortio the Tenx laasw law. Auncthree-onstitutionjudge dis-ale ular statesoryat nobtain Fedformula us local goderveed ral approvanto require ments, ml bosefore mtly in thaek-last onrliyg fiavlelyySeeacrsti,o bnus t5 C aonndg r4e(sbs)rweaeutre hsocrhizeeddu lethde tmothe Fourteenth Amendment.cation appeared first. The cases were first arguedBy the early 1970s, a great deal of controversybut to sIssue ean r injunction because th South, mus ourttime and timeld llowing the Civil War (1861-1865),in December, 1952. Marshall and other NAACPhad arisen aboutcon srefutitutsedional Isuemained un rAm ved. W -again. evTehera l Supredecismioen sCourt, raciaFlolawyers emphasized the psychological and socio-abortionsn only laws. whe Then nemajority Liberties esolerican Ceivdi-l stitutional reoapuetzh vo.r iMzaotniotnerse y inC ousnty (1999). In2006, Congin-culuphedriensgslogical evidence of negative effects from mandatedstates permitted abortio cessaryotof appealed That ing changes in their voting procedures. The C was ucot-nL Sections 5 and 4(b) for an additional 25 segregnatiothnr oinu gphu s boli-cc alalcecdo mJmimo dCartioowns segregation. In defense of segregation, the schooldington and Uni Coffee,on (ACL assiU),st ed by the thecasesame di ryeecatr-,i.concluded that the forcausmulae it was b in the secasedtion on o extendedextensionbit- terly resentedand educatio dated infoly irmnvalid beation. laws was one of the major tools of thedistricts invoked Plessy and claimed thatsave the life of the pregnant woman. Someum sixteenstanc- ly to vthe. Bol Sutonpreme, challen Courtging i nG 1971. aWaderestricti veThe Voting Rights Act of 1965years. Thiswasa not chan in ged,Brown v. Board of EducationDoeReooerg s less ourt. thevsouthern states foraintaining a social systemthaevireall-black schools either had or would soone c lsstates al lasow predegnancies abortion sr esunultingder o fromther c raircpe laws and t hin-at tabortionaled to the C teenth U.S. w ainsethenac Fteifd- South.Alabanma hh in 4(b) was to bail out of of white supremacym. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896),h equal funding for facilities and teacherses, such In 1970three states enacted liberal Whenla thew, was also a Court agreedppeto hear the two abor-to protect the voting rights guaranteed it wasvBeerycau difficultse thefoformulr jurisdictions In helbycest.the Supreme Court allowed state-mandatedsalaries. munity that may affect their hearts and minds instates warned that rapid desegregation would leadoofformofab gortion demand. primar yAmen purpodmentse wastotostheecure th eCons votititngution. rightsIotsf the nob warance. ver ed2011, juris dSiction,racial segregation based on the separate butallowed som placedreatereonmphasis onAsin- tion cases, numerous pro-choice and pro-life. OnDor-e- Couty,ligatio f,o rw pircecle as a co Americanculetureequal doctrine. In(1899),Richmond Countya way unlikely evl eerv tiod been cuen adboonuet. t hWe aorrriegni nfoaul nind- wiiotlhednrcaew.alhe f rComou rtth setp ahc oaoutiousactseebe theowing, often ganizations,p1971,resented theaComicurt,i cu rcompiae briefsosed of onlyminoritiesparticularly Af ctionAm5eric e in the e ric tluebdl ioc nsandand am-cember 13Board of Education Cumming v.Court simplyThe Courts Responsev T dividual todom, gr Southern ,states. UnderSerican of thans statute,thetrine when itt that the historica ers and ratifiers had notw II, which left muchh p appeared frinof number ofillusinegalgabortioprimitive nsjustices agree the covered jurisdictions (i.e., states and localHnotledreerd,wia lthaw -the su icontentt againstio Un. Sthat. At tSectioorneyns G e5n anderalE4(b) theignored the equal part of the doc-Because of the great otpenpto osfi tihoen F tou srctheoeonlt hin A- mendment was incon-bigiutho uasl l fdoerlmibuelraa,t er espqeueirdi.ng T thea itm selgermegeanttiaotnion e ndconditions. With the revi-seven justices, hearddaoralysargumentslater, at least on four theofcases. the were outdated, unfair, and unconstitutional. Bothacllhoowoel df oarcwomhimteu s ntiutyd etnot msaiintthaoinu taapnuyb lsiicm hiilgahr n ights for pub-BrownmethodsunsanitaryAt conferencdethreethat thelabuwstthereof Te xwaas sa ndalmost Geo rgnioa governments that had been the most discriminato-Difi tzheed F trhaemdiscretion to federal s w deegsriaratiboinli tiynothf per Seoseunthti,n tgh eacljuunsiittviecede.s f rrEoevnceotn gi n both thedistrict judges, proceeded somewhat slowly forwere unconstitutional, Shisetlbriyc tC Coouunrtyt sa nclda itmhesaCnodu hrte lodftAhaptp Ceaolns grreejsesc tienddecision and the opinioni.n Atetn ldeaesdttsoix p orfo thhieb ijtu sse- gregation in education,talized femini tprheestgnancies moveme wasnt, increasing the right lytodterminateefined asunwantedinstitution for African Americans. In Gong Lum v.tices agreed that Plesy shoutlhilcde sybe ehr vraeidcv ewesr,as anednted, db t uhtotet pherexopyv eirdiee necqeusa ol fr the twentiethfirst ten years. In Alexander v. Holmes Canou InsThestyu eoSupremf gendeereCourtqualit ygrad.ually accepted theagreement about the constitutional rationale or Rice (1927), the Court explicitly recog strongly disagreed about how rapidly to proceed.the Court abandoned the deliberate speed fo(r1m96u 9l)a, nally protected right to ge-about whether the womans right to an abortionright and power of the statestonir zeeqdu tihree O c century demonstrated that segregated schools wereand ordered an immediate end to all theorym aofin ian cgonstitutioand procreation. The CourtThe chief justice. assigned the cases Blackpregnancy.re- segregation in the public schools. thnee jo Plessy oal of equality. Formalde jure segregation.the mostneric privacy, emphasizing personal choice in mar-would apply to the entire period of to the Jumuncircu- unsttiicneu, aSttiaonnl eoyfF. Reien,d cand, oamrg puanaetdothib olene wrb ejustiihtha ltfhc oe,ef g Brown is probablymomentous andA.Six monthslater, sticeHarry The Challenge BeginsDefense Fund of thet ly and ap education in thec atuwteionutise-t h century, moreover, wast iu Browna A ofte haen t riage, child rearing,ofThe Blackmun draftthat aonly on the narrowIn the 1930s the LegalRobert H.p Jeaacrkesdo nd,e wtearmnteinde tdo t mo owvreit ve ear yconcurringnrflyu. eInnt iaelf fceicvti,ltrhige hdtse cciasisoenm significantly (e1965),xpanded wh pichriv struckacy rights down inGa rstateiswol dla wv. lated firstFo rrul severaled reasons, the cases muchi tm hoardebimeepno wrthanetn f tohe Fourteenth Amend- r a persons life chancest wthene tieevthen c te Issueaof vagueness. men prohibiti una-lNational Association for the Advancementof Col- thantwas written. Connecticutthe salewerebeforenine-member Court ono (N aohpei nCioounr itf st hpea smt aajpoprirtoyv oal of spinioeng wreegraet itoono.cDrietcicidailn ogf elihmeinn ation ofw alslstnanteo-usanncectdio, nietsdismegprleicgaattiioonns. co rntraceptives.rear 1gue1, 1972.d wold majorityngight to privacy intGhrreise-chreadll ePnegoep lteothAe AcCoPn)s tbiteugtaionn toli ty mountserious Implementing DesegregationW unclear in regard to the constitutionality located the hts,Octoberlaws in education. Rathera of Jim Crow that it needed me oFrrea mineforsr manadti orant aifbiedrus loefd t ha ese Fcondwereb of choice plans and deT main of andumera A Right to Privacy than confronting Plessytee out the origoinuarl- freedomo h facto segregated By a 7-2 vote, the Court struck down the abor- d intennthti oAnm oef ntdhment, the Court sche s the su placebstans:ti tvheelipbeenrtuym bprraoste cofte tdh bey B tihle o Ffi Rftihg atneddThe following year, in a decision commonly ofireocptlypo, trhtue nNitAy AaCt Pp fuirbslti ccloyncfeunntrdaetde d loanweqsuchalo-o iltsy. a calledrr cDedee dcMe rm.a pVbieidnrl,sy 1o w9n5,i 3tah. firm deadlines, and thegcahno tool smoavsee bdeyn do tuhsei nIsgs upea ottfe drne sj.u Fourteenth Amendme theu nEiensenstadt v.tion laws of Texas and Georgia. Speaking for the Brown II, the Court addressed the Issue ofe- implementing desegregation. The NAACP wantedonreh see gCroeugratt iobn Amntsen, dment.InDecisions suchas Trhgaut msuemntmateiorn,Cohf tihefeJcuassteoisc pe f roFo rights of theNinth (1938) andMissouri ex rel. Gaines v. t hCaatnadamoderate who was hesitant to order massive deseg-Bai rrighd (1972t to ),privacy the Court include explicitlyd an in dividurecognizedals re pthroat- mraivjoarciyt,y ,which Justice derives Blackm priunmarily declared from t hatthea crightonce topt Sweatt v. Painter (1950) indicated the pCourt would insist on substantial equalitythoef regation, unexpectedly diedo,v aenrndo rh eo fwasa lqifuoircnkilay, ductive freedom.Although Eisenstadt specificalyof personal liberty in the due process clauseoftotheen-educational opportunity. In in v. Okla-replaced by the popular g C Fourteenthoma State Regents for Higher EduMcactLioanu r(1950),E gued, Warnre onf dealt wit inh tthe right toity usescontraceptivereds, the b rloaand- compass ah w Aomendmenmans decisiot, nis whet broadher eno or ughnot abortion, to ter-Court recognized that the policy of requirtehde paerrsl uWadarerde nh.i sA cfotelrle Bagrouwesntwo dase freeratrhthe tqhuee vstairoiousguage he major o pinionappea minate her pregnancy. Her right to anenough to subsume the abortion Issue. s tim lev relsiteicf,eas nindohred sekri ltlof uglelytac ocnosnuseltnesdu ws. iAbout a weekTwo Casesalthough a fundamental right, aisti onotn t ou nqualifiedeeqpuaarliattyi.onWwithastshoemsee victeosrirees,Tahnutrgtoooedd uMcaatrisohnaalll ju and must be considered in relthe a other NAACPdecided that the tsiemge- biedfoedre n tohte t od eIscsisuieo nacwoansc uArnrennocuen acnedd ,R Jeaecdks aognr eed de- toIn 1969 Norma McCorvey, an unmarried important anlthdlegitimatepotentia lityustcattinegsou the edfirst abortio o andlawhyee rcs onnstditaurtyi oendaulcitayti oonf.c inpregnant man livie ngstat inecrimina Texas, lized was unhappy maternalhea and theinterests min nofpsr ohotepinionum Daurinng tlinthree nm ringthhtss carr ideves.elop Finmentding t hoefthcoen slifetitu ortio potenal Intissuale slife am bthigaut osuhse,wnadstiroipne i nt eoleqmueensttiaornyatnd seco noatr troendsisosepnitn.ion for the Court, writtendiscover wo that th abortionslife.ofBlcktrimesters. abortion decision is entirely ahe wrote that the matter should beleftwith the in threeareignada Carol Brown, an eight-year-old blackW of nontechnicallanguage,pregnancy, the8 upAfter people Jurisdictions covered by Section 5 of the Civil Rights Act at the time Shelby County v. Holder was decided. L thirteen paragraphs private left 67 end ofdecision tothethestatewoman. may regu ltahtee e the firsttrimester, l processes the people haveistdevisedandtotgoo thever np oliticathemonselves.s Jc Rehnq uthea u-stcicordingtoprocedures in ways that are reasonably related t htoey wantedtobasis ev aluate aborti than thelaw strictof statesgmaternal health. After the second trimesndepter,end asen etxl -rational test.test rather thatthe majoerrity compellinfetus acquires the ability to survive i abortions interestObservingon the books when the of had restrictive abortion lawscep itstwmother,hen ne thecess statearymayfor the proscribe preservation of theAmendment was ratified, he couldfind Fourteenthce that theright to an abortion was so life or health of the mother. Presenting concluded a sur th veaty no evidenof our people of the historical record, Blackmunabortion rooted in thkeedtraditionsas fundame andntal. conscience nineteenth lawsat common lenawlessandthrorestriuctiveghout t htahne as to be rwasanone of the most controversial deci-ce ntury had be Roe thosewasin e ffenoct evide in 1973.ncethaFint athely,hword sions in the e history of the inCour ourt there e conc pludederson th in atmor conservative thet.1As98 0thes, the Const on referre becameof the justices continued toaCbtahreeJusticesituti Byron R. d tWhito prenatale andlifeWilli.am H.majority right to an abortion befor uphold Rehnquist dissented. White criticized the Courtwomans allowed ande local gov ebrutn-viability,for giving wo gremanatervaluthanetotothethe co continvenienuednce existen of thcee they increasinglystate eabortioIn ments restri rn Pennns ypractilvaniaces. pregnant Planne dto P aplarenceth ood ofction Soutsh eonastGET ONLINE ACCESS(800) 221-1592 WITH YOUR PRINT BUY! www.salempress.com2024-433 Salem Spring 2025 Catalog.indd 87 2024-12-12 12:28PM'